Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 6. (Read 75246 times)

Well, that could be anyone, paid by anyone, doing whatever... The fact is that Ukraine elections have been made impossible due to war. Ukrainian constitution does clearly state that being a war is a situation in which elections are not an option.

But let's not play naive here Branko, it is impossible to call elections with the Kremlin waiting for the occasion to disrupt and manipulate - which is the only reason you are asking for them.

BTW, give them elections:

https://en.tavria.tv/news/society/ukrainian-football-fans-put-up-a-flag-with-the-inscription-give-us-elections/

Right! And to top it off, Russia could have armed it with nukes, and set it down in the United Kingdom. Think of that. No Britain, Ireland, or Scotland left.



EDIT: at least we wouldn't have to put up with paxmao in the forum any longer.

You don't see difference between something with range of 400km and something else that has range of 3000km and also has multiple warheads?

And so what? It's nothing new, Kinzhal that they're using often or Zircon missiles also have similar range and also can carry a nuclear warhead.

It would be strange if they wouldn't want peace as soon as possible. It's already 1002nd day of war, people are tired, they want to return to normal life. But when it comes territorial concessions, it's not that 52% people would agree with it. It's only 52% from people who answered that they want peace as soon as possible. Without doing maths, I guess it's about 25% from all respondents. So, you can't say that majority of Ukrainians want.
You talk that West and Ukraine continue to escalate war, but offcourse that you will ignore fact that Russia is escalating war by including another country into war - iI'm talking about North Korea.

Ukraine did not launch those missiles because they do not have the ability to do so.  They also don't have the ability to guide them to a target.  These missiles were launched and guided to their targets within Russia by NATO (and more specifically by the American and British elements of NATO...Germany wisely refused, and as far as I can tell, the French found an excuse to bail as well.)  One can hardly think of a more clear act of war _by_ NATO _against_ Russian.

The Russians made it clear that from their standpoint such an activity, if it were to occur, would be considered a NATO attack and all NATO member states are culpable and subject to actions which will reduce the threat to Russia going forward.  Absolutely reasonable and certainly the way any country would view such a thing.

I think it was very humane of Putin to test their new weapon a) on Ukraine, b) with a heads-up, and c) using inert warheads.  This was a pleasant surprise to me, and I doubt it will go this way the next time around.

Maybe it is becoming more clear to more people why people like me have been screaming from the rooftops that NATO is chock full of deranged psychopaths and is a huge menace to every human on earth.  It's an obsolete cold war relic which should have been dissolved several decades ago.

Russia just showed the world that they are capable of taking the whole UK out. Ukraine better respond with peaceful intentions, or Russia might just do that - take out the UK. After all, it was US and UK missiles that Ukraine launched into Russia.

I think Russians will respond to their response
But circle will continue until Russians respond to UK, not Ukraine

I think Ukraine needs to respond to this Russian missile.

Apparently a relatively common Rubezh, mid-range and not terribly new.

To be honest, ICBMs do reach more than hypersonic speeds, match 24 and the like, but what would make the hypersonic a clearly unstoppable system is the ability to manoeuvre at such speed and evade interception systems. Whatever Ruzzia claims about their technical capabilities has to be interpreted under Tsun-Tzu's advice:


There are some news on regards to the Ukrainian strike pointing to the North Korean commanders being in the bunker attacked with the Stormshadow.

Putin's new "Oreshnik" turned out to be a fake, new fairy tales for Russians.

He may, as far as I know he does not have an International Court of Justice order that would prevent him from going to any of these countries.

Ruzzia will never release real losses.

I think that if Ukrainians want to negotiate a peace, it should be negotiated, but that is not what you are saying I am afraid. You have a long history in this thread and every time you speak of peace and negotiation you are meaning surrender and when you say concessions you mean... surrender. It is basically the only thing you have been promoting until now.

I have not seen any poll saying that Ukraine should cease to exist and become Ruzzia's garden (thanks Branko for the name) and "territorial concessions" may simply be recognising that, as of today, it is not possible to recover Crimea. So back to 2014 illegal borders and bye.

So the problem is not negotiating, which has to eventually happen, the question is what is going to be negotiated. For example, you ask Ruzzians they tell you they want to negotiate by not giving anything. I wonder if some Ukrainians think that they should negotiate under those same terms.

Now, the time for negotiation will be after Trump starts governing (or doing Trump's version of governing). He said he would finish the war and I would like to see what is the magic plan. Do not take for granted it will be pleasant for Putin and do not take for granted there will not be an armed and protected country called Ukraine after whatever "negotiation".



Again, you may want to ask the people who are experts on the topic, rather than an AI known to hallucinate.


https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20does%20not%20poss


Again, you are looking into the wrong sources. Everybody knows there were two Trident tests failed - it is the thing about public TV just as...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-icbm-test-launch-failed/


Again, keep displaying numbers... it is irrelvant. Either you risk it or not, either you think article 5 does not trigger or it does, either you think the US will not honour the part of their nuclear policy that clearly includes "... their allies" or not....

If somehow you are trying to scare the West into inaction, that ship has sailed and sunk.

paxmao, paxmao...always badly informed:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68355395

SLBM is just subset to ICBM

Even chatGPT knows that:

"Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are categorized based on their launch platforms. Here are the primary types:

1. Land-based ICBMs
These are deployed in fixed, often heavily protected silos or mobile platforms on land.
Examples:
Silo-based ICBMs: Installed in reinforced underground silos to enhance survivability (e.g., Minuteman III in the U.S.).
Mobile ICBMs: Mounted on road or rail-mobile systems for increased mobility and survivability (e.g., Russia’s RS-24 Yars, China’s DF-41).
Advantages: Cost-effective to maintain, can remain on alert for extended periods.
Disadvantages: Fixed silos are vulnerable to preemptive strikes unless mobile.

2. Submarine-launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs)
These are launched from ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), enabling stealthy, mobile deterrence.
Examples:
U.S. Trident II (D5) SLBMs, deployed on Ohio-class submarines.
Russia’s R-30 Bulava, deployed on Borei-class submarines.
Advantages: Highly survivable due to mobility and stealth; harder to target.
Disadvantages: Submarine maintenance and operation are expensive and complex.

3. Air-launched Ballistic Missiles (ALBMs)
These are launched from strategic bombers or other aircraft.
While not traditionally classified as ICBMs, similar concepts exist for medium-range ballistic missiles deployed from the air.
Examples:
Experimental or conceptual designs (no operational systems widely deployed as ICBMs).
Advantages: Flexibility in deployment locations.
Disadvantages: Limited payload size and less survivability compared to other platforms.

4. Space-based or Orbital Launch Platforms (Hypothetical)
These involve launching missiles from orbital platforms or space vehicles, often speculative and not in active use.
Advantages: Global reach with short reaction times.
Disadvantages: High cost, potential treaty violations, and destabilization concerns.
Key Considerations
Each type is suited to different strategic needs, with land-based systems forming the backbone of nuclear deterrence and SLBMs providing second-strike capabilities."


You're welcome

It's logical that people in control of this continue escalations despite the will of the majority that has to bear the consequences, and they have no legal leverage to do anything about it? What the percentage of people must want negotiations and be ready to territorial concessions, for these escalations to become illogical for you?

Are you saying you were supporting all these sacrifices that Ukraine people had to endure, based solely on your hope of "unlimited and prompt support of US", really and that's after Afghanistan?

But we all know that once this stops, real losses have to be released on both sides, and people will start asking tough questions like who's responsible for this all, and what was the point of ignoring Russia's security concerns and why UA's government volunteered it's population for this exercise While the contents of the Western responses were not released, U.S. and NATO leaders were clear that their responses did not make any concessions on several core Russian demands — such as blocking Ukraine from NATO — even if they are willing to discuss other concerns. Would you be interested in one side declassifying Russia security demands, and US and NATO's written responses in 2021?

We should make a poll, whether Zelenskiy will run to US or UK after negotiations?

I find it logical. After three years of war Ukrainians want to leave in peace. Now, what each of them understand as a negotiated peace may be quite different from what you think is a negotiated peace. I am not surprised, Trump is signalling that he is either less supportive or not supportive at all of continuing to help Ukraine and Ukraine on its own cannot match the numbers of Ruzzia. I guess that if the US were promissing unlimited and prompt support this would be looking very different.

And now... lets look a the Ruzzian polls... you would not want to cherry-pick right? You would never do that?

https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/poll-majority-russians-would-oppose-returning-land-even-if-putin-decides-return-it-part-peace


Branko, Branko... you seem so eager to glow green in the dark, and always looking for "the right sources"... Well it would be quite difficult to test a UK ICBM:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-united-kingdom#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20does%20not%20poss


The missile that hit a command center today is a Stormshadow. It carries a technology that is 40 years more advanced and more difficult to put together than an ICMB. So.... yes... just trust that UK cannot answer. Oh, and trust that the US nor France won't answer... you know... that NATO thing ... article 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-qGLb003t4

Don't you find it interesting that more than half of Ukrainians want negotiations, to end the war as soon as possible. But instead they are told to continue and escalate with ATACMS and then they need to brace for retaliation with ICBMs or medium range ballistics. It's like no one really cares what Ukrainian people want, others know better than them, and Ukrainians are just playing their roll in all of this. Not like they can even vote now

A medium-range missile can travel between 1,000 kilometers and 3,000 kilometers (620 miles to 1,860 miles), according to the Center for Arms Control and Anti-Proliferation.

Distance from Kaliningrad to London is 1500km, Berlin 500km, Paris 1400km

According to Putin, it was mid range ballistic missile, not ICBM:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-launches-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-attack-ukraine-kyiv-says-2024-11-21/
It was response after Ukraine's attack in Russian territory using Western missiles. It's supposed to be a warning, showing what Russia can do. But INO, we didn't saw anything what we didn't saw before. Most of their missiles like Kinzhal or Iskander can carry nuclear warheads

I think you missed the fact that, for example, UK could not successfully do ICBM launch for decades, and also most
western analysts said Russian ones are equally bad. But:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/nwSOOztYs73F

Yes, apparently Ruzzia has used an ICBM, with no nuclear warhead of course. I guess that is to showcase that they have... ICBMs, a technology from the 50s and can launch them... like everyone knows they can since the 50s. Only difference here, these can be detected much more easily than cruise, albeit they are quite difficult to intercept.

There are some claiming that it was not the case though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_P8aYIMNBg

However, vampires flew in both directions as expected and Ukraine hit an military near "Putin's palace" with at least one cruise missile.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-trump-putin-zelenskyy-latest-12541713?postid=4536299

https://www.barrons.com/news/russian-envoy-claims-uk-now-directly-involved-in-ukraine-war-77f9cdfd


Well, my guess is that UK and the rest of Europe have been involved in the war since Ruzzia interfered with elections, referendums, ... not to mention the continuous cyberattacks to official organisations. I guess UK could perfectly claim that Iran and Norht Korea are "directly involved" in the war.