Ukraine War Thread Part 2
An excellent slap in the face for Putin to show him how foolish his worthless and pathetic ( my opinion ) Belarussian nuke tactics are. Once again his master-strokes have succeeded in substantially worsening his position
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/d...-ash-et-al.pdf
Thank you. That is very good indeed, and many folk here should take the time to read it.
Thank you. That is very good indeed, and many folk here should take the time to read it.
While it's obviously impossible to summarise a 50+ page document in a single post, here's a flavour:
The fallacies that we focus on in this report are as follows:
1. The apparently urgent need to settle, based on the factually incorrect supposition that all wars end at the negotiating table
2. The proposition that Ukraine should give up territory - certainly Crimea, quite possibly more
3. That Ukraine should (again) declare itself neutral, as it was between 1991 and 2014
4. The need to take Russian security concerns, as defined by Russia, into account
5. The assertion that a defeated Russia must not be pushed into a punishing kind of 'Treaty of Versailles redux', for fear that this will result in an even more resentful and fascist state
6. The idea that military defeat risks catastrophically destabilizing Russia, with consequences that could include the break-up of the state or loss of control of Russia's nuclear arsenal
7. The supposedly excessive financial cost
8. The suggestion that the pursuit of justice hinders the quest for peace, on the outwardly reasonable basis that at some point regional stabilization may outweigh Ukraine's needs for prosecutions and reparations, however justified such demands may be
9. Finally, the assertion, espoused most prominently by the right wing of the US Republican Party, that this is simply 'not our war' - that the West has no obligations beyond perhaps humanitarian support.
1. The apparently urgent need to settle, based on the factually incorrect supposition that all wars end at the negotiating table
2. The proposition that Ukraine should give up territory - certainly Crimea, quite possibly more
3. That Ukraine should (again) declare itself neutral, as it was between 1991 and 2014
4. The need to take Russian security concerns, as defined by Russia, into account
5. The assertion that a defeated Russia must not be pushed into a punishing kind of 'Treaty of Versailles redux', for fear that this will result in an even more resentful and fascist state
6. The idea that military defeat risks catastrophically destabilizing Russia, with consequences that could include the break-up of the state or loss of control of Russia's nuclear arsenal
7. The supposedly excessive financial cost
8. The suggestion that the pursuit of justice hinders the quest for peace, on the outwardly reasonable basis that at some point regional stabilization may outweigh Ukraine's needs for prosecutions and reparations, however justified such demands may be
9. Finally, the assertion, espoused most prominently by the right wing of the US Republican Party, that this is simply 'not our war' - that the West has no obligations beyond perhaps humanitarian support.
The following 3 users liked this post by DaveReidUK:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
This is just plainly creepy.. can you see this? as Twitter appears to have changed, a soldier had his prosthetic eye blown out…
Poland announced its intention to deploy American nuclear weapons in response to the deployment of Russian weapons in Belarus
This was stated today by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
"Due to the fact that Russia intends to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, we appeal to all NATO to take part in the Nuclear Sharing program," he said at a press conference after the EU summit in Brussels.
Morawiecki noted that the final decision will depend on American partners.
The NATO Nuclear Sharing program assumes that nuclear warheads are provided to the member states that do not have their own nuclear weapons.
The program is part of the alliance's nuclear deterrence policy. Since November 2019, the program has been providing U.S. nuclear weapons to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
This was stated today by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
"Due to the fact that Russia intends to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, we appeal to all NATO to take part in the Nuclear Sharing program," he said at a press conference after the EU summit in Brussels.
Morawiecki noted that the final decision will depend on American partners.
The NATO Nuclear Sharing program assumes that nuclear warheads are provided to the member states that do not have their own nuclear weapons.
The program is part of the alliance's nuclear deterrence policy. Since November 2019, the program has been providing U.S. nuclear weapons to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
I do wonder if Russia is planning a re run of Crimea 2014 and hope to get away with it..
walk like a Russian, talk like a Russian, is a Russian.
walk like a Russian, talk like a Russian, is a Russian.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
From Maks23
Update on the front (no details):
Avdiyiivka direction - we are counterattacking in the Krasnohorivka area, unofficially ZSU liberated Vesele
Donetsk direction - advancement in Staromaiorske area
Bakhmut - advancement in Kurdyumivka, Berkhivka, Klishchiivka and Bakhmut
Avdiyiivka direction - we are counterattacking in the Krasnohorivka area, unofficially ZSU liberated Vesele
Donetsk direction - advancement in Staromaiorske area
Bakhmut - advancement in Kurdyumivka, Berkhivka, Klishchiivka and Bakhmut
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
Totally agree.
Zelensky about the timing of the counteroffensive: "If they tell me that it will be two months and thousands of people will die, or if it will be three months and fewer will die - I will choose the second one. I would even say that it was four or five months and without losses"
It is annoying when they say that the offensive is slow, because every meter is given with blood" - Zaluzhny in an interview with WP "This is not a show that is watched by the whole world, on which bets are placed or something like that. Every day, every meter is given blood"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
Not a bed of roses for the RU Army replacements in Bakhmut
The following 7 users liked this post by Vzlet:
If you don't counter-escalate now, then you'll be asking for russian de-escalation as a concession, later.
Also, Poland wouldn't be getting any launch codes. No need to freak out. This is just Poland drawing extra negotiation cards for the future. Just like putin and his move of h/w to Bielarus. Apparently two can play this game. Poland wants them out of there, and figures that this is what it will take.
/FWIW
The following 4 users liked this post by balsa model:
Evertonian
Here endeth the lesson.
The following 2 users liked this post by Buster Hyman:
Local advice around ZNPP appears to be depart within 6 days from yesterday from the invaders occupiers, the ones that have reportedly set explosives in 4 of the reactors. Look forward at the weather prognosis indicates lower level winds are going to blowback to Russia, (how do we put in a sad face here?) and the mid level winds, around 700hPa are out of the north for after that date, for most of the next week. Disregarding any airborne contamination from conducing the first nuclear terrorist action in history by Putin, the Dnieper empties into the Black Sea, so that will contaminate NATO countries certainly, Romania and Turkey, and the Bosphorus-Sea of Marmara-Dardanelles empties into the Med. Ce-137, Sr-90 etc dissolve in water, and while there are bi-directional currents in the waterways of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the outcome of a deliberate destruction of ZNPP by the terrorist govt of Russia will be to spread contamination. The good news is, Russia will also contaminate the Sea of Azov, and all of their ports that use the Black Sea. Smart move dear leader. The clear outcome is that Russia will be deemed by all other than those that have vested interests in keeping the word terrorist apart from the terrorist state of Russia, that position will be come untenable, not sure how the vested interests will be able to spin that to retain their commerce that occurs at present.
The destruction of the ZNPP is a global attack by a terrorist state, there is no way around that, and it should not be spun as anything other than what it is.
On the bright side, Vlads southern retreat will be fit for visitation only if he is wearing a lead overcoat, but there are better uses for lead.
Seems a calendar date has been set, one hopes that the adults prevail, however, not much in the last 18 months of hand wringing suggests that a warning that Vlad would heed will be forthcoming. I hope otherwise.
Destruction of the ZNPP will contaminate half of Russias food producing land, and a similar amount of Ukraines, a sort of pox on both houses scenario, except, the countries of the UN that have permitted vested interests to prevail in their responses to Russia's criminal actions would feel the consequences of loss of most of the spare grain supply that arises from southern Russia and Ukraine, and that will add to instability of the nations where their populations will feel the pangs of hunger. Sure someone said something about reaping, sowing and the like, would seem appropriate in so many ways to the disinterest that pervades the UN's club of self interest.
It is well past time for the IAEA and the UN to step in and safe the ZNPP from terrorists.
Draft resolution 22 June 2023,
submitted by Mr Graham (R-SC) and Mr Blumenthal (D-CT)
Whereas Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty states “…an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security…”: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate—
(1). agrees that the deployment of the Russian Federation’s tactical nuclear weapons within the Republic of Belarus is a threat to Ukraine and NATO member states;
(2). views the use of any tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty; and
(3). urges the current administration to consult with NATO leaders and other European partners to develop a comprehensive response to minimize the threat to Civilians and coordinate a diplomatic and military response commensurate with the situation.
"Since its initial invasion of eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia has violated more than 400 international treaties and conventions, most significantly the Budapest Memorandum of 1994".[1]
As an EU member,
"Accession would consolidate Ukraine’s economic and political alignment with the West, and allow for mutual defence assistance from external threats. Provision for such assistance was introduced as part of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 (Article 42)"
Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. [3]
[1] Ash, T. et al. (2023), How to end Russia’s war on Ukraine: Safeguarding Europe’s future, and the dangers of a false peace, Report, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135782. p21
[2] ibid p22
[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetd...clauses_en.pdf
The destruction of the ZNPP is a global attack by a terrorist state, there is no way around that, and it should not be spun as anything other than what it is.
On the bright side, Vlads southern retreat will be fit for visitation only if he is wearing a lead overcoat, but there are better uses for lead.
Seems a calendar date has been set, one hopes that the adults prevail, however, not much in the last 18 months of hand wringing suggests that a warning that Vlad would heed will be forthcoming. I hope otherwise.
Destruction of the ZNPP will contaminate half of Russias food producing land, and a similar amount of Ukraines, a sort of pox on both houses scenario, except, the countries of the UN that have permitted vested interests to prevail in their responses to Russia's criminal actions would feel the consequences of loss of most of the spare grain supply that arises from southern Russia and Ukraine, and that will add to instability of the nations where their populations will feel the pangs of hunger. Sure someone said something about reaping, sowing and the like, would seem appropriate in so many ways to the disinterest that pervades the UN's club of self interest.
It is well past time for the IAEA and the UN to step in and safe the ZNPP from terrorists.
Draft resolution 22 June 2023,
submitted by Mr Graham (R-SC) and Mr Blumenthal (D-CT)
Whereas Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty states “…an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security…”: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate—
(1). agrees that the deployment of the Russian Federation’s tactical nuclear weapons within the Republic of Belarus is a threat to Ukraine and NATO member states;
(2). views the use of any tactical nuclear weapon by the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, or their proxies, or the destruction of a nuclear facility, dispersing radioactive contaminates into NATO territory causing significant harm to human life as an attack on NATO requiring an immediate response, including the implementation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty; and
(3). urges the current administration to consult with NATO leaders and other European partners to develop a comprehensive response to minimize the threat to Civilians and coordinate a diplomatic and military response commensurate with the situation.
"Since its initial invasion of eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia has violated more than 400 international treaties and conventions, most significantly the Budapest Memorandum of 1994".[1]
As an EU member,
"Accession would consolidate Ukraine’s economic and political alignment with the West, and allow for mutual defence assistance from external threats. Provision for such assistance was introduced as part of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 (Article 42)"
Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. [3]
[1] Ash, T. et al. (2023), How to end Russia’s war on Ukraine: Safeguarding Europe’s future, and the dangers of a false peace, Report, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135782. p21
[2] ibid p22
[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetd...clauses_en.pdf
Last edited by fdr; 1st Jul 2023 at 09:49.
The following 5 users liked this post by fdr:
The events described in the link below are now more than two days old, so OPSEC is not compromised here, and the Web site is open Source.
However it presents a very interesting comment and overview of the tactics and strategy as used, which shows just how flexible and adaptive, the Ukrainians have become. Their approach and knowledge will be a considerable asset to NATO when they are finally granted membership.
Front Line Report
IG
However it presents a very interesting comment and overview of the tactics and strategy as used, which shows just how flexible and adaptive, the Ukrainians have become. Their approach and knowledge will be a considerable asset to NATO when they are finally granted membership.
Front Line Report
IG
NATO membership is no topic while this war is going on. Hopefully the war will end soon with Ukraine getting back everything stolen.
The West, as you call it DID spread nuclear weapons around in a tit-fit-tat fashion with home grown nukes in the UK and France, as well as deploying them in Germany while the US had them in UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey and also kept them in many other European countries under US control for use on release by the host countries air forces who trained for their handling and use.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts
Re fdr’s excellent post on the ZNPP, I would like to add some of what MAK 23 has benn posting, the Ukrainians are taking the threat seriously.
Taking the pond out will effect all the reactors so you do not have to blow each one and it will give them time to escape
A reply
Taking the pond out will effect all the reactors so you do not have to blow each one and it will give them time to escape
"The terrorist attack by the Russians on the ZNPP will be considered the use of nuclear weapons" - the secretary of the NSDC
Ukrainians will learn about the explosion of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant only after a few hours, - the head of Energoatom Kotin "Today we have sensors on the right bank, and we will use these sensors to monitor."
"Our intelligence knows that Russia has plans to cause a radioactive leak at the ZNPP. Detonation can also be carried out remotely." - Zelensky
"From the technical side, Russia has prepared everything for staging a man-made disaster at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant" - Budanov in an interview with The War zone
"The part of the station is likely to be blown up, is an artificial reservoir on the territory of the station, which provides cooling. What they are going to do is damage a link in the system, which will subsequently cause this technological disaster that no one can stop."
Russia has prepared everything to create a man-made disaster behind the Zaporizhzhia NPP. Most likely, if the decision is made, they will blow up the cooling pond, thereby damaging the link in the security system, which will subsequently lead to a man-made disaster. - Budanov
How to prepare for a possible accident at the Zaporizhzhia NPP: recommendations of the Ministry of Health
The information concerns only residents of the 50-kilometer zone around the ZNPP (!).
The information concerns only residents of the 50-kilometer zone around the ZNPP (!).
Prepare a first aid kit with the following contents: Potassium iodide - reduces the negative effect of radioactive iodine on the thyroid gland;
Aluminum-antacid sorbents - to accelerate the neutralization and removal of radionuclides from the body;
Aluminum-antacid sorbents - to accelerate the neutralization and removal of radionuclides from the body;
Sodium alginate - creates a protective barrier on the surface of the liquid contents of the stomach and prevents the absorption of hazardous substances by the body;
Mask - to reduce the ingress of hazardous substances into the body.
Mask - to reduce the ingress of hazardous substances into the body.
I don't think potassium iodide helps in this case. Reactors are in cold shutdown for some time now so there is no Iodine-131 to protect from. It has a radioactive decay half-life of about eight days
Last edited by NutLoose; 1st Jul 2023 at 09:19.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,449
Received 3,191 Likes
on
1,338 Posts