What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

where exactly is RUssia doing this? Instead Ukraine and RUssia are fighting for control of Bakhmut/Bakhmut- related territory and you ignore and deny that then go onto manufacture this fake theory trhat Russia is using a single relatively unimportant event"- just prove Russia is doing that- mean while you cant explain why Ukraine has been fighting for Bakhmut for almost a year, lost 10s of thousands of soldiers, lost MOST of Bakhmut, and is still sending so many troops to die, just to capture a small area of Bakhmut back? LMAO.

be specific- what territory size qualifies as "a shit ton"? lmao- Ukraine probably doesnt have more than 10% control, up from 3%- why did Ukraine LOSE a shit ton of territory in Bakhmut in the first place if it was so valuable and obviously worth losing brigade after brigade after brigade of untrained and experienced military men? and all that equipment and ammunnition lost so badly that it made Ukrainian military need 2-4 months to be reequipped for an of fensive it doesnt have the ability to even push through confidently with?

kjust a little- dont get distracted by small short term war gains- focus on the big picture.

so? even a big US general testifoed to congrress that Russian airforce has lost 70/80 planes...out of over 1,000. he confirmed most of RUssia's military is still intact- space, infantry, cyber, rocket forces, nuclear forces- ALL INTACT- meanwhile Ukraine is on its 3rd and borrowed army, from NATO. NATO must get extinguished in Ukraine, because that's what it asked for- like the nazis asked to be extinguished and vanquished by the Soviet Union.

no, but i think its bettter if you tell me what in the war these "shaping operations" have "shaped"?- you get one or 2 days of positive news outside of a year of hell for Ukrainian troops and you start deploying grammar thats irrelevant to the war's outcome or momentum.

focus on the argument, make counter points- stop talking about people and how they behave- unless you have no real points to make.

yea sure....to say "taking territory" that's an indirect admission Ukraine already lost it- good luck getting it back! other than Kherson, and maybe a part of a few other smaller towns, Ukraine never gets towns back from Russia once Russia controls all of it, few exceptions exist, but exceptions dont define the rule.

you cant counter them, go buy NATO another life, it'll need it- literally died without getting killed on the battlefield - now NATO is saying it wont get involved in any conflict in the pacific- that makes sense, you cant fight new wars without ammunition.
This entire comment, and all it boils down to is "no u". You literally used all these words and said absolutely nothing.

Your own pro-Russian military bloggers are saying Russia is in trouble.

Prigozhin is saying Russia is in trouble.

Russian allies are now politically distancing themselves from Russia.

And you're saying this?

It reads like you're coping.
 

Transnistrian Crisis | Another Massive Missile Strike. Military Summary And Analysis 2023.05.14

Donbass Zugzwang | Fierce Fighting On The Bakhmut Flanks. Military Summary For 2023.05.14

 
Last edited:
Donald Cook .. get real. You need to get out of the rabbit hole. This story is a classic russian fairy tail being recycled by pro russian bots.
Regarding Ukraine having the largest landforces in Europe - of cource they do. The country is mobilized. What do you think would happen if Germany, France, the UK or Italy mobilized? Any country with a population of 40 mio. would have a landforce of 1 million if mobilized.
lol. exactly, euro Washington-worshipers are clueless on EW weapons and their capabilities. As is by design. "Trust papa Washington, papa Washington won't let you down" :lol:

Russia has had this tech for decades, as the USA. It is only being commercially produced for the next US war on China.


The above is a EMP, there are various kinds of EW weapons that are classified and can cripple electronics.


Here is forbes discussing anti-personnel EW weapons:


And yes, if you read the article, the Russians have these weapons.

BBC agrees with me that the future of warfare is EW:


I am referring to land forces equipment. Amount of land forces heavy weapons. Not mobilization. Ukraine is largest in heavy weapons in Europe. Meaning they have the largest land forces (army) in Europe. You arm your soldiers with arms. When nations are ranked by land forces, they are ranked by weapons, not manpower.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Wagner employees met...

2a. recruited
2b. fight
2c. motivated by private gain
2e. not a member of any armed forces
2f. was not sent by a State

Now for 2d...

You can bypass the legality requirement of 'nationality' by simply giving citizenship to the person.

Yes, that is possible, but it is easier to take up residency since that would also rule you out. If I were on a jury I would only find that acceptable if the individual was a resident when recruited.

The 1977 agreement.


1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.​
2. A mercenary is any person who:​
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;​
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;​
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;​
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and​
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.​

The 1989 agreement.


Article 1 of the 1989 UN Mercenary Convention defines a mercenary as:
1. Any person who:​
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;​
(b) is motivated to take part in the hostility essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;​
(c) is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and​
(e) has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.​
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:​
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:​
(i) overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or​
(ii) undermining the territorial integrity of a State;​
(b) is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;​
(c) is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;​
(d) has not been sent by a State on official duty; and​
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken​
When a Russian citizen who is a prisoner for a civil crime who then was recruited by Wagner, not the Russian government, to fight against Ukraine, that Russian citizen would fall under 1989 agreement section 2.

What distinguished the French Foreign Legion from the Wagner Group is that the Legion is an official branch of the French military. The Wagner Group is no such member in the Russian military.

The critical words are
A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
I interpret that as ”not an armed conflict”, because ”1” is about mercenaries in armed conflicts. The current war is an armed conflict.
The most obvious scenario for ”2” would be planning and executing a coup.
How else interpret ”in any other situation”?
 
lol. exactly, euro Washington-worshipers are clueless on EW weapons and their capabilities. As is by design. "Trust papa Washington, papa Washington won't let you down" :lol:

Russia has had this tech for decades, as the USA. It is only being commercially produced for the next US war on China.


The above is a EMP, there are various kinds of EW weapons that are classified and can cripple electronics.


Here is forbes discussing anti-personnel EW weapons:


And yes, if you read the article, the Russians have these weapons.

BBC agrees with me that the future of warfare is EW:


I am referring to land forces equipment. Amount of land forces heavy weapons. Not mobilization. Ukraine is largest in heavy weapons in Europe. Meaning they have the largest land forces (army) in Europe. You arm your soldiers with arms. When nations are ranked by land forces, they are ranked by weapons, not manpower.
There is zero evidence of the Donald Cook being disabled by anything. All you have is a fly-by of a russian airplane being recorded by US navy personel, and a shitload of Russia Today articles trying to feed the narrative of superior russian weaponry. It is actually ridiculous that you, a grown up I suppose, believe this crap. You are not one of the trolls trying to discredit the West, posting all sorts of BS knowing its not true. You have actually walked right into the russian disinformation trap.
I hope you recover.
 
This story is a classic russian fairy tail being recycled by pro russian bots.
Simply because Putinites says Tony Blair was a war criminal, does not mean it is not true, despite Putinites being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. Don't fall for only one side is correct. That is religious fanaticism. Both Washington and Moscow are wrong.

You are doing exactly the expectation of Trump and Putin, falling in line with Washington. Have those blinders on and trust Washington. Then blame only Trump for the loss of Europe when your own stupidity was to blame for the loss of Europe to Russian occupation. For trusting Beijing, Washington, and Moscow. These don't care about you. These hate you and want you occupied by Russia.

Yes, Europe needs to rearm. Yes, Russia has EW weapons that render high tech weapons useless. Therefore Europe needs to rearm in low tech weapons in the amount of the land forces of Ukraine and Russia. To have more firepower than Russia.
 
Back
Top Bottom