Russian Troop Movements Reported Near Ukraine

[HectortheInspector]

ISW report from yesterday.

Instead of trying large encirclements and reductions, they are advancing slowly by micro encirclements, but rushing the twin cities in Lugansk.
They are making progress, but there seems to be an element of recklessness.

IMHO they know they are burning through their last reserves, and know that taking all of Lugansk will be 'enough' of a gain (I won't call it a 'win') to declare victory and seek a ceasefire, and hope Ukraine's Western partners pressure it to accept.

Institute for the Study of War

Russian forces began direct assaults on Severodonetsk on May 27 despite not yet having fully encircled the town. Russian forces have performed poorly in operations in built-up urban terrain throughout the war to date and are unlikely to be able to

www.understandingwar.org

 

[Yokel]

If Ukraine hadn’t held an illegal coup, replacing their elected President without following the constitutional provisions setting out a legal pathway to doing so, none of this would have happened either..

So removing a political leader justifies invasion by a hostile power that had him in their pocket?

Yanukovych may well have been corrupt, thuggish, and possibly a murderer. However, it’s very clear that he was legitimately and democratically elected*, and it’s equally as clear that in removing him, the Ukrainian parliament failed to follow constitutionally mandated procedure.
The Ukrainian constitution set out how he could be impeached or replaced, there was no need for a coup as there was a democratic pathway to his removal - On top of this, an agreement had been made with (elected) opposition politicians for an early presidential election in November 2014. This process was, quite simply, not followed.


*In free and fair elections, as widely accepted at the time: Yanukovych set to become president as observers say Ukraine election was fair

Can any election subject to massive Russian interference be considered free and fair?

The Nazis won elections in the 1930s. does that mean it was unconstitutional for the allies to seek the destruction of the Third Reich?

 

[Lardbeast]

Claymore backblast destroys your drone.
Instead, Drone drops grenade/mortar bomb. Comes back. Reload, rinse and repeat.
Much more cost effective.

Precisely. Sacrificial, as @Joshua Slocum has mentioned. Small concussive charge or something with teeth?

Cost would be a bit steep though and the little ones are pretty near worthless in the role. Aerial delivery more economically sound than kamikaze.

 

[tim-nicebut-dim]

So removing a political leader justifies invasion by a hostile power that had him in their pocket?



Can any election subject to massive Russian interference be considered free and fair?

The Nazis won elections in the 1930s. does that mean it was unconstitutional for the allies to seek the destruction of the Third Reich?

Jeepers - just place the troll on ignore and move on.

Yanukovych was Pootins puppet, just like Lukashenko in Belarus - elections rigged. True, the RUS invasion of UKR would never have happened because Yanuk would have simply ceded to RUS whatever regions the Kremlin wanted.

 

[labrat]

Nice to see a popular uprising of the people labeled a coup, conveniently discounting that he started murdering his own electorate.

Another much repeated ‘fact’ that remains disputed not only in legitimate and impartial media circles:



But in academic circles too:

Loading...

www.researchgate.net

For having the insolence to demonstrate against his 180 turn in respect of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement without bothering to give them a say.

Actually, if you had bothered to check your facts, you would realise it was the prime minister, Mykolaiv Azarov, who sought reassessment of the EU association agreement, after the Ukrainian Parliament failed to ratify steps to free the former Prime Minister, Yuliana Tymshenko from prison, which the EU had made into a precondition

Ukraine drops EU plans

In dramatic turnaround, government says it is suspending trade pact preparations and talking to Russia again.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[labrat]

So removing a political leader justifies invasion by a hostile power that had him in their pocket?



Can any election subject to massive Russian interference be considered free and fair?

The Nazis won elections in the 1930s. does that mean it was unconstitutional for the allies to seek the destruction of the Third Reich?

I literally linked you to the article reporting that the OSCE confirmed the election was free and fair.

 

[Simpering Civvie]

I don't think you are correct

Had the west stood up to Putin then he would have just paused a little longer before taking another territorial nibble

Putin was always going to continue to annex former Soviet territories

The only way to have stopped him would have been war, if he can claim victory of some form in Ukraine then he will simply repeat the process time and time again

Poland are probably the only ones who grasp the inevitability of it

War between NATO and Russia is probably now unavoidable unless either Putin dies or his army is utterly destroyed

I think this is wrong. Russians are not stupid, and have a society that is dominated by fear and power.
Russians never ever attack opponents they believe are strong. In fact strength is the only thing they respect, and explains why they have never attacked hegemonic powers like the U.K. and US.

It’s my strong opinion that if the U.K. and US, as signatories of the Budapest memorandum, had stood up to Putin in 2014, either through crippling sanctions or as legal security guarantors of Ukraine, that would have been the end of it. Our silence completely changed his risk calculus, and Afghanistan and Biden only confirmed his view that we were weak.

Edit: it’s worth people rewatching the video lecture by the Finnish intelligence colonel on the Russian mentality again. He goes into detail on why various Russian leaders for decades have sought to attack weakness and avoid strength. There’s an English version on the Triggernometry YouTube channel too.

 

[Simpering Civvie]

Not strictly true.

Many Western European countries chose to side with Russia - as the had been doing for years - in order to return to 'business as usual' in dealings with Russia.

You will note that in my post I said “pure moral cowardice and greed”

 

[Blogg]

Germany has been Russia's #1 enabler by an order of magnitude.

Polish that turd all you like, but it stands true across economics, diplomacy and politics.

You are exhibiting the deeply disingenuous German mindset in your posts. This is a situation enabled by Germany more than any other country.

Speaking of which:

 

[Graculus]

Another much repeated ‘fact’ that remains disputed not only in legitimate and impartial media circles:

The expected Gish Gallop and hooky vids.

Putin apologist does pro Putin research paper shock.

Which perfectly illustrates the moral vacuum that the intellectual left finds itself in. His paper being a stream of consciousness rendition of "and another thing" repeating the Gish Galloping and relying on dodgy conclusions absent of professional analysis, full of assertions he's not qualified to make and it's quite hard to follow. Whether deliberate or as a result of his broken brain it's hard to say.

However, the sounds of gunshots in the specific moments when Kemsky and other protesters in the area were killed indicate use of rifles or shotguns, because these shots resembled sounds of whips and not shorter sounds of AK assault rifles that the special company of the Berkut was shooting from.

That's absolute horse manure isn't it?

He's had to revise it several times to remove outright lies. It's bollocks, which you grasp onto tightly.

 

[Simpering Civvie]

Probably because your post is hugely over-simplified and not as correct as you think it is.

You expect me to write a treatise on Crimea on a forum post?

It is a simple fact that Putin or any Russian administration will never give up Crimea. A lot of the Ukrainian political class also recognise this. The only way to get it back is a total defeat of the Russian state, and to engage in reverse-ethnic-cleansing to remove the Russians already there. A cursory glance of Russian nuclear doctrine would tell you that this scenario is one where they are very likely to use nuclear weapons.

 

[kandak01]

If Ukraine hadn’t held an illegal coup, replacing their elected President without following the constitutional provisions setting out a legal pathway to doing so, none of this would have happened either..

AIUI, this invasion would have happened.
Putin and his ambition has little to do with internal Ukrainian corruption etc., and far more to do with a psychopathic worldview about greater Russia

 

[Lindermyer]

Speaking of which:

Do we still have Jigs for Challeger?

Happen theres a Challenger 3 export oppertunity

 

[Sadurian]

Speaking of which:

I wonder if the Poles would be interested in purchasing Challenger 3 instead of Leopards?

It would be rather delicious Schadenfreude for Germany's reluctance to export Leopards* to result long-term in Poland looking elsewhere for their MBTs.

Germany worked hard to become the European NATO MBT supplier of choice; it would be rather sticky for Scholz's political legacy were he to be Chancellor who made foreign countries wary of becoming reliant on German decisions to export their tanks.


*Well, Scholz's reluctance, really.


[ beaten by Lindemyer by a couple of minutes. Great minds and all that (or fools never differ)].

 

[Deleted 139028]

Just scroll by. Most of the dross in here is a combination of people responding to the mong and people whining about other people cluttering up the thread.

Let it go FFS

Sometimes you just can't.

 

[Trashman]

*if* that had happened, then you may have had a point.

But it didn’t

It’s a bit like like saying “what if Boris Johnson suspends Parliament in order to stay in office forever”.

Didn't he already try that when he prorogued parliament illegally?

 

[Deleted 139028]

I think this is wrong. Russians are not stupid, and have a society that is dominated by fear and power.
Russians never ever attack opponents they believe are strong. In fact strength is the only thing they respect, and explains why they have never attacked hegemonic powers like the U.K. and US.

It’s my strong opinion that if the U.K. and US, as signatories of the Budapest memorandum, had stood up to Putin in 2014, either through crippling sanctions or as legal security guarantors of Ukraine, that would have been the end of it. Our silence completely changed his risk calculus, and Afghanistan and Biden only confirmed his view that we were weak.

Edit: it’s worth people rewatching the video lecture by the Finnish intelligence colonel on the Russian mentality again. He goes into detail on why various Russian leaders for decades have sought to attack weakness and avoid strength. There’s an English version on the Triggernometry YouTube channel too.

What you describe is a bully, surely not in bastard russias case, surely not?

 

[Deleted 139028]

I wonder if the Poles would be interested in purchasing Challenger 3 instead of Leopards?

It would be rather delicious Schadenfreude for Germany's reluctance to export Leopards* to result long-term in Poland looking elsewhere for their MBTs.

Germany worked hard to become the European NATO MBT supplier of choice; it would be rather sticky for Scholz's political legacy were he to be Chancellor who made foreign countries wary of becoming reliant on German decisions to export their tanks.


*Well, Scholz's reluctance, really.


[ beaten by Lindemyer by a couple of minutes. Great minds and all that (or fools never differ)].

An ntersting thought, unfortunately not one that would help Ukraine for many years though.

 

[Zemlyak]

Being out of the country on official business or on holiday with a designated deputy/assistant/successor in place to deal with any matters arising is commonplace.

But that was not the case in respect of Yanukovych.

In physical and geigraphical terms, he fled the country. In political terms he removed himself from office.



There was no President to impeach.

You really do seem to be struggling with this basic reality.

Or are you deliberately trying to rewrite history?



But since there was no President, nor a Prime Minister, nor a Speaker of Parliament, all of that is irrelevant.



Yes, removing himself was indeed most inconvenient.

I suspect it was a deliberate ploy to destabilize the country by paralyzing governance at the most crucial point. It failed because he didn't count on MPs of his own party working to unparalyze the crisis. He expected them to block any attempts to elect a speaker and so on.

I admire your willingness to lay all these facts and point out the circumstances of Yanukovych’s flight and why the due process laid out in the constitution wouldn’t work to @labrat.

Especially as this has all been done before by other posters on numerous occasions

Larbrat is a mix of Emcon and KGB. Oblivious to facts and the context and circumstances.

 

[syrup]

Serious Question

How do you lose 116 Cruise Missiles?

Don't you lose them by blowing them up against the enemy's infrastructure