Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
ramacca said:
If a person is going to punt out propaganda - which this is i.e ill equipped Russian soldiers with low morale - then they need to at least make the effort to find out about the Russian army as in this instance. We've been shown pictures of them training - so some can mock them - and guess what they are all clean shaven. There are exceptions.

As far as recording it on a mobile phone - well I believe they are not allowed on active duty. I might be wrong though.
Click to expand...
Have a proper gander at this, Reilly.

www.dw.com

Russia's partial mobilization: Conscripts report call-up chaos | DW | 30.09.2022

Numerous reports indicate Russia's partial mobilization has been disorganized and arbitrary. DW spoke to some who received draft notices even though they should not have.
www.dw.com www.dw.com

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted on Monday that there were cases of violations of the decree on mobilization.

"Indeed, there are cases when the decree of (Russian President Vladimir Putin on partial mobilization) is violated. These cases of non-compliance with the necessary criteria are eliminated. We hope that all errors will be corrected," Peskov told reporters at a press briefing in Moscow.
Click to expand...

Eevn Simonyan went off about them conscripting outside of the decree - pensioners, disabled and shockingly men with beards!
 
I would expect further missile strikes along the lines of today and yesterday. Whether Putin realises that Russia cannot win this war or not, they can create more fear and instability in abundance. It's significant they they have targeted Lviv to the extent they have for the strikes. He will want the whole of Ukraine to feel in a permanent state of vulnerability.

I don't see a nuclear strike being a viable option at all. I have wondered about a biological or chemical attack though. It could be contained and localised in its effect, not that that would make it any less abhorrent. But the fact that this doesn't appear to be included in any discussion of possibilities I have come across must be for a reason. I would not be sure either that such an attack would trigger a NATO response. Perhaps it would, and so is considered in the same context as a nuclear attack.
 
bluestevon said:
They're speaking Russian and the translation if pretty much what's said give or take a word.

The guy who says about leaving moscow a few days ago and none of the others are actually from Moscow though and I'm certain of that as their accent is wrong (wife said that).

Lsck of any insignia that could be traced to prove it, guy having a Brian blessed beard which no chance he's not got that shaved off on the day of recruitment among with his hair - also the mobile they're filming off unless he's gone prison style up his jacksie he ain't got that.

Decently done one but fake
Click to expand...
A lot of the trouble indicated that most of the conscripts were not coming from Moscow and St Petes but from the poorer regions, Dagestan and the like. At least these lads weren't pensioners.
 
Last edited:
brieverton said:
I would expect further missile strikes along the lines of today and yesterday. Whether Putin realises that Russia cannot win this war or not, they can create more fear and instability in abundance. It's significant they they have targeted Lviv to the extent they have for the strikes. He will want the whole of Ukraine to feel in a permanent state of vulnerability.

I don't see a nuclear strike being a viable option at all. I have wondered about a biological or chemical attack though. It could be contained and localised in its effect, not that that would make it any less abhorrent. But the fact that this doesn't appear to be included in any discussion of possibilities I have come across must be for a reason. I would not be sure either that such an attack would trigger a NATO response. Perhaps it would, and so is considered in the same context as a nuclear attack.
Click to expand...
Well they just put the guy in charge to do such an act.

I honestly don't think NATO will intervene directly even if this did happen as it's just too high risk. Did Russia use thermobariatric weapons at least early on or was that just alleged (my memory fails me so I can't actually recall)?

Russia looks hell bent on ramping up the stakes through using weapons that are designed to create terror and fear. NATO should not be expected to lower themselves to using them even if some of the NATO countries have used them in the past before they were banned.
 
brieverton said:
I would expect further missile strikes along the lines of today and yesterday. Whether Putin realises that Russia cannot win this war or not, they can create more fear and instability in abundance. It's significant they they have targeted Lviv to the extent they have for the strikes. He will want the whole of Ukraine to feel in a permanent state of vulnerability.

I don't see a nuclear strike being a viable option at all. I have wondered about a biological or chemical attack though. It could be contained and localised in its effect, not that that would make it any less abhorrent. But the fact that this doesn't appear to be included in any discussion of possibilities I have come across must be for a reason. I would not be sure either that such an attack would trigger a NATO response. Perhaps it would, and so is considered in the same context as a nuclear attack.
Click to expand...
Putin is not in any way a normal person he craves adoration and conquest. Some of my learned friends believe he will use tactical nukes in Ukraine especially if and when his Army is decimated. I don't even pretend to know what NATO will do but listening to the retired Generals with some pulse of the landscape they believe conventionally there will be a huge response as Sleepy Joe has acknowledged. Could be a lot of sabre rattling but the war of words have put everyone on guard even the financial markets now are taking note. Shockingly, the innocent will be in the middle and will bear the madman's agenda.

Did I hear that 300k to 400k of military age males have fled Russia? Must be Western Propaganda that can't be correct, can it?
 
Dixieslaces said:
While a valid point on the size of it, it is largely unpopulated and vast areas of nothingness, with inadequate agricultural or infrastructure to support a civilian population. So if NATO felt it beneficial, from a Geo Political, logistical and military point of view, would its "size" be that much of an issue a it would target useful locations.

Are we really convinced that a Nuclear option is on the table for Putin, or is it an element of media pushing that narrative? Due to MAD being an outcome there really is no positive outcome from any Nuclear option so why would that even be considered?

I'm not advocating it by the way, just genuinely curious and I know that NATO is really not about causing conflict, rather preventing it, so would not make a whole lot of sense but given shall we say, the Wests proclivity to anti communism, it would seem to make sense?

Having said all this the Wests approach to "regime" change has been a huge issue and I can see why NATO would not want to be part of this unless provoked by Russia, so is this an opportunity to exert that authority over Russia or are we best hoping for a largely stable Russia with no West interference and the end of people like Putin?

I have seen many instances of these situations in my time and as I have aged I have become increasingly more interested and aware that often there is more to situations, that we as mere mortals, arent privy to and as I've said previously I would rather ask and look foolish or be shot down in flames or maybe even once or twice right in my assertion or assumption in the hope that it gives me better understanding.
Click to expand...
I assure you that we want regime change. Whether or not we can produce the result without sparking WWIII is another question, so I doubt that it's a policy end we're after. If a clear opportunity came along, we would probably take it, but we would have to be very assured of success.

From where Putin is sitting, NATO's eastward expansion provides the opportunity for a disabling first-strike against Russia's command-and-control structure. A hypersonic missile can get from Vilnius to Moscow in about four minutes. Stationing missiles in eastern Ukraine doesn't help all that much with that proposition, but it gets us a lot closer to his missile fields in the center of the country. NATO's stated intentions are irrelevant from where he is sitting, because we could station such missiles whenever we wanted. The classic security dilemma paradox is that making oneself more secure generally makes the opposition less secure, which causes the opposition to take action, which can make the first state less secure than it was at the outset.

As far as a nuclear option goes, an all-out exchange obviously doesn't improve Putin's position. However, the willingness of the West to reply-in-kind to a first use of nuclear weapons is very questionable depending on the circumstances. If he erases New York or London, we probably erase St. Petersburg. It's much less clear what happens if he uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine. We would reply, but it's very possible that he acquires a tactical or strategic advantage as a result because we don't want to run things all the way up the escalation chain to a full exchange.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top