Current Affairs Ukraine

[magicjuan]

Mate. Dig a little yourself.

That's the first one, and that's from when the USSR stopped existing. Or to show you what you yourself failed to read:
Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994 Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]

LITERALLY THE NEXT LINE MATE.

So, are they destroyed? Do they have any? Do they control any?

 

[Martin Alvito]

Rightly or wrongly, I can't see the Ukrainian regulars, defending their own soil, taking many prisoners. It's similar to how the French love to 'neutralise' threats.

I'm not so sure. At least some of their units may have orders to capture Russians so that they can be paraded in front of the media to demonstrate how well the war effort is going.

 

[Bluerover]

Sad that working class often young mens lives will be lost fighting for something that benefits the top brass / elite.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

This my friend is what really saddens me.

The only winners here are the disgusting arms capitalists.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Who controls the nukes in Ukraine?

Nobody cos they have none

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Rightly or wrongly, I can't see the Ukrainian regulars, defending their own soil, taking many prisoners. It's similar to how the French love to 'neutralise' threats.

Yeah and this airport just outside of Kiev is a key target. If Russia holds it then it ramps up the pressure on the capital and could be used to bring about Ukraine’s surrender with obvious Russian conditions. (Russia gets the whole of the Donbass region and Ukraine must never join NATO blah blah blah.

 

[PhilM]

We are truly living in the strangest timeline...

She's a bellend.

 

[TN Toffee]

They could have demonstrated the bomb. In a different way on Japan soil once or twice. Wiped out a forest or a mountain in view of military generals and warned the next one is a city.

It's funny how they sold obliterating an entire city twice with all its inoccent inhabitants in it. They sold the justification of that. And people find it normal and acceptable. And will defend it to this day. Its absolutely outrageous.

You are correct smashing planes into two buildings should not to be compared to dropping 2 nuclear bombs on two cities and incinerated all its innocent civilians. To hurry up the war.

So many other options than what they did. Technically and literally the biggest act of terror known to mankind. No matter the sold justification.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that it was “normal”. However, like I posted earlier, Japanese civilians had already been observed committing suicide en masse to avoid being captured by American soldiers, and the closer the war got to the home islands, the more fanatical they got. It’s not civilian casualties were somehow going to be avoided by continuing to wage conventional warfare.

I’m not sure what you’re claiming was “sold” to people. A land invasion would have cost (based on estimates during the planning) 500k American soldiers lives and 5M+ Japanese soldiers and civilians lives, as opposed to ~200k civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There’s no need for a sales pitch, anyone who can do grade school arithmetic should be able to draw a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Sad that working class often young mens lives will be lost fighting for something that benefits the top brass / elite.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Even for you this is incredibly clichéd.

 

[ChesterBlue]

Nobody cos they have none

Weird comment isn’t it? If Ukraine had nuclear capabilities this invasion wouldn’t have happened point blank

 

[TheBigIguana]

At the risk of sounding pedantic, it most certainly IS an option.

Dozens of NATO countries, including the USA, possess well-equipped armed forces - we have been told repeatedly that many of these countries have shipped high-tech weapons and munitions to Ukraine in advance of this horrific development, so it's safe to presume that this equipment is at least as good as the best already present in the Ukrainian military.

The troops and equipment exist. The will to use them however, is absent. Macron, Johnson, Trudeau and Biden, amongst dozens of other leaders, are very happy to talk about how unacceptable Putin's naked aggression is... But actions speak louder than words, and the actions taken thus far demonstrate to Putin that actually, provided he essentially pays a cash penalty, his annexation of Ukraine is acceptable to "the West", because the major players in NATO don't feel the urge to go any further than that.

If your analysis doesn't include the words "nuclear power" you've missed the most important part

 

[DualityNSNO]

I am British, and I get fully the picture of war. We've been shown enough images over here from battleships being blown up in the Falklands to land mines in Iraq, Afghanistan.
War is abhorrent. Whoever carries it out. Whoever shows the footage. I cannot stand people thinking it's acceptable because 'we' did it,but not if 'they' did it.

This is not about the war itself alone. This is about the propaganda of war, the effects in the minds of people of actual communism, the USSR and its after effects, and why Russian aggression is heaps and bounds more dangerous than many things in Europe.

War is abhorrent but I'm seriously failing to understand your line of thought in this 'wanting to see both sides'. You're seeing them - the Russian people are rioting in Moscow. The Russian media is showing tanks rolling into Ukraine and praising Putin. What more is there to say about this?

What do you think will happen to the people rioting? Why do you think this is the first time this happens? Russia is ruthless, there is a reason people fear them.

 

[PhilM]

I'm not so sure. At least some of their units may have orders to capture Russians so that they can be paraded in front of the media to demonstrate how well the war effort is going.

Not right not and especially not close to Kyiv. There'll be elements where they'll want to parade troops to help demoralise the Russians with propaganda.

Yet as @Mutzo Nutzo mentioned, their key objective right now is to defend these key targets and annihilating their forward, well-trained troops will help this.

If the landing zone is removed, it will mean the advancing armour won't have something to join up with; it'll mean the Ukrainians can focus on defensive positions.

Right now, they'll be giving them no mercy and especially to professional paratroops.

 

[DualityNSNO]

So, are they destroyed? Do they have any? Do they control any?

The link you yourself failed to read says the same information you're requesting.

 

[Tree13]

Mate, one nuclear missile and all the troops on the ground are irrelevant.

Whilst completely true, I don't think the democratically-elected government on Ukraine would view that as an especially helpful contribution by NATO, the USA or any other western power.

Boots on the ground is the only way to make Putin even think about blinking at this stage. But most of the NATO countries combined don't possess the military size that the USA does, so if Biden makes it clear he's not interested (as he did so unequivocally this evening) then they will all falter. Which is exactly where we are right now.

The scary thing is that the protection of NATO membership that is the sole card that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania possess in the face of Putin's aspirations towards the Baltic, now looks very shaky. If Biden feels that domestic US sentiment and petrol prices matter more than Ukrainian freedom and democracy then why would he behave any differently at the next tense moment with Russia?

For balance, Trump was even worse. But surely a better option than Biden could have been put forward by the Democrats. In just a few months Afghani and Ukrainian civilians have paid a terrible price.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Whilst completely true, I don't think the democratically-elected government on Ukraine would view that as an especially helpful contribution by NATO, the USA or any other western power.

Boots on the ground is the only way to make Putin even think about blinking at this stage. But most of the NATO countries combined don't possess the military size that the USA does, so if Biden makes it clear he's not interested (as he did so unequivocally this evening) then they will all falter. Which is exactly where we are right now.

The scary thing is that the protection of NATO membership that is the sole card that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania possess in the face of Putin's aspirations towards the Baltic, now looks very shaky. If Biden feels that domestic US sentiment and petrol prices matter more than Ukrainian freedom and democracy then why would he behave any differently at the next tense moment with Russia?

For balance, Trump was even worse. But surely a better option than Biden could have been put forward by the Democrats. In just a few months Afghani and Ukrainian civilians have paid a terrible price.

You're still missing something extremely important mate