The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

denix56

Active Member
History may prove you correct.

But to date the vast majority of strikes have clearly been aimed at Military targets. Not withstanding some Residential Buildings have also been hit.

Until shown otherwise I'm inclined to believe they have been instructed to avoid Civilian infrastructure and Casualties. There is nothing to be gained by the contrary.
I assume the difference is that Iraq - is not Europe, honestly not so many European countries (I mean citizens) give a damn what is going on there.
In Ukraine we have fighting not far from the actual NATO borders and the country posed itself as the support let of Western values. And there are lots of connections between Europe and Ukraine.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Of course they matter, especially on a forum like this. There's no reason to exaggerate or be vague.
Of course there's no reason to exaggerate but I'm pretty sure you get the point KiwiRob was driving at. Whether it was in the low thousands or hit the 100,000 mark, large numbers of ordinary Iraqis suffered due to an invasion launched by outside powers for their own self interests. The large numbers of civilian deaths, the rise of IS, AQ affiliates, instability in the region, etc, all thanks to the invasion.

It was fairly clear that he was working to have sanctions lifted - France and Russia were already on his side on that front.
Strange that .. Scott Ritter in a lengthy talk, as well as a number of other sources [which I can provide] clearly state that Saddam abandoned his WMD programme to save himself and his regime but didn't openly say so because of Iran [his nukes were originally planned to be used against Iran and not the West and Israel]. Several sources also make clear that the so called hunt for WMDs was actually a smokescreen, the real intention was to remove Saddam...

No he did not pose a threat to the region, only to Iraqis unfortunate enough to be under his rule. By 2003 his regime was in shambles and so was military. A lot of the WMD infrastructure he has amassed over the years was dispersed or destroyed. There was also no way he could have restarted his WMD programme without others finding out.

Ultimately we can talk about the so called threat posed by Iraq and its WMDs until.the cows come home but Britain and the U.S. didn't invade for those reasons ....

So let's put every political leader on trial.
Appreciate the sarcasm but only those with on their on hands.

Or we can be objective
I do try to be objective as best I.can but not on everything, certainly not with regards to civilian deaths and suffering which could have been avoided. It's also easy to be objective or talk about objectivity when it's other people in a far away land doing the dying and suffering...

I also try to avoid making sweeping generalised statements like ''Whilst technically Bush Junior could have been charged with war crimes, what Putin has done is far more serious''.
 
Last edited:

phreeky

Active Member
According to flightradar data, 4 x "Ukraine Emergency Service" aircraft (2x AN-26, 2x AN-32) have entered Polish airspace. Currently WSW of Warsaw. Also a US Army blackhawk in the air near where they would have crossed the border.

It will be very interesting to hear who is onboard.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
The original question from denix56 at #515

"By the way, are there a chance that the West will convict Putin for war crimes (even without any consequences for him)? What are the criteria for it? Can the ballistic missile strike on civillians be enough for it?"

and #517
"i assume that some of missiles might go away of course causing severe civilian casualties or when war starts on the streets of big cities."

Ref stray missiles, we can all probably point to US and NATO forces' oopsies and tragic collateral damage. While much will likely be made of any civilian casualties in Ukraine by Western leaders and media, I can't see anyone wanting to set a precedent of declaring such incidents war crimes.

While most of the discussion here has been about Iraq, to my mind US-led NATO Op Allied Force (Serbia) is a better example of dubious mandate, dubious intentional targets, and strikes on civilians (including the Nis passenger train and ethnic Albanian refugee columns in what was then the Serbian province of Kosovo). All told, NATO strikes caused about 500 civilian deaths.

While the term "war criminal" might be hurled at Putin from some quarters no matter how carefully and precisely targets are chosen and destroyed (or not), I can't envision any formal war crimes charges against him unless truly egregious and sufficiently horrifying crimes are committed by Russian troops (intentional massacres of civilians, summary executions of groups of captured Ukrainian soldiers, use of chemical or biological weapons, etc.)
 

Toptob

Active Member
Yeah @Musashi_kenshin I have to side with @STURM on this one. Not only are your remarks not very "objective" themself but you are being partisan and naive. In any case, an objective analysis of this whole "warcrimes" nonsense leads one to two realizations. Warcrimes are only committed by one; the side that loses, or two by people who get on the wrong side of the "West" or the Americans or what have you (or people who no one cares about like Joseph Kony).

Also to assert that Russia invading Ukraine is many times worse than the US invading Iraq is anything but "objective"...
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
2 of the biggest Sporting Organisations in the World have moved very quickly to strip Russia of major events, UEFA have moved the highly lucrative Champion Leagues Final from St Petersburg to Paris and the Russian F1 Grand Prix has been cancelled by the FIA. FIFA has also banned both Countries from hosting Football Internationals, all games to be played at Neutral venues.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
I do try to be objective as best I.can
Sure, I was talking about the hypothetical Iraqis you mentioned. It's not appropriate to base assessments purely on reactions from victims - for one thing it puts an unfair amount of pressure on them to justify their grief. I didn't mean to imply you had personally lost your objectivity.
 
Last edited:

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
EDIT: My sincere thanks to mod for reformatting. Now I am in the edit screen, I see how I can do that myself from now on and not make a similar mess in future for you to need to clean up.

This is hardly my favorite Western source, but easy to extract key points from this:

"Russia’s Vladimir Putin is reportedly open to sending a delegation to Minsk for talks with Ukraine. Earlier, China’s leader Xi Jinping told Putin that Moscow should negotiate with the government in Kyiv."

(snip)

Russia Ready to Talk With Ukraine, Interfax Reports (1:58 p.m.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to authorize talks with Ukraine on a possible neutral status for the country, the Kremlin said Friday, according to the Interfax news service.

Putin’s willing to take up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s proposal to discuss neutrality and to send officials from the Kremlin and Russia’s foreign and defense ministries to the Belarusian capital, Minsk, for discussions with representatives from the governmment of Ukraine, said Putin aide Dmitry Peskov, Interfax reported."

(snip)

Russia Says Surrender is Condition for Ukraine Talks (12:37 p.m.)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow won’t talk to the government in Kyiv until Ukraine’s military surrenders.

“We’re ready for negotiations at any time, as soon as the Ukrainian armed forces respond to our president’s call, stop resistance ,and lay down their weapons,” Lavrov said in Moscow after meeting representatives of Ukrainian breakaway areas.

Lavrov repeated Putin’s comments that the invasion seeks the “de-militarization and de-Nazification” of Ukraine and reinforced the Kremlin’s uncompromising stance toward the government in Kyiv.

Oops, I can't seem to post the link. Above extracted from Bloomberg's Kyiv Accuses Russia of Targeting Civilians: Ukraine Update
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #570
Russian special forces’ weapon AS Val captured in Ukraine
It most likely belonged to a recon unit, just because there are far more of those then there are SpN or SoF. I also haven't seen SoF using the 9mm family, though in principle they can use whatever they want.

It most likely belonged to a recon unit, just because there are far more of those then there are SpN or SoF. I also h
I assume the difference is that Iraq - is not Europe, honestly not so many European countries (I mean citizens) give a damn what is going on there.
In Ukraine we have fighting not far from the actual NATO borders and the country posed itself as the support let of Western values. And there are lots of connections between Europe and Ukraine.
I think this is correct. The location here is vital, it's a war right next to them.

According to flightradar data, 4 x "Ukraine Emergency Service" aircraft (2x AN-26, 2x AN-32) have entered Polish airspace. Currently WSW of Warsaw. Also a US Army blackhawk in the air near where they would have crossed the border.

It will be very interesting to hear who is onboard.
Earlier there was data that a number of Polish Il-76s also fled to Poland. I suspect it's less about who's on board and more about saving the aircraft. In this fight these transports are of almost no military value, but are certainly targets.
 

Mikhaillo

New Member
History may prove you correct.

But to date the vast majority of strikes have clearly been aimed at Military targets. Not withstanding some Residential Buildings have also been hit.

Until shown otherwise I'm inclined to believe they have been instructed to avoid Civilian infrastructure and Casualties. There is nothing to be gained by the contrary.
Russia is forced to do this. Russia does not shoot at the cities of Ukraine. What would the United States do if fascists got into Canada and Americans were killed for eight years?
Russians know well what war is....And they don't want to kill anyone, but if they ran into our people, we snapped...
and finally listen to this: Do the Russians want a war . (If an advertisement appears, click the "Пропустить" button)
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The Ukrainian leader reportedly requested direct talks with Putin. I don't blame him given the pressure he's under and the circumstances his country is under but I'm guessing that the worry in the West is that he might make certain concessions which would not be seen as appropriate or agreeable to the West. No doubt there has been conversations with him and Western leaders about the talks. The question is whether forewarned his Western backers about his intention to seek talks.

A major problem is that the Russians hold all the cards and they will use it to maximum advantage. By the time the talks take place in Minsk [of all places] Kiev might have fallen and Putin would have more leverage.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #573
Russia is forced to do this. Russia does not shoot at the cities of Ukraine. What would the United States do if fascists got into Canada and Americans were killed for eight years?
Russians know well what war is....And they don't want to kill anyone, but if they ran into our people, we snapped...
and finally listen to this: Do the Russians want a war . (If an advertisement appears, click the "Пропустить" button)
Russia is certainly not forced to do this. Russia had plenty of other options. The fact that Russia refrained from this for 8 years is clear enough evidence, and there were no trigger events here to change that. There was an uptick in fighting, but nothing compared to '14-'15. Linking to a Russian propaganda video certainly doesn't help your case. And in principle the video could be right. Anti-war demonstrations in Russia broke out almost immediately. However it doesn't change the fact that Russia is not a democratic country, so if the Russian government decides to go to war, it won't much matter whether Russians want war.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Here's a slightly different but valid take on the conflict.


''But other players in this unfolding drama deserve our scorn and censure for their blatant hypocrisy on astounding display.

It has been astounding to watch an American president and a British prime minister and their surrogates at the UN and alike condemn Russia for violating supposedly sacrosanct and binding charters and international law when American and British foreign policy has, for generations, been a ruinous reflection of haughty contempt for those same charters and laws.

History is replete with countries and peoples who have paid and continue to pay dearly and collectively for the decisions made by American presidents and British prime ministers – in particular – to dismiss diplomacy in favour of force and “regime change”.

It is astounding to hear an American president and a British prime minister and their surrogates proclaim their fulsome defence of Ukraine’s “territorial integrity” when American presidents and British prime ministers have – in particular – treated the “territorial integrity” of scores of other sovereign nations as an inconvenience to their imperial designs.

Examples of British and American “exceptionalism” abound – Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Venezuela, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan and, of course, Iraq and many more.

It is astounding to listen to an American president and a British prime minister caution Putin to avoid making a “historic mistake” when an American president and a British prime minister rejected the exact (and prescient) advice offered earlier this century by a slew of diplomats at the UN Security Council and millions of anti-war protesters who were then smeared as naïve quislings in the service of a dangerous autocrat.

As a corollary to this, it is astounding to read opinion columns published by leading British and American newspapers – that have often provided the imprimatur of their editorial pages as cover for illegal invasions and coups – titled “The West Must Show Putin How Wrong He Is To Choose War”.



''But even Putin’s most outrageous claim about Ukraine’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons and threaten Russia is no more farcical than Washington’s claim about Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction, as a pretext to invade faraway Iraq, which Biden, then a senator, supported.

His recognition of the two breakaway republics in eastern Ukraine is also reminiscent of US President Donald Trump’s illegal recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem, which Biden continues to uphold.

And last but not least, Russia’s possible attempt at regime change in Ukraine follows in the footsteps of US attempts in more than a few countries, including more recently Venezuela.

Clearly, Russia has mastered Washington’s methodical fakery and trickery. But it does not seem to have learned the lessons from its follies and failures.

Indeed, neither power has learned from their miserable mistakes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

Old habits die hard.

As long as these powerful veto-holding members of the UN Security Council can block any action by this “world government” against them, there is no incentive for soul searching.

Indeed, both Russia and the United States are like soulless casinos, willing to gamble and take the risk and the loss, as long as they control the game or are able to game the international system to their advantage.

Some claim that equating American democracy and Russian autocracy makes for a false equivalence. As a liberal democrat, I concur: there is more accountability in a democracy than in an autocracy''
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
At some point in the future we'll know about what occurred behind the scenes. When did Putin make hid mind invade? How much influence did the West have in how the Ukraine handled things? Are things going as planned for the Russians - what did Putin's military advisors tell him about how fast they could achieve their military objectives? Was adding the Belarus into the equation planned a whole ago or fairly recent? The Ukraine's leader spoke of his country being alone and expressed disappointment on the sanctions, saying more could have been done.


''We will also find out, albeit much later when classified documents will be put into the public domain, what role Ukraine’s Western allies played in him making this decision – whether they encouraged him to resist Putin with all the means available to him, or were nudging him towards compromise, but failed to overcome his stubborn resolve''

''How wise was it to expand NATO and the EU towards Russia’s borders, isolating Russia from its closest neighbours and breaking the natural flow of post-Soviet societies with hard borders and trade barriers? The policy was aimed at preventing a new aggressive monster state, the USSR 2.0, from rising from the ruins of the Soviet Union. But isn’t this exactly what is happening now? Wouldn’t it have been much wiser to prioritise integrating Russia – a huge nuclear power – into the West when the country was ripe and ready for it, rather than brushing it off as a largely irrelevant declining power?''

''Various Russian officials warned the West back in the 1990s that the efforts to isolate and sideline Russia would result in the rise of nationalist and autocratic forces in the country. Indeed Putin himself recalled in one of his latest speeches how he once asked President Bill Clinton whether Russia could also join NATO, but did not get an answer
.''
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
The Ukrainian leader reportedly requested direct talks with Putin. I don't blame him given the pressure he's under and the circumstances his country is under but I'm guessing that the worry in the West is that he might make certain concessions which would not be seen as appropriate or agreeable to the West. No doubt there has been conversations with him and Western leaders about the talks. The question is whether forewarned his Western backers about his intention to seek talks.

A major problem is that the Russians hold all the cards and they will use it to maximum advantage. By the time the talks take place in Minsk [of all places] Kiev might have fallen and Putin would have more leverage.
I would imagine there are backchannel discussions ongoing between Western powers and Russia regarding acceptable terms. That said, if both sides had been willing to agree to reasonable terms before, there would be no war now and we can expect to cross off a number of items on the Western wish list. Which is not to say Putin is not mindful of future implications regarding relations with the West. We'll see.

I posted reports about this in American media above at #570, and will refer to points in it now. Given Putin's stated preconditions for negotiation (complete surrender) and Lavrov's repetition of the previously stated aims of "de-militarization and de-Nazification," I don't see how such a "discussion" could be seen as negotiating much of anything other than terms of surrender -- should this come to pass.

You make an excellent point that "Russia holds all the cards." Again, should this "discussion" come to pass, whatever the Ukrainian side agrees to will be seen as an agreement "under duress" and the US/NATO side will be as likely to consider any agreement reached as illegitimate as they do Russian possession of Crimea. As with Russian possession of Crimea, they may well have to accept whatever the new Ukraine looks like de facto, even if they refuse to accept it de jure.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Report from NOS.:

|"Russische troepen hebben sinds de inval in Oekraïne zo'n 2800 militairen en 80 tanks "verloren", zegt het Oekraïense ministerie van Defensie. Het is onduidelijk of de militairen gevangen zijn genomen, gewond zijn geraakt of zijn gedood. Ook zouden meer dan 500 militaire voertuigen aan Russische zijde zijn vernietigd.

Eerder vanmiddag claimde het Oekraïense leger sinds gisteren meer dan 1000 Russische militairen te hebben gedood. De genoemde aantallen zijn nauwelijks te verifiëren."|

So yesterday afternoon the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence claims that more than 1000 Russian soldiers are killed.

Later they are telling that "the Russians have lost 2800 soldiers, more than 500 military vehicles and 80 MBT.

But until now there is no proof that these amounts are correct.
 
Last edited:

Toptob

Active Member
Russia is certainly not forced to do this. Russia had plenty of other options. The fact that Russia refrained from this for 8 years is clear enough evidence, and there were no trigger events here to change that. There was an uptick in fighting, but nothing compared to '14-'15. Linking to a Russian propaganda video certainly doesn't help your case. And in principle the video could be right. Anti-war demonstrations in Russia broke out almost immediately. However it doesn't change the fact that Russia is not a democratic country, so if the Russian government decides to go to war, it won't much matter whether Russians want war.
I agree with you... to a point. There's an eternally ongoing process of geopolitics in which different actors maneuver and position themselves to gain the outcomes that they see as being positive for their cause. And I think that this course of action isn't an illogical one to take in this situation. But there where and are different solutions to the problems in the region.

However I have to object to your assertion that Russia can ignore public opinion because it is not "democratic". Which implies that denizens of supposed "democratic" nations have ever had any say about whether their nation go's to war or not. I for one don't believe democracy changes anything, or rather I doubt such a thing exist at all!

Where are these "democratic" countries? I know mine (the Netherlands) certainly isn't one of them. Our rules are made in Brussels by people we don't elect, and when we do get asked the answer gets ignored if it displeases our "betters"! We had a referendum on whether we wanted to have closer relations with Ukraine and it was ignored, just like how it was ignored when the French, Dutch, Irish and Portuguese where asked if we wanted a "European constitution".

And the rejection of the Ukraine matter was enough to abolish the referendum in the Netherlands! So do you really think we would be asked if we wanted to go to war? We sent our military to Afghanistan and Iraq when most of the population was against it. And the same politicians that raged against the "government" sent our people to bomb Syria when they where "in power". And these same people won't ask us if we want a European military when they eventually use the situation in Ukraine to further their goals of "integrating" Europe (incidentally one of the causes of this war).
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #580
Update.

Fighting around Novaya Kahovka and the Antonov bridge into Kherson. There are airstrikes, and unconfirmed reports of Grads firing.


We have reports of fighting at Mariupol'. It appears that earlier news of Russian troops being past Mariupol' were incorrect.


Russia is claiming that friendly forces have reached the landing at Gostomel' and that no casualties were taken in securing that airfield. The latter claim seems farfetched, and likely refers to the arriving of current friendly forces, not the initial heavy fighting that took place yesterday.


A bucket of dated footage from Gostomel', the fighting over the past ~24 hours.


A bundle of materials. 1) Some destroyed Ukrainian trucks and a Buk TELAR 2) Ukrainian troops massed around Kherson, possibly preparing for an assault on the city 3) the destroyed Ukrainian tank in Melitopol' from above was hit while refueling, and a civilian driving by caught the fire on camera (very colorful language) 4) the town of Starobel'sk was allegedly taken by LNR forces, and then shelled by Grads 5) a destroyed Osa, Ukrainian judging from the commentary, and then shot fired at or near civilian cars, not clear whose, not clear if intentional 6) the SBU building in Chernigov is on fire 7) the evacuation of wounded Ukrainian National Guard in Gostomel'.


In Bucha, a couple of destroyed, presumably Ukrainian, trucks, with munitions scattered around them, and some photos of the Tochka missile fired at Donetsk.

P.S. In case anyone is wondering, Bucha is practically a suburb of Kiev from the west.


There are reports of fighting inside Kiev, near the Street of Heroes.


Weapons being handed out on the streets of Kiev.


Another bundle. 1) weapons being handed out to anyone in Obolon', Kiev 2) DNR Grads firing towards Mariupol' 3) more footage out of Bucha, where we can first see 3 abandoned, possibly damaged, BTRs, and 3 destroyed trucks, 2 of them are from the photos above, then down the road another APC and another truck abandoned, and the driver comments that he sees 7-8 helos over the airfield 4) is a Mi-24P firing, allegedly over Gostomel' 5) is Ukrainian tanks rolling around in Kharkov 6) is the Kiev train station where crowds are boarding trains 7) is strange footage of a lone person attempting to stand in front of Russian trucks and Tigr-Ms, as they drive around him.


A Russian Grad in Vyshgorod, near Kiev.


There was mistaken information of a Russian assault with pro-Russian proxies of the Verkhovnaya Rada that turned out to be inaccurate. Instead it's now reported that a brief firefight took place between government security and local territorial defense units due to a misunderstanding.


Another apparently friendly fire incident took place in Kiev around Obolon' where a column of Ukrainian troops was initially claimed to be Russians in Ukrainian dress. After some fighting it was discovered that they're Ukrainian service members.


Another bundle. 1) A gas station on Antonov Bridge, KHerson, gets hit 2) a Strela-10 in Kiev, possibly the same as involved in the accident below 3) Russian troops in Kharkov region, where a local says "I hope God protects you, we've been waiting for you for 8 years, long even since '91", he then says he's from Orenburg himself, this is literally the first friendly reception I've seen this entire conflict 4) a gigantic Russian National Guard column heading towards Kiev, presumably for occupation duties once the city falls 5) the now famous T-72B3M flying what appears to be the Soviet flag in Kherson region 6) a Strela-10 SAM ran over a civilian car in Kiev, initial claims were that it was Russian but this seems unlikely 7) a giant Russian column in Chernigov region, quite a few VDV vehicles, 8) Russian troops in Bucha, based on the uniforms and helmets, they don't appear to be standard infantry, maybe National Guard 9) a smashed artillery column near Kherson mistakenly identified as Ukrainian. The column is definitely Russian and probably belongs to the 336th Marines Bde, the characteristing armored 8-wheel Kamaz trucks and towed Msta-B howitzers.


It appears that there was fighting in Melitopol' despite the original claims that Russia entered the city without a fight. A destroyed Ukrainian tank.


There are reports of explosions on the north-east outskirts of Kharkov near Saltovka.


DNR forces in Nikolaevka, one of the small towns/villages they've taken recently.


17 Ukrainian National Guardsmen allegedly surrendered to LNR forces.


Rebel forces capture an NLAW tube near Lopaskino.


Reportedly Ukraine is laying mines on the beaches of Odessa.


Aksenov, the head of Crimea is inspecting hydrotechnical works at the North-Crimean canal.


An MLRS tube landed in Kharkov.


There are reports of a friendly fire incident in Odessa where the military fired on a coast guard patrol boat.


Russian tanks at at Nizhnyaya Syrovatka, Sumy region.


Reports of fighting at Kherson.


Chechen National Guard inside Ukraine.


A bridge in Kharkov region was allegedly demolished by Ukrainian forces.

 
Top