these drones are made in Russia
Source?And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.
Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 217. (Read 77449 times)
And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.
It is only thanks to Russia's asymmetric dominant superiority in nuclear weapons that the US and NATO are doing their best to avoid being drawn directly into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The real world is a strange thing, six months ago it was difficult to assume that Iran has an asymmetric dominant superiority in the development of kamikaze drones. And now NATO is feverishly looking for an effective antidote to flying lawnmowers.
You're saying that NATO don't have antidote for these Iran drones, but in reality, things is a bit different. Ukraine simply have lack of modern air defense systems, but even with stuff that they have, they don't let high % of these lawnmowers to reach point of destination. Though, expensive missiles are being used to shoot down these $20k worth drones.Russia destroying civilian and critical infrastructure of Ukraine, but how much it helps Russia to achieve something in front? Rhetorical question.
And it's same like they don't use word ''war when they talk about what's happening in Ukraine, they're afraid or ashamed to admit that they're using drones from Iran.
When I read this post I really felt like watching Russian propaganda TV or reading drunk Medvedev telegram posts about Judgement Day 
. These things works in Russia, but outside it it's just makes smiles.
Glad you're having fun. . These things works in Russia, but outside it it's just makes smiles.
Basques in general support Ukraine. And Putin hasn't started a war in Spain. He'll need to finish what he started in Ukraine and still have a military first.
Like Ukraine, Spain would be a great country for Putin to invade if he wanted NATO to continue expanding quickly.
Russia may have announced the annexation of these areas after the success of its military invasion, but there is no evidence to the contrary, at least with regard to what the Ukrainian forces, which announced their recapture of limited areas of those that Russia announced that it had annexed, mean the opposite.
By the same logic, it cannot be said that the Ukrainian forces have recaptured those provinces, especially since Russia had announced a referendum in those regions to find out the opinion of the residents. I know that this may have been done in a fictitious form, but it actually happened, which means Russia's seizure of the vital centers in those provinces.
By the same logic, it cannot be said that the Ukrainian forces have recaptured those provinces, especially since Russia had announced a referendum in those regions to find out the opinion of the residents. I know that this may have been done in a fictitious form, but it actually happened, which means Russia's seizure of the vital centers in those provinces.
What "vital centers"? Just look at the map and see the regions LTU_btc is talking about. Running a "referendum" and announcing an annexation doesn't make the territories belong to Russia. It's a stupid ploy so that they can now say "Russian territory" is under attack. It doesn't make the military activities any more successful. Russians are hastily leaving Kherson, which was the only major city they captured this year other than the nearly-destroyed Mariupol.
Putin today announced about martial law in occupied regions of Ukraine - Donbas, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/19/putin-declares-martial-law-in-annexed-regions-of-ukraine
But how you can declare martial law there when it's aready been declared by Ukraine on 24th February?
And does it means that Russians will be allowed to call it war, or it's still "special military operation"?
And Russia aren't silent about Ukraine's counteroffensive. Offcourse, they won't tell what's really happening, they are using excuses like regrouping of troops.
You can follow realtime information in front on maps like https://www.deepstatemap.live/ or https://liveuamap.com/
They also announced about evacuation from Kherson to left bank of Dniepr river:
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-updates-moscow-begins-evacuation-from-kherson/a-63484112
No panic, keep calm, like they like to say.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/19/putin-declares-martial-law-in-annexed-regions-of-ukraine
But how you can declare martial law there when it's aready been declared by Ukraine on 24th February?
And does it means that Russians will be allowed to call it war, or it's still "special military operation"?
After Putin succeeded in annexing Ukrainian regions and holding a referendum in them, there are reports in the pro-Ukrainian media saying that the Ukrainian army succeeded in retaking large parts of these regions. This was accompanied by silence from the Russian side to comment on the matter.
Is it possible that the news is true or is it only for media consumption as the two parties are accustomed to doing?
The recent events showed a shift in the course of the war, and it seems that what Russia called the military operation to protect minorities in Ukraine, became one of its most important goals to bring down the political regime in Ukraine.
Actually, none of annexed regions isn't fully controlled by Russia. Like Zaporizhia Oblast, they don't have control of capital of region - Zaporizhia city. Even Luhansk oblast isn't fully controlled by them, few villages is controlled by Ukraine.Is it possible that the news is true or is it only for media consumption as the two parties are accustomed to doing?
The recent events showed a shift in the course of the war, and it seems that what Russia called the military operation to protect minorities in Ukraine, became one of its most important goals to bring down the political regime in Ukraine.
And Russia aren't silent about Ukraine's counteroffensive. Offcourse, they won't tell what's really happening, they are using excuses like regrouping of troops.
You can follow realtime information in front on maps like https://www.deepstatemap.live/ or https://liveuamap.com/
They also announced about evacuation from Kherson to left bank of Dniepr river:
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-updates-moscow-begins-evacuation-from-kherson/a-63484112
No panic, keep calm, like they like to say.
Russia may have announced the annexation of these areas after the success of its military invasion, but there is no evidence to the contrary, at least with regard to what the Ukrainian forces, which announced their recapture of limited areas of those that Russia announced that it had annexed, mean the opposite.
By the same logic, it cannot be said that the Ukrainian forces have recaptured those provinces, especially since Russia had announced a referendum in those regions to find out the opinion of the residents. I know that this may have been done in a fictitious form, but it actually happened, which means Russia's seizure of the vital centers in those provinces.
It is only thanks to Russia's asymmetric dominant superiority in nuclear weapons that the US and NATO are doing their best to avoid being drawn directly into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The real world is a strange thing, six months ago it was difficult to assume that Iran has an asymmetric dominant superiority in the development of kamikaze drones. And now NATO is feverishly looking for an effective antidote to flying lawnmowers.
You're saying that NATO don't have antidote for these Iran drones, but in reality, things is a bit different. Ukraine simply have lack of modern air defense systems, but even with stuff that they have, they don't let high % of these lawnmowers to reach point of destination. Though, expensive missiles are being used to shoot down these $20k worth drones.Russia destroying civilian and critical infrastructure of Ukraine, but how much it helps Russia to achieve something in front? Rhetorical question.
And it's same like they don't use word ''war when they talk about what's happening in Ukraine, they're afraid or ashamed to admit that they're using drones from Iran.
Thank you both for the Channel 1 broadcast but out here in the real world Putin's demands and threats aren't very impressive.
When I read this post I really felt like watching Russian propaganda TV or reading drunk Medvedev telegram posts about Judgement Day . These things works in Russia, but outside it it's just makes smiles. Thank you both for the Channel 1 broadcast but out here in the real world Putin's demands and threats aren't very impressive. They're designed to impress you in the soviet russian imperial propaganda bubble and it seems to be working so far. Get ready to accept the great victory of defending Voronezh against the evil nazis.
It is only thanks to Russia's asymmetric dominant superiority in nuclear weapons that the US and NATO are doing their best to avoid being drawn directly into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The real world is a strange thing, six months ago it was difficult to assume that Iran has an asymmetric dominant superiority in the development of kamikaze drones. And now NATO is feverishly looking for an effective antidote to flying lawnmowers. Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.
There is no reason for Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons as part of a special operation in Ukraine, all speculation about this is groundless. The possibilities of conventional weapons are far from being exhausted. However, the situation is developing in such a way that the military defeat of Ukraine seems to be an unacceptable scenario for the development of events for the United States and NATO. And for Russia, a military defeat of Russia is unacceptable. Under such conditions, the probability of an attempt to cut the tightening Gordian knot with a strategic nuclear strike is higher than zero. I think Russia's numerous threats about possible strikes on decision-making centers are not "the last Chinese warning" and are not directed at Kyiv at all, but at Washington and London. I see one of the most realistic scenarios for such a strike in the combat use of Poseidon nuclear drones. One Poseidon of half power is enough to wash away London and all of England with a radioactive tsunami. Four full-power Poseidons (two from the Atlantic and two from the Pacific) are enough to wash away Washington, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco and create a deserted coastal zone 500 km deep on both coasts of the United States. After that, apparently, a mutual exchange of missile strikes between Russia and the United States and a test of the combat capability of their missile defense systems will begin. The chances of Russia in the post-apocalypse world, in my opinion, are higher than the chances of the United States, primarily for geographical reasons (vulnerability to strikes from the ocean), and secondly for technical reasons (the United States has no effective countermeasures against Poseidon, plus Russia has a hypersonic weapons and the overall advantage of delivery vehicles, plus, in my opinion, the missile defense system in Russia is more effective than the missile defense system in the United States). But the main beneficiary of such a scenario would likely be China (if the conflict in Taiwan does not erupt before the conflict in Ukraine enters a critical phase).Thank you both for the Channel 1 broadcast but out here in the real world Putin's demands and threats aren't very impressive. They're designed to impress you in the
<...>
Quote from: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-19-wwiii-guaranteed-if-ukraines-west-allies-meddle.html#
Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization. <...>
Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.
paxmao, when you describe the concept of "legal annexation", what relevant international legal documents did you follow so that I could also get acquainted with them?
In the course of your comment, I had a few questions. If you don't mind, please answer them. I have put my questions in brackets in your quote.
Legal annexation could potentially be if, after a long period of peace (How many months or years exactly?), a referendum with all guarantees (What are these guarantees and who provides them?), time to put forward arguments against and in favour (Who chooses such time?) and abundant international observers (How many observers should be there and who should appoint them?) is held among the inhabitants of a region a a majority decides that they want to join a different state.
According to the definition of "annexations" which I found, they are illegal.
Code:
<...>F. Evaluation
38 Under present international law, annexations are illegal since they are incompatible with the most fundamental rule
on the prohibition of any threat or use of force. As such, they do not result in a lawful title to territory. All States are
under a legal obligation not to recognize annexations and their consequences as lawful. They may, however, give some
de facto recognition to unlawful annexations in order to accommodate adequately the needs of the inhabitants of the
annexed territory. There are good reasons to consider the prohibition of annexations and the obligation not to recognize
them and their consequences as lawful as rules of customary international law with the rank of ius cogens.
Links:38 Under present international law, annexations are illegal since they are incompatible with the most fundamental rule
on the prohibition of any threat or use of force. As such, they do not result in a lawful title to territory. All States are
under a legal obligation not to recognize annexations and their consequences as lawful. They may, however, give some
de facto recognition to unlawful annexations in order to accommodate adequately the needs of the inhabitants of the
annexed territory. There are good reasons to consider the prohibition of annexations and the obligation not to recognize
them and their consequences as lawful as rules of customary international law with the rank of ius cogens.
http://www.anamnesis.info/node/624
https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1376
It is much better understood if one thinks of a referendum of independence of which there are a few cases.
Regarding referendums, there is an interesting post with some historical data confirming that the countries of the so-called collective West (led by the US and UK) are ready to recognize or not recognize the results of referendums, only when they get benefits from it.
Source in Russian
* Updated quote from Encyclopedia of Public International Law on Annexation
Not all separatists are treated equally
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1581759661769826304
<...>
Quote from: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-19-wwiii-guaranteed-if-ukraines-west-allies-meddle.html#
Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization. <...>
Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.
Following you argument, who in their right would try to stop NATO on a battlefield. When you get to war like this is because you have already failed in using soft power.
Its impossible to win using soft power when other side own world money printing machine
You've got it backwards. Russia attacked Ukraine, then NATO expanded.
Really? I thought many Warsaw Pact countries joined way before that
The USSR doesn't even exist. How is anybody going to fulfill it these days except by new agreement? So, why even bring it up?
I brought it up because I was responding to some BS about post-USSR referendums.
As I said, you may want to try reading what you're replying to, unless your intent is to be an utter dolt.
Is there any wording in Article 72 that allows a foreign country to take over a country by coups, just so the foreign country can use the country they took over just to conquer another country?
There is no clear understanding of what the people of Ukraine think. But there is clear understanding that their government was taken over by one or more US coups.
Kinds messes with the meaning and intent of Article 72, right?
There is no clear understanding of what the people of Ukraine think. But there is clear understanding that their government was taken over by one or more US coups.
Kinds messes with the meaning and intent of Article 72, right?
Apples and cucumbers, my friend. Next time try some reading maybe? If you can't read in English, here is the original:
https://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/cnst1977.htm#iii
The USSR doesn't even exist. How is anybody going to fulfill it these days except by new agreement? So, why even bring it up?
Is there any wording in Article 72 that allows a foreign country to take over a country by coups, just so the foreign country can use the country they took over just to conquer another country?
There is no clear understanding of what the people of Ukraine think. But there is clear understanding that their government was taken over by one or more US coups.
Kinds messes with the meaning and intent of Article 72, right?
There is no clear understanding of what the people of Ukraine think. But there is clear understanding that their government was taken over by one or more US coups.
Kinds messes with the meaning and intent of Article 72, right?
Apples and cucumbers, my friend. Next time try some reading maybe? If you can't read in English, here is the original:
https://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/cnst1977.htm#iii
Regarding referendums, there is an interesting post with some historical data confirming that the countries of the so-called collective West (led by the US and UK) are ready to recognize or not recognize the results of referendums, only when they get benefits from it.
Seems fake. USSR constitution allowed secession and did not specify any requirements (like a referendum). So technically member states could secede in any manner lawful in said states.
Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.
That's it. That's the whole article on the subject. It was predicated on the obvious (at the time) fact that no one in their right mind would attempt to coerce any of the republics to secede and the article was just for show, not unlike human rights guarantees and other parts of the constitution.
AFAIK Yugoslavia had something similar.
Is there any wording in Article 72 that allows a foreign country to take over a country by coups, just so the foreign country can use the country they took over just to conquer another country?
There is no clear understanding of what the people of Ukraine think. But there is clear understanding that their government was taken over by one or more US coups.
Kinds messes with the meaning and intent of Article 72, right?
Regarding referendums, there is an interesting post with some historical data confirming that the countries of the so-called collective West (led by the US and UK) are ready to recognize or not recognize the results of referendums, only when they get benefits from it.
Seems fake. USSR constitution allowed secession and did not specify any requirements (like a referendum). So technically member states could secede in any manner lawful in said states.
Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.
That's it. That's the whole article on the subject. It was predicated on the obvious (at the time) fact that no one in their right mind would attempt to coerce any of the republics to secede and the article was just for show, not unlike human rights guarantees and other parts of the constitution.
AFAIK Yugoslavia had something similar.
<...>
Quote from: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-19-wwiii-guaranteed-if-ukraines-west-allies-meddle.html#
Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization. <...>
Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.
Russia used suicide drones in the last Kiev attack.
If you are talking about pushing the button that launches the nuke missiles when Putin orders it, do you really think every soldier in the nuke department will be against Putin? They are soldiers, and they think they are saving Russia from US nukes by pushing the button. They will push the launch buttons, or their commanding officers will.
Death to European economies is being countered as we speak. The EU governments are using black markets to get what Russia is selling. That's why the US blew up the pipelines for gas. Some of the EU nations are going back to coal and atomic energy. It will take a while, but the EU will save itself even without Russia. But Russian products are easier, so the EU might turn against the US.
The point is this. The turmoil in all this thinking is weakening the US dollar control worldwide. Maybe the Elite of the world want that to happen, or maybe they don't. But they will figure out other methods to remain elite, if the US dollar fails, or if the BRICS new money comes into being, or whatever money.
<...>
Quote from: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-19-wwiii-guaranteed-if-ukraines-west-allies-meddle.html#
Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization. <...>
Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.
paxmao, when you describe the concept of "legal annexation", what relevant international legal documents did you follow so that I could also get acquainted with them?
In the course of your comment, I had a few questions. If you don't mind, please answer them. I have put my questions in brackets in your quote.
Legal annexation could potentially be if, after a long period of peace (How many months or years exactly?), a referendum with all guarantees (What are these guarantees and who provides them?), time to put forward arguments against and in favour (Who chooses such time?) and abundant international observers (How many observers should be there and who should appoint them?) is held among the inhabitants of a region a a majority decides that they want to join a different state.
According to the definition of "annexations" which I found, they are illegal.
Code:
<...>F. Evaluation
38 Under present international law, annexations are illegal since they are incompatible with the most fundamental rule
on the prohibition of any threat or use of force. As such, they do not result in a lawful title to territory. All States are
under a legal obligation not to recognize annexations and their consequences as lawful. They may, however, give some
de facto recognition to unlawful annexations in order to accommodate adequately the needs of the inhabitants of the
annexed territory. There are good reasons to consider the prohibition of annexations and the obligation not to recognize
them and their consequences as lawful as rules of customary international law with the rank of ius cogens.
Links:38 Under present international law, annexations are illegal since they are incompatible with the most fundamental rule
on the prohibition of any threat or use of force. As such, they do not result in a lawful title to territory. All States are
under a legal obligation not to recognize annexations and their consequences as lawful. They may, however, give some
de facto recognition to unlawful annexations in order to accommodate adequately the needs of the inhabitants of the
annexed territory. There are good reasons to consider the prohibition of annexations and the obligation not to recognize
them and their consequences as lawful as rules of customary international law with the rank of ius cogens.
http://www.anamnesis.info/node/624
https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1376
It is much better understood if one thinks of a referendum of independence of which there are a few cases.
Regarding referendums, there is an interesting post with some historical data confirming that the countries of the so-called collective West (led by the US and UK) are ready to recognize or not recognize the results of referendums, only when they get benefits from it.
Source in Russian
* Updated quote from Encyclopedia of Public International Law on Annexation
If the US and Nato happen to be strong enough, they will overcome the Russian ground military in Ukraine and elsewhere. There will be one thing that Russia will have left to do. Hopefully the Nato nations will be smart enough to stop the US before it's too late.
Russia warns WWIII is all but GUARANTEED if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in ongoing conflict
Russia warns WWIII is all but GUARANTEED if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in ongoing conflict
Quote from: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-10-19-wwiii-guaranteed-if-ukraines-west-allies-meddle.html#
Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization.
“Kyiv is well aware that such a step would mean a guaranteed escalation to a World War III,” said Alexander Venediktov, the deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council. (Related: Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko warns World War III is about to begin.)
Venediktov claimed that the West is always making threats of a possible nuclear war.
“Russian officials have never voiced a threat to use any weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, in Europe, some politicians openly call for such actions, even a number of politicians in the EU [European Union] do not conceal and do not rule out the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction against Russia,” Venediktov said.
The warning came a day after a senior NATO official announced that a Russian nuclear strike would undoubtedly cause a “physical response” from Ukraine’s allies. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the United States is “committed to defending every inch of NATO’s territory.”
NATO started its annual exercise to test nuclear deterrence capabilities in Europe on Monday, Oct. 17, with the aid of 14 of its 30 member countries. The routine exercise, this year named “Steadfast Noon,” will run until October 30.
Brighteon.TV
Venediktov: Nuclear war will be catastrophic for all mankind
...
“Kyiv is well aware that such a step would mean a guaranteed escalation to a World War III,” said Alexander Venediktov, the deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council. (Related: Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko warns World War III is about to begin.)
Venediktov claimed that the West is always making threats of a possible nuclear war.
“Russian officials have never voiced a threat to use any weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, in Europe, some politicians openly call for such actions, even a number of politicians in the EU [European Union] do not conceal and do not rule out the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction against Russia,” Venediktov said.
The warning came a day after a senior NATO official announced that a Russian nuclear strike would undoubtedly cause a “physical response” from Ukraine’s allies. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the United States is “committed to defending every inch of NATO’s territory.”
NATO started its annual exercise to test nuclear deterrence capabilities in Europe on Monday, Oct. 17, with the aid of 14 of its 30 member countries. The routine exercise, this year named “Steadfast Noon,” will run until October 30.
Brighteon.TV
Venediktov: Nuclear war will be catastrophic for all mankind
...
...
What is legal annexation?
...
The illegal annexation <...>
What is legal annexation?
...
Somehow I should not be surprised that you ask, yet I am.
Legal annexation could potentially be if, after a long period of peace, a referendum with all guarantees, time to put forward arguments against and in favour and abundant international observers is held among the inhabitants of a region a a majority decides that they want to join a different state.
It is much better understood if one thinks of a referendum of independence of which there are a few cases.
Jump to: