Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion



Shame there’s no immunity for Russian legislators like there is in civilized countries.
 
Sir Matt said:


Shame there’s no immunity for Russian legislators like there is in civilized countries.
Click to expand...


I'm sure these guys will get a complimentary tea or expedited transportation to the ground floor of their office buildings.
 
  • The European Commission has urged EU states to reassess the terms on which they grant visas to Russian travellers and to root out applicants that pose a security threat. “We should not be naive, Putin’s aim is to destroy the EU and he would like to attack us where we are weakest,” the EU home affairs commissioner, Ylva Johansson, said on Friday.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...atest-what-we-know-on-day-199-of-the-invasion

===========

"We should not be naive, Putin’s aim is to destroy the EU"... no shite Sherlock!...
 
Simbo said:
@harms Anything in this?
Click to expand...

It’s legit but municipal deputies don’t hold any political power — they can install a bench in a park, that kind of stuff.


Sir Matt said:


Shame there’s no immunity for Russian legislators like there is in civilized countries.
Click to expand...

This tweet is wrong though. They’re not in Duma, those are municipal deputies — they’ve sent that request to Duma, although knowing full well that it won’t amount to anything.

All 7 deputies already have been accused of discrediting the army (which is now a legal offense), thankfully it looks like it’s an administrative case and not a criminal one — at least for now.
 
Last edited:
Ukrainians in the city of Kupyansk, not clear so far how much of it is taken back but we should learn soon enough.

 
Word on the street is that Izium has been abandoned by RF forces which are either frantically retreating to Luhansk direction under heavy fire of Ukrainian forces or surrendering en masse. Confirmations should follow later but fingers crossed.
 
McGrathsipan said:
Is this going to last years?
Click to expand...
Sorry but what kind of question is that atm? It's going to last as long as it's needed to liberate all of Ukraine and throw the Orcs into the bin - seeing how fast the advances are going atm it's weird to assume it's taking years.
 
JuriM said:
Sorry but what kind of question is that atm? It's going to last as long as it's needed to liberate all of Ukraine and throw the Orcs into the bin - seeing how fast the advances are going atm it's weird to assume it's taking years.
Click to expand...

Sorry its a poorly put question.
What I mean is even if Ukraine take back occupied territory will Russia just keep rearming and keep coming back?
Is the whole war likely to last years
 
McGrathsipan said:
Sorry its a poorly put question.
What I mean is even if Ukraine take back occupied territory will Russia just keep rearming and keep coming back?
Is the whole war likely to last years
Click to expand...
There are historical precedents. Soviets were 10 years in Afghanistan for example. These things can potentially last years and there's already been experts saying this will at least continue in 2023.

So to answer your question: we can't say for sure, but it wouldn't necessarily be surprising if it indeed lasts years.
 
I wonder how this offensive compares historically to other blitz types of advancements speed wise , since ww2.
 
Raoul said:
Brilliant comedy

Click to expand...


I could see Russia resorting to chemical weapons soon. Assad got away with it and Syria wasn't even a nuclear power.
 
The Firestarter said:
I wonder how this offensive compares historically to other blitz types of advancements speed wise , since ww2.
Click to expand...
My guess is that, due to technology advances and completely broken enemy, they are moving more quickly than earlier armies. Could be wrong, of course.
 
The Firestarter said:
Except Asad used them against civilians , I do think the UAF have better protective gear for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what if he unleashes them in a city where there are tons of civilians as well?
 
Bosnian_fan said:
My guess is that, due to technology advances and completely broken enemy, they are moving more quickly than earlier armies. Could be wrong, of course.
Click to expand...
Hard to beat Desert Storm in that regard. The used technology hasn't advanced since those days
 
The Firestarter said:
Then the whole world sees he is a terrorist, without achieving any tactical objective.
Click to expand...

They already do. If he knows he can get away with it, why wouldn't he? The tactical objective would be to "not lose". Ukraine doesnt have a deterrent against WMD's and that kind of stuff.
 
Gehrman said:
They already do. If he knows he can get away with it, why wouldn't he? The tactical objective would be to "not lose". Ukraine doesnt have a deterrent against WMD's and that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
That’s where US steps in, they have already mentioned (?) that any use of nukes on Ukraine will be met with equal countermeasures. I think they only need to announce it and Russia won’t dear to even think about it.
 
Gehrman said:
They already do. If he knows he can get away with it, why wouldn't he?
Click to expand...
I dont think he can get away with it. Almost nobody will want to do business with Russia until he goes , even after the war. Also, in the short term the US will start sending even more advanced weaponry, and some nato members such as Poland may say feck it and join in by themselves.
 
Gehrman said:
They already do. If he knows he can get away with it, why wouldn't he? The tactical objective would be to "not lose". Ukraine doesnt have a deterrent against WMD's and that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...
But what would it actually achieve apart from making Ukrainians even more motivated to fight? Russia's main troubles steam from exactly that, they seem to focus more on killing civilians which achieves absolutely nothing, rather than trying to defeat Ukraine's army. Them using weapons like this would definitely mean they have already lost a war.
 
Rajma said:
That’s where US steps in, they have already mentioned (?) that any use of nukes on Ukraine will be met with equal countermeasures. I think they only need to announce it and Russia won’t dear to even think about it.
Click to expand...

Biden said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons if Russia does. So what is the US going to do? The US and Nato countries have made it abundantly clear they don't want to be in hot war with Russia over Ukraine.
 
dove said:
But what would it actually achieve apart from making Ukrainians even more motivated to fight? Russia's main troubles steam from exactly that, they seem to focus more on killing civilians which achieves absolutely nothing, rather than trying to defeat Ukraine's army. Them using weapons like this would definitely mean they have already lost a war.
Click to expand...

To sow the feeling that Ukraine can't win because Russia can Punish Ukraine in ways Ukraine can't punish Russia.
 
Gehrman said:
Biden said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons if Russia does. So what is the US going to do? The US and Nato countries have made it abundantly clear they don't want to be in hot war with Russia over Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Well Truzz can be that person then, she’s very hawkish regarding Ukraine. It only requires one public statement.
 
Gehrman said:
Biden said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons if Russia does. So what is the US going to do? The US and Nato countries have made it abundantly clear they don't want to be in hot war with Russia over Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Saying they wouldn't retaliate with nukes doesn't mean they won't go hot war with Russia. Nuclear escalation is what they have made clear they don't want, nobody wants. Fortunately NATO doesn't need nukes to neutralise Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.