Effectively the same issues for the last 2+ years of the SMO and longer.Legitimate Targets
@LegitTargets
BREAKING: RUSSIA offers FINAL peace deal to Ukraine:
No NATO membership, neutral status
Restoration of rights of the Russian population
Restoration of the church
No possibility for the west to use Ukraine as a proxy again!
Liberated territories in Ukraine remain Russian
Kursk is in Russia.Korean Troops Heading To Kursk - Fierce Fighting Along The Oskol River
Latest updates - more comments on NK Troops. (11 min)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF6SK9ZUdk
Another different view on the NK troops from MoA - More a RAND / CIA propaganda op than real - good comments
Note: the videos by Military Summary above of NK troops are likely taken during one of the yearly LAROS maneuvers during which troops from Laos and Russia perform military drills. The caps worn by the soldiers in the -Ukraine provided- CNN video look like the caps of Laotian soldiers.
Ukraine - Threat Of North Korean Soldiers Is Based on U.S. Info Campaign
Anton Gerashchenko
@Gerashchenko_en
6h
Russian Telegram channels report that hundreds of buildings are without electricity in Russian St Petersburg.
Local authorities claim it was an "accident". Locals say they accident was preceded by explosions from a drone attack.
View: https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1847612402415665528
So instead of just Ukraine being defeated by Russia - we would now have a NATO nation defeated by Russia - without other NATO members taking an active part - it will be impossible to SPIN that as some kind of a win.NEXTA
@nexta_tv
️Le Monde: US no longer opposes Ukraine's invitation to join NATO
This became known after the talks between Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz, and Keir Starmer in Berlin on October 18.
The source also noted that the change in Washington's position might influence the decision of Berlin, which is still against inviting Kyiv to the alliance.
Good question and asked by a LOT - both pro and anti.Like most of you (all of you?) I watch the Russian-Ukraine war with a lack of very comprehensive understanding. A lot of it just doesn't make much sense. Some of it I can only ascribe to backroom deals being worked out between East and West.
The above post is the most recent example. The Ukrainians have hit Russian electrical, military and industrial installations many times and, of course, the Russians have hit Ukrainian targets many more times. So, just for a few minutes, let's forget about who's right and who's wrong and just consider this: Why does Russia allow Ukraine to have any mains electricity or power grid?
The Russians, incomparably stronger and with vast inventories of smart bombs and missiles could shut down Ukraine's grid overnight if they so chose. They've come close to doing so in the past. I've heard the explanation that the Russians are allowing Ukraine to have electricity for "humanitarian" reasons, but by my lights that doesn't wash. Every day the Russians allow Ukraine to have a functioning power grid only prolongs the war and helps the Ukrainian side.
Do you want them to be humanitarian? Okey dokey...announce that Ukraine has one week to relocate their civilian population to surrounding European countries and then the lights go out. Let it become a problem for Poland, Romania and other nearby countries. Then destroy the grid and keep destroying it 'til the war is over. On the cusp of winter, this would be a huge problem. Why don't they do it?
Similarly, why do the Russians tolerate the blockade of Kaliningrad (as seen in post #69,246, above) ? They were supposed to have transit rights before the Ukrainian war began. Why do they tolerate interference with their overland transport now, instead of bluntly stating that we're going to insist on our passage rights and any interference will be seen as an act of war?
Obviously these are hard questions, but I can only suspect that much is happening behind the scenes.
Best
Doc
NEXTA
@nexta_tv
️Le Monde: US no longer opposes Ukraine's invitation to join NATO
This became known after the talks between Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz, and Keir Starmer in Berlin on October 18.
The source also noted that the change in Washington's position might influence the decision of Berlin, which is still against inviting Kyiv to the alliance.
As a purely practical matter - and one of realpolitik - I think Ukranian membership in NATO would be an absolute disaster...for NATO. Assuming that Ukraine was given NATO membership, then what? Does NATO tell Russia to leave Ukraine or we'll...we'll...we'll, what? Start a nuclear war over eastern Ukraine? Send Russia a nasty note? Send European and US .mil personnel to an enlarged ground war? Start drafting US and European men into a suddenly vastly expanded military machine?
None of those choices seem very wise, or practical to me. I don't think US or European men are in any mood to be drafted to fight the Russians and it would also open up the whole can of worms about women being drafted and sent into combat (a singularly BAD idea IMHO).
Short of a nuclear war - which is another singularly BAD idea - NATO would lose. I don't say this as a Russophile, but as a pragmatic appreciation. First, any potential European battlefield is across the Atlantic and the US just doesn't have the Navy or Merchant Marine we had in WWII. How do we quickly get those divisions across "The Pond"? Note that I highlighted "quickly" because it would have to be so. The Russians have a small but competent Navy which, most importantly, includes a large submarine fleet. Does anyone think the Russians are going to sit on their hands while we send tens of thousands of soldiers across the Atlantic? Their air force and missile forces are also capable of taking out surface ships.
The Europeans share a common continent with Russia so they don't have the ocean problem the US does, but they haven't fought a major war since WWII. Thus far the Russians have more or less been fighting the Ukrainians with one hand tied behind their back. I honestly wonder how the Europeans would respond to the absolute bloody horror of an all-out conventional war with Russia. We could see European and American casualties in the millions. Who is ready for that?
Furthermore, who is ready to see US or European cities bombed? There wouldn't be the vast armadas of bombers darkening the skies of Europe as in WWII, but vast swarms of missiles targeting specific sites in DC, New York, Kansas City and hundreds of smaller US cities which contain important .mil targets. That's not even considering European cites. Remember that we're talking conventional war, not - as of yet - going nuke.
Does anyone want that...over f*cking Ukraine and its corrupt and blood-thirsty oligarchy?
All of the above, and much more, is what we'll get through a Ukrainian NATO membership.
Best
Doc
The other problem is NATO really screwed up gifting all that fancy stuff to Ukraine as they now have good experience on countering things...The pre-positioned equipment, to the extent that it hasn't been pulled upon for the 10,000 US troops rotating into and out of Poland now, is supposed to alleviate part of that, but it wouldn't be able to make up the need for massive re-supply from the US, assuming those stocks even exist in the US at this point, let alone the shipping to move it all.
And yes, an all-out conventional war between NATO and Russia would be as Doc1 put it, an "absolute bloody horror". The significant difference between it and the current fighting between Ukraine and Russia would be that it would be not limited in the way it is on the part of Ukraine but would have, as long as stocks of arms, aircraft and air and ground crews remain, limited to a majority ground defense or offence but would have a significant offensive air component to it. The very nature of which could easily tip the situation with the Russians out of the "conventional" realm.
Now here is a kicker. Russia may be making the appearance that they are still alive to make for some very fake optics. Plus Russia is stinking huge. And has not seen internal combat like this in well over 50 years...I'm amazed that Ukraine still has a foothold in Kursk. If for no other reason that national pride, I would've thought that the Russians would have made crushing the Ukrainian Kursk salient a major priority. I don't know what the Russian's game is there.
I have considered the possibility of the Russians using a small (air burst) nuclear weapon against the Ukrainian forces still on Russian soil. That would certainly cause the sweat glands to go into overdrive across all of the Western capitols, but what could they do about it and how could they even seriously protest it?
The key words here are "still on Russian soil." How does one protest a country using a nuclear weapon within their own borders? That's a very different dynamic than using a nuclear weapon against another country. Additionally, with the right weapon and the right targeting, there would be very, very little residual radiation produced. The tactic would be to force the Ukrainian forces into a central "kessel" or cauldron and then nuke the center of their remaining forces.
As ridiculous as it may sound, that would immediately eliminate those Ukrainian forces as a viable fighting force and scare the absolute crap out of the rest of Europe...and especially any of those countries considering expanding the Ukraine war.
Best
Doc
I'm amazed that Ukraine still has a foothold in Kursk. If for no other reason that national pride, I would've thought that the Russians would have made crushing the Ukrainian Kursk salient a major priority. I don't know what the Russian's game is there.
I have considered the possibility of the Russians using a small (air burst) nuclear weapon against the Ukrainian forces still on Russian soil. That would certainly cause the sweat glands to go into overdrive across all of the Western capitols, but what could they do about it and how could they even seriously protest it?
The key words here are "still on Russian soil." How does one protest a country using a nuclear weapon within their own borders? That's a very different dynamic than using a nuclear weapon against another country. Additionally, with the right weapon and the right targeting, there would be very, very little residual radiation produced. The tactic would be to force the Ukrainian forces into a central "kessel" or cauldron and then nuke the center of their remaining forces.
As ridiculous as it may sound, that would immediately eliminate those Ukrainian forces as a viable fighting force and scare the absolute crap out of the rest of Europe...and especially any of those countries considering expanding the Ukraine war.
Best
Doc
Well it does have some advantages for RussiaI'm amazed that Ukraine still has a foothold in Kursk. If for no other reason that national pride, I would've thought that the Russians would have made crushing the Ukrainian Kursk salient a major priority. I don't know what the Russian's game is there.
I have considered the possibility of the Russians using a small (air burst) nuclear weapon against the Ukrainian forces still on Russian soil. That would certainly cause the sweat glands to go into overdrive across all of the Western capitols, but what could they do about it and how could they even seriously protest it?
The key words here are "still on Russian soil." How does one protest a country using a nuclear weapon within their own borders? That's a very different dynamic than using a nuclear weapon against another country. Additionally, with the right weapon and the right targeting, there would be very, very little residual radiation produced. The tactic would be to force the Ukrainian forces into a central "kessel" or cauldron and then nuke the center of their remaining forces.
As ridiculous as it may sound, that would immediately eliminate those Ukrainian forces as a viable fighting force and scare the absolute crap out of the rest of Europe...and especially any of those countries considering expanding the Ukraine war.
Best
Doc
Interesting take. And I suspect they may use this option, however, if outside forces are blocking nuclear devices from functioning in such endeavours. What is not to say both sides have not tried and failed to engage nuclear devices, but outside interference stopped them from working...I'm amazed that Ukraine still has a foothold in Kursk. If for no other reason that national pride, I would've thought that the Russians would have made crushing the Ukrainian Kursk salient a major priority. I don't know what the Russian's game is there.
I have considered the possibility of the Russians using a small (air burst) nuclear weapon against the Ukrainian forces still on Russian soil. That would certainly cause the sweat glands to go into overdrive across all of the Western capitols, but what could they do about it and how could they even seriously protest it?
The key words here are "still on Russian soil." How does one protest a country using a nuclear weapon within their own borders? That's a very different dynamic than using a nuclear weapon against another country. Additionally, with the right weapon and the right targeting, there would be very, very little residual radiation produced. The tactic would be to force the Ukrainian forces into a central "kessel" or cauldron and then nuke the center of their remaining forces.
As ridiculous as it may sound, that would immediately eliminate those Ukrainian forces as a viable fighting force and scare the absolute crap out of the rest of Europe...and especially any of those countries considering expanding the Ukraine war.
Best
Doc
National Interest
@TheNatlInterest
37m
There are reports that at least 18 of the North Korean soldiers sent to Ukraine have already deserted from the Russian lines.