The end?

Druss_The_Legend said:
news.sky.com

Belarus starts receiving tactical nuclear weapons from Russia, President Alexander Lukashenko says

The development, watched closely by the United States and its allies, comes after Alexander Lukashenko appeared to contradict Vladimir Putin over the potential use of the weapons.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
On the subject of nuclear weapons, this popped up as breaking news this morning (obviously everyone knew they where going to receive them, but it has started).
I have a gut feeling this will escalate things somehow, I don't know how but I can see consequences of this power play by Russia and Belarus.
Click to expand...
This has been part of the Russian playbook since the war started. They have been making threats about "escalation" to dissuade The West from helping the Ukraine. First it was no providing anti tank and Manpads for defence, then it was artillery limited in range, then not so limited, then it was tanks, then it was fighter aircraft... Each time they made thinly veiled threats about nukes. They were going to deploy them to Kaliningrad (though they were already there) now they are shuffling them about and moving them to Belarus. I rather think they have had their bluff called on this one.

Some may recall the classic TV episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" when Jim Hacker is given the "nuclear key" and he has to go through some hypothetical situations when he might "go nuclear" and basically demonstrated that the weapons are actually of very little military value.

BoroMart said:
Regardless, soldiers dying is tragic on all sides, but that’s what they sign up for, they know the risks. civilians being targeted and slaughtered in theres 10s or 100s of thousands is a war crime, regardless if someone labels it “all out war” or not. Bombs should never be targeted at civilians. Wars are started by the powerful elites, often for personal gain, be it financial, power or ego. Civilians shouldn’t ever be the ones to carry the burden of that. Be it in Japan or ukraine
Click to expand...
Of course this is true, but as in WW2 there are no convenient lines on the map where you are "safe". Unlike in a Napoleonic battle where everyone meets in a field for a dust up usually well away from towns or cities, there are "legitimate" targets well behind the lines which means that civilian casualties are unavoidable. You can only ask at what point it is no longer "collateral damage" and becomes a "war crime"...

As ever, any "war crimes" will be decided by the victors.
 
borolad259 said:
And more hotting up

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668941354565611520
Click to expand...

It totally makes sense for Ukraine to just keep up steady sustained pressure rather than anything too risky. As long as they don't make a catastrophic mistake leading to losses that materially alter the equation on the front line, it really is a matter of time before this assault on Ukraine becomes nothing more than a sideshow for those vying for power in Russia, which means the front will collapse.
 
Lefty said:
It totally makes sense for Ukraine to just keep up steady sustained pressure rather than anything too risky. As long as they don't make a catastrophic mistake leading to losses that materially alter the equation on the front line, it really is a matter of time before this assault on Ukraine becomes nothing more than a sideshow for those vying for power in Russia, which means the front will collapse.
Click to expand...
My biggest concern with that tactic is if the war co to yes until the next us presidency and trump gets in. He’ll stop Ukrainian funding instantly and that will create massive issues.
 
BoroMart said:
My biggest concern with that tactic is if the war co to yes until the next us presidency and trump gets in. He’ll stop Ukrainian funding instantly and that will create massive issues.
Click to expand...
That has crossed my mind as well. I'm sure there will be some kind of plan in place with other NATO members should something like that happen. But It's another 18 months until the next election and ab awful lot can change in that time.
I am optimistic that some kind of resolution will have been reached with this conflict by then. I don't know what that resolution looks like, but I'm also pretty optimistic that the political landscape within Russia will of drastically changed by then......... Hopefully for the better.
 
Konstantine's take


This is excellent by the way. And note when he talks about "Putin" and his meeting with military bloggers. The wink.
 
Last edited:
From The Guardian....

Ukraine taking significant casualties and making slow progress towards Russian line of defence, say western officials​



The officials said it may not be clear for as long as three months whether the offensive could be classified as a success.

Most of the vehicles that have been damaged have been hit by mines. As the Ukrainians advance they are also more exposed to drone assaults.

The officials played down suggestions that this assault was likely to give Ukraine a tactical advantage as early as September, and so give it space to reopen talks with Vladimir Putin. “We are a long way away from Ukraine being in a position to reopen negotiations”, the officials said.

The slow progress is likely to place greater pressure on the west to signal to Putin that it is prepared for a long haul, and will not treat the counteroffensive as Ukraine’s one shot at reclaiming its territory. Ukraine has long feared support may decline in the west if the supply of western arms does not produce early tangible results.

Western officials admitted that western-supplied jets may not be available in the short term, even if training of Ukrainian pilots is now underway.

The officials also suggested Putin might have taken a truth serum before meeting military correspondents where he said Russia was suffering severe tank losses and suffering problems with its military industrial base.

Even though there was still a huge amount of confusion about exact Russian deployment, the officials said the vast majority of Russian forces are now committed to positions on the line partly due to the sheer size of the line that has to be defended. That gave Russia little room for further manoeuvre to deploy reinforcements if a point in the line became vulnerable.

By contrast Ukraine was holding back some of its heaviest armoury, including Challenger tanks.
 
BoroMart said:
My biggest concern with that tactic is if the war co to yes until the next us presidency and trump gets in. He’ll stop Ukrainian funding instantly and that will create massive issues.
Click to expand...

November 2024. Russia will have certainly lost the rest of the territory it gained in 2022 by then at least. Crimea will be in dire straits, cut off, bombarded and without water. If the various Russian factions are fighting they will have withdrawn that many forces back to Russia even holding Donbas will be a stretch. That’s without the losses they will be taking from Ukraine for 18 more months and the loss of the competent Wagner troops. There may be another mobilisation, but they won’t be sufficiently trained or equipped to be much more than fodder or border patrol.
 
Lefty said:
November 2024. Russia will have certainly lost the rest of the territory it gained in 2022 by then at least. Crimea will be in dire straits, cut off, bombarded and without water. If the various Russian factions are fighting they will have withdrawn that many forces back to Russia even holding Donbas will be a stretch. That’s without the losses they will be taking from Ukraine for 18 more months and the loss of the competent Wagner troops. There may be another mobilisation, but they won’t be sufficiently trained or equipped to be much more than fodder or border patrol.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right (and that trump goes to prison anyway)
 
BoroMart said:
I hope you are right (and that trump goes to prison anyway)
Click to expand...

Even if Trump is elected it’s not as automatic that he will pull the plug on Ukrainian weapons. One thing Trump likes is to be associated with winning and not with losers. By then Russia may seem like losers and Zelenskyy a strong man. Zelenskyy is a smart politician. He might present business opportunities to Trump.

It also doesn’t matter what Trump says or promises either does it? Did Mexico pay for a wall?
 
Lefty said:
Even if Trump is elected it’s not as automatic that he will pull the plug on Ukrainian weapons. One thing Trump likes is to be associated with winning and not with losers. By then Russia may seem like losers and Zelenskyy a strong man. Zelenskyy is a smart politician. He might present business opportunities to Trump.

It also doesn’t matter what Trump says or promises either does it? Did Mexico pay for a wall?
Click to expand...
I think you make a good point that if ‘western’ support for Ukraine is going to continue the normal tax payer funding the arms will expect some return on their investment and Zelensky will have to offer something tangible and recognisable. Being ‘democratic freedom fighters’ versus Putin will only wash for so long before the people of the capitalist countries start asking what is in it for them, if they haven’t already started doing so.
 
HolgateCorner said:
I think you make a good point that if ‘western’ support for Ukraine is going to continue the normal tax payer funding the arms will expect some return on their investment and Zelensky will have to offer something tangible and recognisable. Being ‘democratic freedom fighters’ versus Putin will only wash for so long before the people of the capitalist countries start asking what is in it for them, if they haven’t already started doing so.
Click to expand...
I get the impression that in return for donating arms / weapon systems etc the West will be at the front of of the queue when it comes to the substantial rebuild of Ukraine. And this will be billions upon billions upon billions, lasting years.

Have to remember the arms manufacturers will be coining it in too, and they are heavily interlinked with governments.

So I honestly think there is quite a way to go before the West starts sending the heavies round to Ukraine to get their money.
 
h_m_boro said:
I get the impression that in return for donating arms / weapon systems etc the West will be at the front of of the queue when it comes to the substantial rebuild of Ukraine. And this will be billions upon billions upon billions, lasting years.

Have to remember the arms manufacturers will be coining it in too, and they are heavily interlinked with governments.

So I honestly think there is quite a way to go before the West starts sending the heavies round to Ukraine to get their money.
Click to expand...
Interesting response.
 
It was reported this morning(around 6 or 7 hours ago) that the chief inspector of the IAEA arrived at Zaporizhzhia NPP to inspect it, which with your friend going silent I am wondering if he could of been put on high alert Incase of any incidents at the power plant, hopefully just a precaution.
 
Druss_The_Legend said:
It was reported this morning(around 6 or 7 hours ago) that the chief inspector of the IAEA arrived at Zaporizhzhia NPP to inspect it, which with your friend going silent I am wondering if he could of been put on high alert Incase of any incidents at the power plant, hopefully just a precaution.
Click to expand...
I think there's a team that's going to go in and secure it. Seems pretty sensible.
 
borolad259 said:
I'm a bit worried. My mate has gone more or less silent. The Russians have turned off the Ukraine's access to the radiation sensors at the NPP.
I hope he's not heading out there. I need him alive.
Click to expand...

Why would they send a semi retired guy with some retirement flab to a active warzone to 'secure' a nuclear power plant in a Special military operation (see what I did there).

My point is he's going to be fine, don't worry he will get in touch when he's in touch. Pass my comment on he might find it funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top