Ukraine invasion

UN thanks Russia for keeping IAEA team safe​

The UN is “glad” for Russia’s efforts to safeguard the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team that came to inspect the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, the secretary-general’s chief spokesman said on Thursday, after the Russian Defense Ministry said it was “bewildered” at the lack of UN reaction to the Ukrainian attempt to seize the facility by force.

“We are glad that the Russian Federation did what it needed to do to keep our inspectors safe,” Stephane Dujarric told reporters at a briefing in New York, when asked about Moscow’s comments.
 
new_trader said:
I wonder how long it will be before ordinary people in the west stop saying "I stand with Ukraine" and start saying "I can't stand Ukraine"

All the billions being spent by the USA to fight a proxy war in a foreign land while their own civilians at home are starving...the White House is even trying to alter the definition of recession to dupe them...
Click to expand...

@IlIlIlIlI happening! ☝️

From MSM article (for the lackeys)
"They said the government pays more attention to war-torn Ukraine than to its own citizens. "The best for the Ukrainians and two sweaters for us," read a banner, a reference to concerns about heating costs in winter"
 
IlIlIlIlI said:
MSM Version:

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
". . . They said the government pays more attention to war-torn Ukraine than to its own citizens. "The best for the Ukrainians and two sweaters for us," read a banner, a reference to concerns about heating costs in winter. . ."

Excellent banner!
My guess is that as soon as temperatures start to plummet and extortionate fuel bills start dropping through people's letter boxes - we'll see similar demonstrations all over Europe - including here the U.K. If Zelensky is going to drive out the Russians - he'd better hurry up and do it - because patience in the west won't last forever. If there was a poll that asked the question: 'Are you happy to continue funding the Ukraine war or would you rather that money went towards reducing your fuel bill?' - I think we all know what the answer would be.
Tim.
 
CavaliereVerde said:
Click to expand...

Premise 1: The Kherson offensive is genuine.
If this is the case then the Kyiv regime, Western Governments and the MSM did their best to ensure it would fail by giving Russia advance notice, supporting the argument this was purely politically motivated. This also proves the actor-clown scumbag President of Ukraine would rather serve the interests of Washington than his own soldiers who are being slaughtered on the battlefield....and the MSM lackey's say Putin is the tyrant!



Premise 2: The Kherson offensive is a deception strategy.
I sincerely hope this is the case because I can't imagine that anyone could be so evil to put their own soldiers at such a disadvantage.


Who could have imagined that around 20 years ago a cartoon character would outline the plan Ukraine would use to fight Russia. This is what you get when your leader is an Actor-clown who believes everything he watches on TV...like MSM lackeys :ROFLMAO:

 

  • Ukrainian “Kherson Offensive” is resulting in massive casualties for Ukraine with negligible territorial gains, some of which have already been reversed.
  • Western media continues to spin the ongoing fighting in southern Ukraine attempting to explain why it is not materializing in gains.
  • Claims that Ukraine is pursuing a “slow grind” strategy in Kherson is an admission that fighting has returned to the pre-”offensive” stand-off.
  • Ukraine has clearly committed what is left of its best men and equipment to the fight.
 
In the vid' below, world renowned economist Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University explains how western hegemony and U.S. policy in Russia, Ukraine and China is "unaccountably dangerous and wrongheaded," and warns the U.S. is creating "a recipe for yet another war" in East Asia.

He's also the author of this article: The West's False Narrative About Russia and China.
He writes: "The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy. . ."

I think Sachs' use of the word 'forthright' is a diplomatic euphemism. What he really means is that the west is lying through their teeth and spewing out relentless propaganda in order to perpetuate the completely false myth of 'Zelensky & Ukraine good - Putin & Russia bad'.

 
Last edited:
tass.com

US poised to relocate bio programs from Ukraine to other post-Soviet states â top brass

Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, Chief of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces of the Russian Armed Forces, said that the expansion of the network of biological laboratories, on the basis of which it is possible to create and store biological weapons components, poses a threat...
tass.com tass.com

tass.com

Ukraine did research on soldiers with undetermined risk to their lives â Defense Ministry

The research was conducted with unknown risks to lives and health of the participants, as well as concealing the identity of the test subjects, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov said
tass.com tass.com

tass.com

Volunteers could have been infected with viruses in Ukraineâs trials â Defense Ministry

The witnesses confirmed the facts of tests on military personnel and socially vulnerable groups of Ukrainian citizens, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov said
tass.com tass.com
 

Euro plunges to new 20-year low after Russian gas halt​

"The euro sank below $0.99 to a new 20-year low on Monday after Russia's halt to gas supplies down its main pipeline to Europe heightened fears about a deepening energy crisis across the region.

The euro has been increasingly correlated with natural gas prices in recent months, with the former falling when prices of the energy source rise.

Europe is scrambling to wean itself off Russian supplies and build up reserves before the cold winter months, but investors reckon the hit to its economy will be huge. . ."

Can someone please remind me again about the point of sanctions - is it to sink Russia's economy or our own?
😠
"
 
counter_violent said:
Click to expand...
Two comments to make about this video:
The first is that Russia claims to have destroyed up to half of the sixteen Himars launchers sent by the U.S. to Ukraine, leaving them with eight at best. However, even if we discount this as misinformation/propaganda, they've still only got a maximum of sixteen which is a fraction of the number of Tornado-S launchers used by the Russians. Their system is capable of firing rockets just as accurately as Himars and at much further ranges. That's not just me or Brian of The New Atlas saying this, it's acknowledged by Janes in this article: Ukraine conflict: Russian forces employ guided rockets.
". . .Russia deploys the Tornado-S system, or complex, in brigades of four battalions. A battalion consists of three batteries with four launchers in each. Accompanying each launcher is a 9T234-2 trans loader vehicle based on the MAZ-543A 8×8 chassis, and this carries 12 rounds and is equipped with a crane. . ."
Note that Janes talks about Brigades plural. Just one brigade would have 48 launchers. If Russia has two brigades then that's 96 launchers etc.

If we're extremely generous to Ukraine and assume they still have all sixteen launchers and Russia doesn't have anywhere near the number Janes says it does, the very best Ukraine can hope for is that the two systems cancel one another out. The idea that Himars are a game changer that's going to change the course of the war is palpable nonsense.

The second point to make refers to a question posed at 3:33" when the interviewer asks the CEO of Lockheed Martin "How fast can you do this?" [i.e. ramp up production of rockets for the Himars Launcher to 10,000 p/a]. And the answer is: ". . . in the order of 18 to 24 months". Yep, not days or weeks - but one and a half to two years! In short, these Himars are going to spend more time in storage than they are in active service as the U.S. won't be able to supply Ukraine with anything like the numbers of rockets needed and in the time frame required.

To conclude, anyone who thinks that Himars is going to change the course of the war is not thinking this through clearly and logically. Needless to say, MSM don't mention any of this as it doesn't support the pure fiction that Ukraine can succeed in driving out the Russians.
Tim.
 
Last edited:
timsk said:
Two comments to make about this video:
The first is that Russia claims to have destroyed up to half of the sixteen Himars launchers sent by the U.S. to Ukraine, leaving them with eight at best. However, even if we discount this as misinformation/propaganda, they've still only got a maximum of sixteen which is a fraction of the number of Tornado-S launchers used by the Russians. Their system is capable of firing rockets just as accurately as Himars and at much further ranges. That's not just me or Brian of The New Atlas saying this, it's acknowledged by Janes in this article: Ukraine conflict: Russian forces employ guided rockets.
". . .Russia deploys the Tornado-S system, or complex, in brigades of four battalions. A battalion consists of three batteries with four launchers in each. Accompanying each launcher is a 9T234-2 trans loader vehicle based on the MAZ-543A 8×8 chassis, and this carries 12 rounds and is equipped with a crane. . ."
Note that Janes talks about Brigades plural. Just one brigade would have 48 launchers. If Russia has two brigades then that's 72 launchers etc.

If we're extremely generous to Ukraine and assume they still have all sixteen launchers and Russia doesn't have anywhere near the number Janes says it does, the very best Ukraine can hope for is that the two systems cancel one another out. The idea that Himars are a game changer that's going to change the course of the war is palpable nonsense.

The second point to make refers to a question posed at 3:33" when the interviewer asks the CEO of Lockheed Martin "How fast can you do this?" [i.e. ramp up production of rockets for the Himars Launcher to 10,000 p/a]. And the answer is: ". . . in the order of 18 to 24 months". Yep, not days or weeks - but one and a half to two years! In short, these Himars are going to spend more time in storage than they are in active service as the U.S. won't be able to supply Ukraine with anything like the numbers of rockets needed and in the time frame required.

To conclude, anyone who thinks that Himars is going to change the course of the war is not thinking this through clearly and logically. Needless to say, MSM don't mention any of this as it doesn't support the pure fiction that Ukraine can succeed in driving out the Russians.
Tim.
Click to expand...

Himars have already changed the game.

You and brainless Brian still maintain that Russians are making progress. They are doing no such thing. They have been at a standstill for over three months and are now having to defend their field and farmland earlier gains. Supply lines, munitions dumps, radar posts, are shot to pieces and continue to be targeted. Now you may not think that Ukraine is making progress, but I can assure you they are. They are playing a far smarter game than the dumb ass Russians.

How this can be viewed as anything but a total disaster for Russia is beyond me.
The longer this goes on, the more demoralised the Russian cannon fodder will become. They have zero interest and nothing to gain from being involved in Putin's vanity project. The Ukrainians are well motivated to get on with the job in hand. They fully understand what is at stake here, as do all the other countries bordering Russia. There is zero chance that Russia will have any success in Ukraine or indeed any other country on their border. Every man and his dog is now prepared for any further escalation.

Meanwhile, Europe is dealing with it's energy crisis which won't be fully resolved for a couple of yrs. However, once it is resolved, then Russia as a major energy player will be consigned to the dustbin. Not only because they will lose all their European sales, but also because they will not be able to procure the right equipment nor investment or skill sets to develop the infrastructure required to supply into other markets.

From what iv'e seen, I would happily run a Ukrainian crew in the oil +gas game, problem solving when it's not going to plan, which is very similar to running round the clock operations in a war setting.

People who have never done that kind of slog will never understand what is required of everyone who's involved. And i'm not about to enlighten anyone on this thread, cos it's a waste of time. :)
 
counter_violent said:
People who have never done that kind of slog will never understand what is required of everyone who's involved. And i'm not about to enlighten anyone on this thread, cos it's a waste of time. :)
Click to expand...
c_v,
The problem here is very simple. It goes like this . . .
1. You, CV or someone else in favour of prolonging the needless, senseless death and destruction posts a video saying how Himars (in this recent example) are a game changer and will reverse the tide of the conflict. (Your post #2,394)
2. I, histo', At' or n_t etc., provide solid evidence (often as not from pro-Ukrainian sources) that shows that Himars won't make any real difference to the outcome of the conflict. (My post #2,397)
3. You then respond in one of two ways. Either you completely ignore the evidence presented to you and don't reply at all or, as in this case, reply with a total non-sequitur that fails completely to address any of the points made. (Your post #2,398)

You have no cohesive, logical argument that supports your view. You just post ad-hominem comments ("brainless Brian") and meaningless rhetoric ("They [Russian forces] have zero interest and nothing to gain from being involved in Putin's vanity project"), interspersed with wishful thinking ("There is zero chance that Russia will have any success in Ukraine") that either isn't supported by any evidence or, as in this case, flies in the face of all available evidence. You round off with comments like the one quoted - as if you're some special enlightened person that knows something the rest of us doesn't but we're not worthy of your time and effort. Who the fcuk do you think you are c_v?

All I'm wanting you to do is to enlighten me as to how I'm wrong or misguided in my detailed explanation as to why Himars are not the game changer you appear to think they are. That's all - nothing more. That you would gladly run a Ukrainian crew in the oil 'n gas game doesn't begin to answer that question and has about as much relevance to the topic at hand as what I ate for breakfast. You may be the best of the best at what you do for a living c_v, but I'm afraid that doesn't make you good at arguing the case for Himars in this example and, more generally, wanting to continue with this horrific war.
Tim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

trendie
nasty invasive CMC advert
Replies
11
Views
3K
shadowninja
shadowninja
N Rothschild
Ukraine flu
Replies
0
Views
1K
N Rothschild
N Rothschild
M
Austria - Ukraine
Replies
0
Views
2K
markvighan
M
J
Ukraine plays?
Replies
8
Views
2K
PieterSteidelmayer
P
Y
Investing in Ukraine !
Replies
0
Views
2K
Yuriy
Y
Top