Jump to content

Kiev Is Burning


X-Files

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not disagreeing. But I suspect Yeltsin standing on a tank 2 years previously was also technically breaking the law. :)

There is something suspect about condemning a man who did more than anyone else to try to make Russia a Democracy. It's too easy, and pays no heed to the reactionary forces he was struggling agains, which were curbed even more brutality by Putin. Yes, Yeltsin broke the law, no argument. But I'm not sure there was an alternative.

I read a book by Peter Pomerantsev that suggested the media was (very) briefly free, then captured by the Oligarchs whom used it as a weapon against Yeltsin. Then when they similarly used it against Putin, he clobbered them. Thats why most of Russia's media is now in Kremlin hands.

interesting example, the Russian version of Spitting Image, Koekly, was taken off air after they took the piss out of Putin. The creator recently fled to the west.

https://deciliiter.com/satirist-shenderovich-known-for-the-russian-spitting-image-flees-russia/

Were there actually any russian election which would change russian president or central government to man/party not already chosen/determined by ruling president/government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    14452

  • Stuart Galbraith

    9942

  • glenn239

    4654

  • Josh

    3422

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, Pavel Novak said:

Were there actually any russian election which would change russian president or central government to man/party not already chosen/determined by ruling president/government?

Yeltsin second election was touch and go, he had to bring in American spin doctors to swing it. Roman is still annoyed about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not disagreeing. But I suspect Yeltsin standing on a tank 2 years previously was also technically breaking the law. :)

I don't know if he did, I do know that his opponents back then certainly broke it bigtime - it was a military coup attempt, after all.

And it was not like Yeltsin had much of the popular opinion behind him in 1993 anymore.

I am surprised by your defence of Yeltsin here, as nary a week ago you said that Putin should have jailed him.

 

Edited by Yama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Does it matter 😂 the Russians have claimed it! Who cares that it may be rubble or not.

I think AFU has acknowledged that half of the city is in Russian hands as well. Seems likely what's left will fall within the next day or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, P Lakowski said:

looks like things are looking up for U/A or should it be the RAF?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-himars-rocket-systems-can-and-cant-do-for-ukraine

This isn't some sort of game changer that people are hyping about. Will it help the UA? Sure. Will it turn the tide? Not really. If you look back a few weeks, there was a lot of hoorah about the M777s the US sent to Ukraine and how that was going to stomp the Russians. Before that it was the Switchblade. Before that....

Well, I think you get my point lol. 

Edited by crazyinsane105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. It's an internet opinion, man - take it for what it's worth

b. It's perceived as a huge help. Whether it objectively is, is debatable -but you made your point a few days ago already, with pretty much the exact same words; makes me wonder why combatting this opinion is so important to you...

I for one am glad that at least the US are capable and willing to support the Ukrainians materially, rather than just with warm words of encouragement and a fig leaf of token effort (looking at my own government, here). What irritates me the heck are people arguing that a quick surrender is Ukraine's best option, and that Putin surely will be merciful. (Not saying that you're one of them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

a. It's an internet opinion, man - take it for what it's worth

b. It's perceived as a huge help. Whether it objectively is, is debatable -but you made your point a few days ago already, with pretty much the exact same words; makes me wonder why combatting this opinion is so important to you...

I for one am glad that at least the US are capable and willing to support the Ukrainians materially, rather than just with warm words of encouragement and a fig leaf of token effort (looking at my own government, here). What irritates me the heck are people arguing that a quick surrender is Ukraine's best option, and that Putin surely will be merciful. (Not saying that you're one of them.)

I feel like it may be worth the trouble to actually try and obtain Smerch and Uragan systems from other countries rather than plopping yet another Western made piece of equipment that will take even more time for the Ukrainians to train on (time that they are more or less running out of). Or if we are going to give them an MRLS from our stocks, maybe do so in large enough quantities that it will make a strategic difference? I don’t see a few dozen making a difference, similar to the M777s. I’m surprised we didn’t send hundreds of them with their digital fire control system intact. We sent 90 and a number were stripped down. 

I feel like there is a significant half a*sed effort happening here unfortunately. We are giving enough to cause pain to the Russians, but not enough to actually stop them. Of course the US is doing a lot more than other countries, but it doesn’t seem to be anywhere to the extent I thought it would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

a. It's an internet opinion, man - take it for what it's worth

b. It's perceived as a huge help. Whether it objectively is, is debatable -but you made your point a few days ago already, with pretty much the exact same words; makes me wonder why combatting this opinion is so important to you...

I for one am glad that at least the US are capable and willing to support the Ukrainians materially, rather than just with warm words of encouragement and a fig leaf of token effort (looking at my own government, here). What irritates me the heck are people arguing that a quick surrender is Ukraine's best option, and that Putin surely will be merciful. (Not saying that you're one of them.)

THAT is definitely one of my concerns I worry every one has forgotten the past and a whole new set of cluster f@#ks are in the works.

Quote

"crazyinsane105"..

.i agree and i though the "back filling" could be  made to work as boosting eastern NATO countries  in exchange for more appropriate older RUSSIAN KIT for UKRAINE that can be integrated right now.

 

I've had a number of tankers insisting they could train Ukrainian crew to function in their tank in "no time flat" I guess as long as they have experience  in tank warfare they too can make that transition.

Edited by P Lakowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, P Lakowski said:

THAT is definitely one of my concerns I worry every one has forgotten the past and a whole new set of cluster f@#ks are in the works.

.i agree and i though the "back filling" could be  made to work as boosting eastern NATO countries  in exchange for more appropriate older RUSSIAN KIT for UKRAINE that can be integrated right now.

I haven't read into the specific wording of the 40 billion dollars aid to Ukraine, but it seems to be geared only towards US companies that will supply whatever is needed. This unfortunately leaves out the possibility that older Russian or Soviet kit from other countries can be purchased and immediately put into use. For example, Kuwait and UAE have a decent number of Soviet MRLS, and hundreds of spare rockets just literally sitting in their bases. They have no immediate enemy in which they actually NEED it against right now. Why isn't there more effort to try and obtain them, and utilize some cash from the 40 billion aid money? Pakistan has 320 upgraded T-80UD's, which would make a massive impact on the battlefield. Lift some of the sanctions against them and pay triple what a T-80 is worth, and trust me, they'll gladly get rid of them and purchase more VT-4's from China. There, we have armed Ukraine with a significant number of MRLS and tanks that can truly threaten Russian hold in Kherson, or turn around the Russian advance in east Ukraine.

My point is, there is Russian/Soviet kit that is sitting around in other country's arsenals, and this 40 billion aid money can be used to purchase it for a lot more than what it's worth, and give a better result to the Ukrainians. I'm just a little bewildered as to why this isn't happening. Instead we are giving them equipment that is taking time for the UA to train on, and in small quantities. That's why I'm a bit cynical towards all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

 

b. It's perceived as a huge help. Whether it objectively is, is debatable -but you made your point a few days ago already, with pretty much the exact same words; makes me wonder why combatting this opinion is so important to you...

Because the point of the supply is to allow Ukraine to win the war, and if the weapons sent will not change the outcome, but will cause modern weapons proliferation to groups that are not friendly to the West, then what are we doing?

Quote

I for one am glad that at least the US are capable and willing to support the Ukrainians materially, rather than just with warm words of encouragement and a fig leaf of token effort (looking at my own government, here).

The point of a policy is to achieve a desired aim, an end state.  It's not a feel good exercise.  If the US support does not cause Ukraine to win the war, then that support was not only  useless to the outcome, it will have actually caused Ukraine to be even more destroyed than it would have if the war were shorter. 

Quote

What irritates me the heck are people arguing that a quick surrender is Ukraine's best option, and that Putin surely will be merciful. (Not saying that you're one of them.)

83% of Ukrainians want to fight on rather than make a deal.  Now, given Eastern European polls, that probably translates to maybe 65% in actual fact.  But still certainly a majority.  So the war must continue.  But, if the popular support for war in Ukrainewere to  fall below 50%, then it will be time to help Ukraine look for other options. 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

For example, Kuwait and UAE have a decent number of Soviet MRLS, and hundreds of spare rockets just literally sitting in their bases. They have no immediate enemy in which they actually NEED it against right now. Why isn't there more effort to try and obtain them, and utilize some cash from the 40 billion aid money? Pakistan has 320 upgraded T-80UD's, which would make a massive impact on the battlefield. Lift some of the sanctions against them and pay triple what a T-80 is worth, and trust me, they'll gladly get rid of them and purchase more VT-4's from China. There, we have armed Ukraine with a significant number of MRLS and tanks that can truly threaten Russian hold in Kherson, or turn around the Russian advance in east Ukraine.

One problem might be that many countries with the correct equipment for Ukraine might have no actual interest in the outcome of the war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

One problem might be that many countries with the correct equipment for Ukraine might have no actual interest in the outcome of the war.  

Which is fine, but many won’t mind selling their equipment if paid much more than what it’s worth, and if other political concessions take place. 

Instead we have a 40 billion dollar aid package that seems to be more geared towards helping our own arms industry rather than getting badly needed equipment to the UA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Which is fine, but many won’t mind selling their equipment if paid much more than what it’s worth, and if other political concessions take place. 

Instead we have a 40 billion dollar aid package that seems to be more geared towards helping our own arms industry rather than getting badly needed equipment to the UA. 

You are asking other countries to sell their equipment now with the prospect of replacing it in the future. If the Pakistanis sell their T80UDs now how long will they have to stay without tanks till newly made ones arrive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yama said:

I don't know if he did, I do know that his opponents back then certainly broke it bigtime - it was a military coup attempt, after all.

And it was not like Yeltsin had much of the popular opinion behind him in 1993 anymore.

I am surprised by your defence of Yeltsin here, as nary a week ago you said that Putin should have jailed him.

 

So he should. IF Putin was a reformer, which he was not in any sense of the word.

By way of example, Im full of admiration of President Richard Milhous Nixon. He got America out of Vietnam, got peace with China, got peace with the USSR, saved Israel and avoided a nuclear war. Not to mention other achievements like enhancing Native American rights (or at least disposed to that end) and giving America its first environmental protection agency. Against all that, he was clearly trying to subvert the freedom of the press, he was clearly taking backhanders from companies like ITT, clearly he was complicit in Watergate and clearly should have been jailed. If it wasnt for watergate, he would be regarded as the best American President since Kennedy, probably rightly.

Similarly, im perfectly capable of lauding the things Yeltsin got right. That does not mean he wasnt corrupt, and doesnt mean, if Russia was not an imperfect Democracy (as it was at the time) he shouldnt have been jailed for it. But the story is Yeltsin's daughter got a deal with the FSB (or maybe even just Putin) to be covered from corruption charges, if they just pushed Putin forward as a candidate. The rest is history. Its always been a personal opinion of mine that Yeltsins farewell address was less an apology for his mistakes, which were many, and rather more for foisting Putin and co on Russia. Which if so was surely no less than he should have done.

There is no contradiction there. Even Stalin got some things right after all.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RULES OF WAR FOR RUSSIAN SOLDIERS IN UKRAINE

Serviceman,

in the performance of military service duties and special (combat) tasks

REMEMBER

During an armed conflict, the norms of humanity must be respected even in relation to the enemy. These norms are contained in international humanitarian law (mainly in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols).

PROTECTED PERSONS:

Whenever the situation allows, pick up all the wounded and sick (including representatives of the enemy side) and take care of them

It is forbidden to take hostages and use “human shields”

It is forbidden to use torture, corporal punishment, mutilation, mockery of human dignity, collective punishments and punishments without a proper judicial decision

PROTECTED OBJECTS:

It is prohibited to destroy, export or render unusable objects necessary for the survival of the civilian population

It is forbidden to rob the property of the civilian population

It is forbidden to cause large-scale, long-term and serious damage to the environment

PROTECTION OF MEDICAL MISSIONS:

The distinctive emblems of the Red Cross should be respected in all circumstances. It is forbidden to commit any actions aimed at diminishing respect and protection in relation to them

Medical facilities, personnel, equipment and sanitary vehicles must be respected and protected under all circumstances.

THE CONDUCT OF MILITARY ACTIONS:

Civilian objects and civilians should not be the object of attack

It is necessary to take all possible precautions when determining whether a person or object is civilian. In case of doubt, it should be assumed that the person or object is protected from direct attack

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited

Attacks that are likely to cause accidental civilian casualties or damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the expected concrete and directly military advantage

It is forbidden to kill or injure a combatant (a person from the armed forces who takes part in an armed conflict (with the exception of medical and spiritual personnel) who is under your control, unable to defend himself or has clearly expressed his intention to surrender

It is necessary to take all possible precautions to protect the controlled civilian population and civilian objects from the consequences of attacks

Failure to comply with any of the above requirements may result in disciplinary or criminal liability

If you have any questions, please contact the legal adviser of the commander of the military unit.

note-1.jpg

note-2.jpg

https://southfront.org/rules-of-war-for-russian-soldiers-in-ukraine/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chancellor Olaf Scholz announces delivery of IRIS-T SLM air defense systems to Ukraine.

ETA: Likely a unit of three launchers originally to be delivered to Egypt this year. Also, artillery radar to go with the Dutch and German PzH 2000.

Edited by BansheeOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...