What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
For general knowledge:


From well-respected Iraqi General Raad Hamdani:

"The battle of Nasiriya, and the many [American] deaths and prisoners in the hands of militias -- The morale were very high; you can't imagine how high it was. There was an increasing positive attitude during the battles of Basra, Nasiriya, and Umm Qasr. I was tracing news through my own satellite receiver in my quarters, and I saw how the forces took the western side of Euphrates to avoid city battles. It's well known that when you have air cover, you can move freely and safely, beyond the reach of weapons situated in cities. Therefore, Nasiriya battle created a lot of optimism in our forces.

[But my personal view was] that we should take maximum precautions to face the enemy. Others took this lightly, saying "Why should we worry if this is the behavior of the attacking forces? They didn't show high competence." …

I was optimistic that the war will last for two months. If we passed those two months, the results would be reasonable for a simple army like ours against the biggest army in the world, attacking with these capabilities. So I was hoping that we could pass two months, and even if we lose, it would be an honorable stand."





From well-respected Iraqi General Raad Hamdani:

"In Usfiyah area. I convened a meeting of the leading officers in the army, along with the army's chief of staff. We reassessed the situation on the new facts that we have only two divisions, and the enemy is advancing on three axes. But the Republican Guard chief of staff conveyed orders from high command to launch an attack immediately, with available force. We carried out this order. Units from the Medina Al-Monawara Division launched an attack, the 10th Armored Brigade and special forces, and the 22nd Armored Brigade from Nabukhath Nassar Division. I tried also to deploy all artillery units available.

It was a terrible night, because the crossing of the Americans on the Euphrates were speeding up the advancement of the enemy to its strategic goal, which is Baghdad.

The advancement of our troops -- and this is my sixth war during my service -- was truly remarkable. They had high spirits and a strong will to fight, in spite of all dangers ahead. I used to tell them that the honor of Iraq and the fate of Baghdad depended on this battle.

I joined the front lines in battle. … I was advancing along with the commander of the Medina Al-Monawara Division, with special forces 3rd Brigade on three axes. On two axes, armored troops were advancing based on the 10th Armored Brigade. On the other axis, special forces were advancing, and I was in the middle.

A fierce battle took place. The enemy used enormous firepower. It looked like napalm. Rocket launchers would fire groups of rockets, about 12 rockets each, that would explode in the air, burning whatever it faces on its way with its flames. The battle continued during April 3 and April 4. The enemy was advancing on two axes. One axis was on the area of Qasr through the bridge heading to Usfiyah, the other one from the bridge heading to Radwaniyah. Another action was from the bridge to the south, heading to the military industrial area.

The battle that took place didn't look even like action movies, because events were so fast. I didn't have a single tank intact; it was either damaged or destroyed. I didn't have a single vehicle left. The battle reached a point where the army commander was fighting with a machine gun. The groups of command and communications were completely destroyed. The soldiers and officers were fighting as a personal effort. The spirit of sacrifice and martyrdom was an honor to our army and all Iraqis and Arabs.

From the dawn of April 3 until sunset, the Air Force destroyed anything that moved. Then the Americans broke through fiercely, as if it was programmed. Anything that moved was hit by tanks, armored vehicles, Apaches, and jet fighters, whether it was civilian or military, Republican Guard or not.

I tried to get back to my headquarters to gather troops, because even my mobile phone was out of order, because our communication group was hit, and all of its members were martyred. There were no leading figures; everybody was fighting. I asked the security personnel of the Medina division to bring me a vehicle, and they did -- a vehicle driven by a major. I got in. He was a poor driver, so I left the vehicle, and returned to my headquarters, going along with the American convoy advancing to Usfiyah.

The amount of fire and destruction was beyond description. The tragedy witnessed by civilians was horrible. Women, children, civilian cars were burned. It was chaos. I entered with American front lines, and my vehicle was hit every moment. There was no windows left in it, and the tires were hit. Lieutenant Hadir, that hero, was martyred in it. At one point, we were driving on the metal wheels. I saw one of the crew bringing me another vehicle. I changed cars, and went to my headquarters.

We had a quick meeting. There were three officers, along with the party official of the army, and the security group. At this moment, I issued many orders to move the units, to withdraw the 2nd Armored breakthrough to Baghdad that had happened.

It was only minutes before the American tanks and vehicles were storming into the headquarters. An engagement was on inside the headquarters. Half of security forces were martyred. An Abrams tank was under my room window. I noticed it from the look on the faces of the officers, pointing to the tank. So the party official said, "Sir, there is no room here for bravery or manhood. We should leave this place." I replied, "I'm already dead. The enemy tanks breached us. They are on their way to Baghdad, and there is no meaning left for life."

The enemy stormed into the headquarters. The fighting was on from room to room, street to street. We were almost surrounded. We were fighting with machine guns, towards the houses of this small area, which was countryside. At this place and in this moment, I felt I was making a wrong decision of killing the rest of those officers. So I permitted them to rescue themselves in any way and any direction. As for me, I felt as the captain of this ship, I should sink with it. They all left the place."





US-led forces encountered resistance in other locations as well.

Wikipedia documents losses of Iraqi army in these battles but not Iraqi Fedayeen (volunteers). For perspective, over 2000 Fedayeen lost their lives in just Nasiriyah.

Thanks for that informative response... And for correction my over simplification...
 
I think that it would be a mistake to assume that Russia will become a, non-entity, a larger version of North Korea.

More likely, Russia's break from the West will encourage many countries that are hiding in the closet to come out. These are countries that are acting like they're pro-West, but they're only doing it out of fear. When they see an alternative they will jump into the Sino-Russian camp.

There are many countries, especially Muslim, were the public is anti-Western because of recent experience, but they have pro-West rulers. These may be overthrown or switch sides. There could be 'achromatic' revolutions (opposite of colour) to overthrow pro-West rulers and replace them with pro-Sino-Russian ones.

There will also be countries that remain in the Western camp but will become defiant. This is already visible with the behaviour of some Arab countries that wouldn't talk to Biden.

Every country will be forced to decide between one side or the other, like during the Cold War. Lots of smaller wars and revolutions etc. A lot of things will be going on in the future.
What russia is trying to do right now, is to have it`s own block (rusky mir)., I generally belive Russia is too weak for having it`s own block , well the Ukrainian tractors shows us why :)
Russia is generally a "gas station" with rockets, that desperatelly needs technologies. I believe there will be only two blocks, Sino( Autocratic ) and the West( Democratic ), maybe some unaligned. Russia is trying to win something here, by playing the "influence zone" game to matter something in couple of years. Before "the war" Russia was de facto the "gas station" for the EU, delivered raw materials , got for this money and access to western technologies. This relationship was good and could continue, Russia could be another Norway, but Russia decided to go well "Russia" due to "we have to have an emprire like in 1979" ideology and started this idiotic war in the Ukraine. A lot could be said about why this happened, a generally an effect of the Naivität of german policy of "Wandel durch Handel", a stagneted power system, Chinese influence and other stuff, but it hapenned,

How do we look now ?

Forget about Russia being a Superpower. it`s a great power. The Ukraine war it`s just a fantom movement of a lost empire. Putin and old Soviets are trying to get something, that is already gone..

There 3 Options:
1. Russia gets back to the Western Camp, continous to deliver recources to the center and has more/less acesss to the technologies but it`s stops going wacko.
2. Russia becomes a "comdominium" West vs. China. It`s neutral and delivers recources to both sides, This is not so bad.
3. Russia lands in the Sino Camp.

"More likely, Russia's break from the West" - for now the West have broken up with Russia, remember the West is the stronger Partner,

Generally in the end Democracy always wins, because it produced unpredictable situation and actors out of nothing ( e.g. Zelensky ) .

btw. The rotten Western world it`s collapsing at least since the time of french revolution, if not from of the time of the Roman Empire, and it`s still there. It will continue to collapse forever, its called change.

just some thoughts from my side.
 
What russia is trying to do right now, is to have it`s own block (rusky mir)., I generally belive Russia is too weak for having it`s own block , well the Ukrainian tractors shows us why :)
Russia is generally a "gas station" with rockets, that desperatelly needs technologies. I believe there will be only two blocks, Sino( Autocratic ) and the West( Democratic ), maybe some unaligned. Russia is trying to win something here, by playing the "influence zone" game to matter something in couple of years. Before "the war" Russia was de facto the "gas station" for the EU, delivered raw materials , got for this money and access to western technologies. This relationship was good and could continue, Russia could be another Norway, but Russia decided to go well "Russia" due to "we have to have an emprire like in 1979" ideology and started this idiotic war in the Ukraine. A lot could be said about why this happened, a generally an effect of the Naivität of german policy of "Wandel durch Handel", a stagneted power system, Chinese influence and other stuff, but it hapenned,

How do we look now ?

Forget about Russia being a Superpower. it`s a great power. The Ukraine war it`s just a fantom movement of a lost empire. Putin and old Soviets are trying to get something, that is already gone..

There 3 Options:
1. Russia gets back to the Western Camp, continous to deliver recources to the center and has more/less acesss to the technologies but it`s stops going wacko.
2. Russia becomes a "comdominium" West vs. China. It`s neutral and delivers recources to both sides, This is not so bad.
3. Russia lands in the Sino Camp.

"More likely, Russia's break from the West" - for now the West have broken up with Russia, remember the West is the stronger Partner,

Generally in the end Democracy always wins, because it produced unpredictable situation and actors out of nothing ( e.g. Zelensky ) .

btw. The rotten Western world it`s collapsing at least since the time of french revolution, if not from of the time of the Roman Empire, and it`s still there. It will continue to collapse forever, its called change.

just some thoughts from my side.
What do you think it would take for the west to lift sanctions on Russia? I just dont see how it could be done even if Russia pulls out of Ukraine tomorrow. Which of course it wont.

I dont see how sanctions are lifted without total regime change.
 
More information about Neo-Nazi angle coming to light now:

Apparently oblivious to these historical parallels, Putin sees Nazis on the march everywhere but at home. Yet it is he who routinely enlists the help of neo-Nazis like Dmitry Utkin, a mercenary with the Wagner Group, a private army financed by pro-Kremlin oligarchs, who bears Waffen-SS tattoos on his collarbone and chest.

As with Nazi Germany, the Kremlin’s provocations seem extraordinarily inept. Russia is ostentatiously and brutally violating international law in an effort to humiliate Ukraine and frighten a dissolute West. That is why the Kremlin’s propaganda has gone to such lengths to smear Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a drug addict and a neo-Nazi, even though he is a Jew whose grandfather fought the Nazis in World War II, and who lost many other relatives in the Holocaust.


Until recently, Russian propaganda has worked not only in Russia but also in the West. Beyond the US Republicans who have openly sided with Putin, many Germans have long failed to appreciate that the Soviet victims of Nazism were not all Russian. In fact, Nazism claimed proportionally more Ukrainian victims, and a Ukrainian soldier was the first to open the gates of Auschwitz.


Related:


Even Indians are not buying it:


@dBSPL
@RescueRanger
@The SC
@Hassan Al-Somal
@Elias MC

- - - -

Wagner Group in spotlight again for all the wrong reasons. Hmm.
 
More information about Neo-Nazi angle coming to light now:

Apparently oblivious to these historical parallels, Putin sees Nazis on the march everywhere but at home. Yet it is he who routinely enlists the help of neo-Nazis like Dmitry Utkin, a mercenary with the Wagner Group, a private army financed by pro-Kremlin oligarchs, who bears Waffen-SS tattoos on his collarbone and chest.

As with Nazi Germany, the Kremlin’s provocations seem extraordinarily inept. Russia is ostentatiously and brutally violating international law in an effort to humiliate Ukraine and frighten a dissolute West. That is why the Kremlin’s propaganda has gone to such lengths to smear Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a drug addict and a neo-Nazi, even though he is a Jew whose grandfather fought the Nazis in World War II, and who lost many other relatives in the Holocaust.


Until recently, Russian propaganda has worked not only in Russia but also in the West. Beyond the US Republicans who have openly sided with Putin, many Germans have long failed to appreciate that the Soviet victims of Nazism were not all Russian. In fact, Nazism claimed proportionally more Ukrainian victims, and a Ukrainian soldier was the first to open the gates of Auschwitz.


Related:


Even Indians are not buying it:


@dBSPL
@RescueRanger
@The SC
@Hassan Al-Somal
@Elias MC

- - - -

Wagner Group in spotlight again for all the wrong reasons. Hmm.
Brother all these type of people have Nazi tendencies it doesn't matter if they are Russian or Ukrainian or American. A US instructor on loan to Pakistan under the ATAP/ICITAP program was removed after a neo-Nazi tattoo was found on his left wrist which he covered with a large watch strap.

It's all too common and as I have been to Russia I know all too well- Russia has a serious problem with Skinheads in it's own borders. < Personal Experience
 
IF one really believe what western media is saying than this war should have ended long before. We are not getting any solid reliable information. But people here are acting like they are on the front lines. Thing is why did things get this worse? I mean arming Ukraine to the teeth will bring what to the table. Another unstable country going through guerrilla warfare. Russia can always send in more men.
Quite ironic or should i say Hypocritical thing is that US and its allies are acting all pious and virtuous. Nothing achieved in 2 weeks Putin is losing . US spend 20+yrs with its NATO allies in Afghanistan and then ran like rats in the darkness of night. Same thing happened in Vietnam. Remember Korea which is still at the state of war thanks to Uncle Sam.
 
1647079857727.png


Air Raid sirens 1 min ago- Kyiv Oblast: Bila tserkva, Skvyra, Fastiv.
 

US isn’t going to send troop for any ex Soviet states and or Turks. There is no binding obligation.​

The principle of providing assistance​

With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
 
Last edited:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


USSANews.com

Peace Negotiator Shot Under Mysterious Circumstances​


Posted on March 7, 2022 by Constitutional Nobody
Ukrainian and Russian negotiators have met three times now to discuss terms for securing a peace deal and to arrange temporary ceasefires for civilian evacuations, but beyond the negotiating table it is beginning to seem doubtful that anyone is taking the talks seriously. The most striking evidence for this is the fact that a negotiator from the Ukrainian delegation was shot in the head in the streets of Kiev under circumstances that remain a mystery.

Ukrainian negotiator executed​

Denis Kireev was a former banker who had been appointed to the Ukrainian government’s negotiating team and could be seen seated opposite the Russian delegation in photos taken at the first meeting.
The next time the world saw pictures of Mr. Kireev, he was lying on the streets of Kiev in a pool of blood after having been shot twice in the head in an apparent execution.

Ukrainian politicians and local media quickly began to circulate reports that Kireev had been “liquidated” by intelligence agents from the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) for suspected treason.
Bizarrely, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense soon followed these reports by announcing that Denis Kireev was actually a Ukrainian intelligence agent who was killed in the line of duty. He was described as a hero in the announcement and condolences are offered to his family.
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

So was the negotiator a traitor working for the Russians or was her a hero agent working for Ukrainian intelligence? Neither story makes much sense at this point, especially when we consider the details.
What we can be fairly certain about is that Kireev was killed by the SBU in the Ukrainian capital after the first round of negotiations and that Ukrainian sources said that the government had convincing evidence that he was a traitor.

Contradictory stories emerge​

If that evidence exists, then why is the Ukrainian government still claiming him as one of their own and why has the SBU itself said nothing about the killing?
A negotiator actually being a Russian asset would be powerful proof for the Ukrainians to show the world that Russia is not negotiating in good faith.
There have been suggestions that Kireev was actually a double agent for the Ukrainians who was mistakenly executed by the SBU, who thought that he really was a traitor.
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

The more grim possibility is that Kireev was simply shot because the SBU and other forces believed that his peace efforts amounted to treason against the Ukrainian state.
With tensions understandably high, several Ukrainian political figures have already been killed or arrested after being accused of having pro-Russian sympathies.
Unfortunately, we may never have a coherent explanation for Kireev’s death. Whatever the reason for the killing, the death of one negotiator means that there is even more pressure and anxiety hanging over the already challenging and urgent talks.
The post Peace Negotiator Shot Under Mysterious Circumstances appeared first on The GOP Times.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Scott Moore
 
John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis
The political scientist believes the reckless expansion of NATO provoked Russia


The war in Ukraine is the most dangerous international conflict since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Understanding its root causes is essential if we are to prevent it from getting worse and, instead, to find a way to bring it to a close.

There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.

But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and nato.

The trouble over Ukraine actually started at nato’s Bucharest summit in April 2008, when George W. Bush’s administration pushed the alliance to announce that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members”. Russian leaders responded immediately with outrage, characterising this decision as an existential threat to Russia and vowing to thwart it. According to a respected Russian journalist, Mr Putin “flew into a rage” and warned that “if Ukraine joins nato, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.” America ignored Moscow’s red line, however, and pushed forward to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. That strategy included two other elements: bringing Ukraine closer to the eu and making it a pro-American democracy.

These efforts eventually sparked hostilities in February 2014, after an uprising (which was supported by America) caused Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to flee the country. In response, Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and helped fuel a civil war that broke out in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

The next major confrontation came in December 2021 and led directly to the current war. The main cause was that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of nato. The process started in December 2017, when the Trump administration decided to sell Kyiv “defensive weapons”. What counts as “defensive” is hardly clear-cut, however, and these weapons certainly looked offensive to Moscow and its allies in the Donbas region. Other nato countries got in on the act, shipping weapons to Ukraine, training its armed forces and allowing it to participate in joint air and naval exercises. In July 2021, Ukraine and America co-hosted a major naval exercise in the Black Sea region involving navies from 32 countries. Operation Sea Breeze almost provoked Russia to fire at a British naval destroyer that deliberately entered what Russia considers its territorial waters.

The links between Ukraine and America continued growing under the Biden administration. This commitment is reflected throughout an important document—the “us-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership”—that was signed in November by Antony Blinken, America’s secretary of state, and Dmytro Kuleba, his Ukrainian counterpart. The aim was to “underscore … a commitment to Ukraine’s implementation of the deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.” The document explicitly builds on “the commitments made to strengthen the Ukraine-u.s. strategic partnership by Presidents Zelensky and Biden,” and also emphasises that the two countries will be guided by the “2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration.

Unsurprisingly, Moscow found this evolving situation intolerable and began mobilising its army on Ukraine’s border last spring to signal its resolve to Washington. But it had no effect, as the Biden administration continued to move closer to Ukraine. This led Russia to precipitate a full-blown diplomatic stand-off in December. As Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, put it: “We reached our boiling point.” Russia demanded a written guarantee that Ukraine would never become a part of nato and that the alliance remove the military assets it had deployed in eastern Europe since 1997. The subsequent negotiations failed, as Mr Blinken made clear: “There is no change. There will be no change.” A month later Mr Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine to eliminate the threat he saw from nato.

This interpretation of events is at odds with the prevailing mantra in the West, which portrays nato expansion as irrelevant to the Ukraine crisis, blaming instead Mr Putin’s expansionist goals. According to a recent nato document sent to Russian leaders, “nato is a defensive Alliance and poses no threat to Russia.” The available evidence contradicts these claims. For starters, the issue at hand is not what Western leaders say nato’s purpose or intentions are; it is how Moscow sees nato’s actions.

Mr Putin surely knows that the costs of conquering and occupying large amounts of territory in eastern Europe would be prohibitive for Russia. As he once put it, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” His beliefs about the tight bonds between Russia and Ukraine notwithstanding, trying to take back all of Ukraine would be like trying to swallow a porcupine. Furthermore, Russian policymakers—including Mr Putin—have said hardly anything about conquering new territory to recreate the Soviet Union or build a greater Russia. Rather, since the 2008 Bucharest summit Russian leaders have repeatedly said that they view Ukraine joining nato as an existential threat that must be prevented. As Mr Lavrov noted in January, “the key to everything is the guarantee that nato will not expand eastward.”

Tellingly, Western leaders rarely described Russia as a military threat to Europe before 2014. As America’s former ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes, Mr Putin’s seizure of Crimea was not planned for long; it was an impulsive move in response to the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader. In fact, until then, nato expansion was aimed at turning all of Europe into a giant zone of peace, not containing a dangerous Russia. Once the crisis started, however, American and European policymakers could not admit they had provoked it by trying to integrate Ukraine into the West. They declared the real source of the problem was Russia’s revanchism and its desire to dominate if not conquer Ukraine.

My story about the conflict’s causes should not be controversial, given that many prominent American foreign-policy experts have warned against nato expansion since the late 1990s. America’s secretary of defence at the time of the Bucharest summit, Robert Gates, recognised that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into nato was truly overreaching”. Indeed, at that summit, both the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, were opposed to moving forward on nato membership for Ukraine because they feared it would infuriate Russia.

The upshot of my interpretation is that we are in an extremely dangerous situation, and Western policy is exacerbating these risks. For Russia’s leaders, what happens in Ukraine has little to do with their imperial ambitions being thwarted; it is about dealing with what they regard as a direct threat to Russia’s future. Mr Putin may have misjudged Russia’s military capabilities, the effectiveness of the Ukrainian resistance and the scope and speed of the Western response, but one should never underestimate how ruthless great powers can be when they believe they are in dire straits. America and its allies, however, are doubling down, hoping to inflict a humiliating defeat on Mr Putin and to maybe even trigger his removal. They are increasing aid to Ukraine while using economic sanctions to inflict massive punishment on Russia, a step that Putin now sees as “akin to a declaration of war”.

America and its allies may be able to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine, but the country will be gravely damaged, if not dismembered. Moreover, there is a serious threat of escalation beyond Ukraine, not to mention the danger of nuclear war. If the West not only thwarts Moscow on Ukraine’s battlefields, but also does serious, lasting damage to Russia’s economy, it is in effect pushing a great power to the brink. Mr Putin might then turn to nuclear weapons.

At this point it is impossible to know the terms on which this conflict will be settled. But, if we do not understand its deep cause, we will be unable to end it before Ukraine is wrecked and nato ends up in a war with Russia. ■

John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom