What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Find myself in agreement with Meirsheimer. My only objection would be the use of the "West". It seems that France, Germany and other European countries had enough sense to foresee what further eastward expansion would entail. It's the reckless and arrogant push from the US that caused this mess. Merkel, Sarkozy knew European history and the balance of power order.
 
Bennet is one weird guy. He told Zelensky to surrender flatout. Dude Russia seeks the territory to create novorossiya and push out the Ukrainian ethnics. It is like telling the British to surrender to the germans back in 1939


Not true

Ukraine deny report Bennett recommended yielding to Russian demands


LVIV, Ukraine, March 12 (Reuters) - A top Ukrainian adviser and an Israeli official on Saturday pushed back against a media report suggesting Israel tried to nudge Ukraine into caving to Russian demands during talks.

Israel has been engaged in diplomatic efforts to try to end the war in Ukraine. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has held talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and spoke by phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.


A senior Israeli official, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, called the report "patently false".

"At no point did Prime Minister Bennett advise President Zelenskiy to take a deal from Putin - because no such deal was offered to Israel for us to be able to do so," the official said.

"Bennett has at no point told Zelenskiy how to act, nor does he have any intention to."

 
"The Fifth Service was responsible for providing Putin with intelligence on political developments in Ukraine on the eve of the invasion. And it looks like two weeks into the war, it finally dawned on Putin that he was completely misled. The department, fearful of his responses, seems to have told Putin what he wanted to hear."
.... This is the problem with most draconian authoritarian leaders.... They are often told everything is fine by yes men because honest feedback is feared as there may be reprisal by the dictator who can't hear the critical truth...
seems that a certain self proclaimed 100% western liberal capitalist democracy in South Asia also has this problem.
 
1647081783623.png


1647081912349.png

POM-2 spotted in Ukraine.

For those that don't know what a POM 2 is, it is a type of mine banned by the Ottawa Treaty since 1997 - here is a video of the mine in operation.

 
Well, it depends on what kind of Battlefield Information Support you have. General goes up front is not at all a valid option because General is the person who stand behind the entire operation. When you are in that particular Part of Battlefield, you only able to see how that part of battlefield doing, if you are the guy who plan the whole thing, you need to look at the Big Picture. Which is something you will not get when you are standing at the frontline.

It may make sense for Iranian Army or Hezbollah to have the General to be as close to the front as possible because their Battlespace Awareness is most certainly lower than Russia or US or even non-existence, you don't have a lot of Satellite, ISTAR asset, Joint Intelligence Service asset to provide you with the latest movement on the ground within your AO, maybe you need to move closer to the front, but Russia are very much in a matured state of all those, General Staff don't really need to go up to the front line and risk getting shot for information.

Professional Force in the East (Russia, China) and West (US UK, France) do not depend on "Morale" factor the general give you, we are not fighting in medieval time when leading up front and charge is one of the valid strategy to attack your enemy. In fact, when a general come into the frontline and started to kick your ***, that's where you know your advance is not going anywhere.

Think of it like this, there are generally 10-20 Theater General deployed with the troop in battle, that's 20 brains at most to all battle related decision, they lost 4 (or 25-40%) of that brain. That's a big lost in case you are wondering.

well soldier boy. I dont know what army you have served in. But there are very few soldiers who enjoy some officer sitting comfortably behind his desk and send them on dangerous missions.

infact many over ambitious american field seargants were "fragged" in vietnam . (had a grenade thrown into their tent at night) from disgruntled soldiers who didnt want to put their lives on the line on dangerous missions to advance that guys career. Let alone desk jockeys sitting in air conditioned rooms..

It is well documented that Russian officers are taking a front line role. regardless of your opinion of the matter. I can assure you with 100% certainty that the fatalities are not because ukies overran russian positions and killed the general in his office. that is laughable.

The reason the US can get away with it. Is because they sit an ocean away. with mexico/canada being their border neighbours. And they can afford to pick and choose their battles at the exact time they want. And overwhelm a weak enemy with superior resources.
 
Find myself in agreement with Meirsheimer. My only objection would be the use of the "West". It seems that France, Germany and other European countries had enough sense to foresee what further eastward expansion would entail. It's the reckless and arrogant push from the US that caused this mess. Merkel, Sarkozy knew European history and the balance of power order.
Then why did Russia not create a successor to the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO?

A country must PETITION for NATO membership. Now, you can argue that NATO made offhanded remarks that hinted at membership and that would constitute 'expansion'. But that does not negate the fact that a country must ask for membership and that NATO can refuse. So why did Russia not create a successor to the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom