Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

rebels storm government troops in Donbas war

 

[Ich]

There is an EU passport. I'm looking at one right now, Above the Nation state it states "European Union".

You said it right. There is a nation state, and then there is the construct EU what is not a state.

You even can read it in the coalition-contract of the BRD(FRG) government parties spd/fdp/greens. There you can read that it is planned to push the idea of an european federal state. Cause at the moment there is none.

Edit:

"
Die Konferenz sollte in einen verfassungsgebenden Konvent münden und zur
Weiterentwicklung zu einem föderalen europäischen Bundesstaat führen, der dezentral auch nach den
Grundsätzen der Subsidiarität und Verhältnismäßigkeit organisiert ist und die Grundrechtecharta zur
Grundlage hat."
"
The conference was to result in a constituent convention and
Further development to a federal European state, which will also be decentralized according to the
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the Charter of Fundamental Rights
has basis."

page 131

https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1990812/04221173eef9a6720059cc353d759a2b/2021-12-10-koav2021-data.pdf

So as you can see: There is NO EU-State. And so there is also no such thing as an "EU-citizen"

 

[sammuel]

4,000 is a tiny number. Russia built millions of tanks during WW2.

Don't know why i bother , but no they did not :

In overall tanks, the Soviet numerical advantage was considerable as the Red Army had a large quantitative superiority. It possessed 23,106 tanks, of which about 12,782 were in the five Western Military Districts (three of which directly faced the German invasion front).

Tanks of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia​

 

[Ali_Baba]

4,000 is a tiny number. Russia built millions of tanks during WW2.

They only built all those tanks and war infrastructure with help from the British and Americans. Both were supporting the Russians during WW2 with supplies and materials and technology. Without the British and Americans - the Russians would have been toast in WW2..

Here you go - please educate yourself with some facts : https://www.rbth.com/history/335471-how-lend-lease-helped-ussr

'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?

Ever since the Cold War, many Soviet and Russian politicians and academics have downplayed the role that U.S.-provided weapons and supplies played in the Red Army's ultimately victorious campaign against Hitler's Germany. But there is substantial evidence that the huge influx of materiel made an...

www.rferl.org

World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945

Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi

ru.usembassy.gov

Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1616786378301251584

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

They only built all those tanks and war infrastructure with help from the British and Americans. Both were supporting the Russians during WW2 with supplies and materials and technology. Without the British and Americans - the Russians would have been toast in WW2..

Here you go - please educate yourself with some facts : https://www.rbth.com/history/335471-how-lend-lease-helped-ussr

'We Would Have Lost': Did U.S. Lend-Lease Aid Tip The Balance In Soviet Fight Against Nazi Germany?

Ever since the Cold War, many Soviet and Russian politicians and academics have downplayed the role that U.S.-provided weapons and supplies played in the Red Army's ultimately victorious campaign against Hitler's Germany. But there is substantial evidence that the huge influx of materiel made an...

www.rferl.org

World War II Allies: U.S. Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945

Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi

ru.usembassy.gov

Are you serious? USSR was the only country that had heavy tanks at the start of WW2. The West did not have any heavy tanks when war started.

Kliment Voroshilov tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Viet]

Zapo has a huge ethnic Russian population. A lot of them joined the rebels.

New York has huge Chinese population. I was there. They will create a new China led by Sun Taufen. Chinese foods there suck though. Most terrible on earth. Perfect excuse for an invasion by the PLA. Xi jinping: your turn.

 

[925boy]

Well NATO USA will have to supply a very large number of battle tanks for Ukraine to turn the tide against Russia or indeed even hold the line.

but that wont work for 2 reasons:
1. Ukrainian army now lacks skilled manpower to operate these mostly foreign tanks (talk less of the logistics of maintaining and using them effectively on the war front)..
2 Suicide munitions like Lancets, Shahed 136s, Zala drones etc AND high tech ATGMs will destroy so many of these tanks...and obv after this batch of tanks, NATO wont be able probably to supply high tech tanks for at least a year or so., and we havent even gotten to the lack of military preparedness all these supplies can cause for NATO IF a new conflict comes up..remember, China's military is well armed, well supported, well funded, and well rested, with lots of ammo.

THis will probably prevent NATO from fighting anther stupid imperialist war in the near future.

MIND YOU, Russia hasnt even fired any cheap Iranian precision ballistic missiles...Ukraine gonna die a good death this time....as NATO ups the toys for Ukraine, Russia will probably up the toys it uses too...Russian humanity until Ukraine shows insanity.

Also you cannot just hand over a bunch of tanks and expect them to remain serviceable. Tank warfare needs a huge amount of logistical support.

boom, and Ukraine lacks that...Ukrainian supply lines are obviously depleted and dysfunctional...wait for Bakhmut to be encircled..obviously Ukraine's military wil be way more depressed about losing Bakhmut than losing Soledar, which its apparently still denying? LOOOL

 

[FuturePAF]

wait, you actually think Russia would go serious on something like an ammonium pipeline with Turkey, when TUrkey is an active large NATO that is also supplying weapons to Ukraine?

Russia isnt the type of country to feed its killer, IMO.


Russia wont do anything serious with Turkey that isnt needed or required in relation to the conflict in Ukraine- all those wheat and other deals were humanitarian and philanthropic gestures by Russia.

Isn’t russia building an oil or gas pipeline to Turkey?

 

[aviator_fan]

Is this "elsewhere" in the room with us?

If you have kept up with the developments and the global economic picture and the consequential impact on Russia in the long term (regardless of military outcome): this elsewhere is Algeria, US, Qatar and new LNG terminals being active across Europe.

Do your cause a favor and live in the present vs. the great supposed victory of mother Russia against hitler with T-34s and the fake selective analysis of Minsk and OSCE. If you looked at the picture so will your Russian idols and preserve the economic well being of the population

 

[Vergennes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1617178878593863681

https://twitter.com/x/status/1617168101585338369

https://twitter.com/x/status/1617186958874218498

 

[Ich]

If you have kept up with the developments and the global economic picture and the consequential impact on Russia in the long term (regardless of military outcome): this elsewhere is Algeria, US, Qatar and new LNG terminals being active across Europe.

well...

Why Algeria cannot solve Europe’s gas problem | Robin Mills | AW

The country has long been accused of under-investment, unattractive fiscal terms and painfully slow bureaucracy, hampering hydrocarbon sector development.

thearabweekly.com

also Qatar, what will sell a little bit to germany AFTER 2026

Qatar will not divert gas from Asia to Europe this winter, QatarEnergy CEO says

Qatar will not divert gas that is already under contract with Asian buyers to Europe this winter, the chief executive of state-owned QatarEnergy said on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

so only expensive US fracking gas is left....maybe

 

[Viet]

That’s the way out. Members of the US congress urge the US gov to deliver Abrams tanks to Ukraine, even just one tank, then voila, Olaf Scholz has no more excuses.

Let the leopards free!

 

[ziaulislam]

The question of nuke had been discussed many time before.

First question you need to ask is what kind of nuke they want to use <5kt? Between 5 to 20 Kt? Between 20 to 40kt? Or 40kt or above?

Second question you need to ask is where are they going to use it on. In the east? north? South? or West?

Finally, what kind of response you are looking at?

1.) If they use anything less than 5kt, they may as well just use conventional weapon, it's nothing on a 5kt device, You are talking out around 10 x 10 meters blocks. 20kt to 40kt is more or less probably would be the only thing you could potentially think of, because over 40kt would risk MAD. But still 40kt would take out a 1.5 km 1.5 km block at 2psi ground brust, you would need a lot of those to have any significant effect. For example, you would need 400 of those warhead just to level Kyiv as Kyiv city limit is 839 sq kilometers. Tactically, unless you are talking about using them in Hundreds, or even thousand, it wouldn't change anything.

2.) Where are they going to use it on? Ukraine from West to East is 1250km the widest and that's counting currently Russian controlled Donbas, If we don't count Russian occupied zone, then the wide is slightly less than 1000km. So now if you drop 40kt device on anywhere East or South, it's too close to Russia, Russian controlled Donbas and Russian controlled Crimea, the fall out would affect all those. Too close north (Kyiv is only 140km from Belarus) you are going to affect Belarus. And too close to the West, you are looking at fall out going to spill over to Poland, which mean there are just a smallarea you can nuke near the central Ukraine, which have absolutely nothing in it, it will not make any different because Ukrainian troop concentration is on the North, South, West and East. All of those you really can't nuke or you will nuke Poland, Belarus or yourself.

3.) What would be NATO response? It's stupid to assume NATO would let you use nuke and do nothing, even <40kt device, they will response, it may not be a nuclear response or even incursion to Russia, but there are a few things NATO can do and will spoil the Russian. More neutral approach will be sending in NATO peacekeeper. and basically, dare the Russia to attack them to bring the entire NATO in, most likely if that happen the war will end and Russia will not be able to gain anything since that moment, and as you said, they would have to be desperate to nuke Ukraine, which mean at that point, their foothold is small.

One step up, NATO may launch a No Fly Zone like in Baghdad with the Peacekeeper in place, If that happen, Ukraine can move under NATO air protection and if Russia can't gain Air Superiority now, they are not going to when NATO Air force is involved. And effectively declare all Russian target in Ukraine as legitimate target.

Finally a less possible scenario is NATO send in ground force into Ukraine and expel the Russian with a combine NATO Air/Land campaign much like ISAF. I don't see this possibility is high tho.

The problem you failed to see is, once you used nuke, You cannot use the threat to use nuke as a bargaining chip, because you just used that. Once you did, the West would have response because well, it's no longer whether or not you will use them, but you already did, then the focus is not on the threat itself, but rather how to minimise this threat.

So if Russia is losing its territories/crimea and it use nuke.

NATO wouldn't do anything that's is not doing already

So basically you just confirmed what I am saying

 

[Ali_Baba]

That’s the way out. Members of the US congress urge the US gov to deliver Abrams tanks to Ukraine, even just one tank, then voila, Olaf Scholz has no more excuses.

Let the leopards free!


View attachment 912549

History will not be kind to Olaf Scholz or Germany over the way it has handled the Ukraine war ...