Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boris's speech on the repercussions for russia, - russian mothers loss, following on from previous russian boots speech,
maybe he needs to invest in a russian historical education to match his greek one, for appropriate quipps
but, if you removed the word russia he could have given this speech as a warning for brexit - maybe he think this is redemption.
 
jpaul said:
if you removed the word russia he could have given this speech as a warning for brexit - maybe he think this is redemption.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, Crimea's exports may be down, their imports may be more expensive, their quality of life may have degraded, and their freedoms may have diminished. But they did get the massive bridge they were promised, so it looks like Russian annexation has more upsides than Brexit xD
 
Russian troops near Ukrainian border have started to mark their vehicles with a Z sign. Most likely to ID friendly or foe #Russia #Ukraine

FL_vBLeWQAskkvP
FL_vHe2X0AAplWu
FL_vOAKWUAE4_-R
 
CaptainRAVE said:
Ukraine need to do the same then.
Click to expand...
Oh god that would be amazing xD

General Yuri: Boss you know we painted Z's on our ex soviet stuff so not to confuse it with Ukraine's ex soviet stuff?
Putin: Yes, that was my genius idea.
General Yuri: Well it turns out the Ukranians are painting Z's on the side of their ex soviet stuff too.
Putin: Damnit Yuri I told you your idea wouldn't work! Have our guys change it to a ZX, that can't fail!
 
CaptainRAVE said:
Ukraine need to do the same then.
Click to expand...

There's discussion over whether the Z is for IFF or merely staging symbols, there's no Z in Russia alphabet (their phonetically sound Z is З) so it's already strange they would choose that, if it's staging it makes sense because there's that much hardware, easy to just tag what vehicles are going where
 
Gypo said:
Russian troops near Ukrainian border have started to mark their vehicles with a Z sign. Most likely to ID friendly or foe #Russia #Ukraine
Click to expand...

I noticed it with some of the more recent tank videos - they had newly applied reflective ID markings - those weren't a Z though. Though on the one hand it might point towards something like an invasion on the other hand a lot of these vehicles don't have the extra kit on them that you'd expect to see if they were moving to a final staging position - albeit many have long range/additional fuel tanks but then that could be due to moving around a lot for exercises.

One thing for sure, much of this isn't being done in a way intended to reassure anyone they won't be used for an invasion.

Minusorange said:
There's discussion over whether the Z is for IFF or merely staging symbols, there's no Z in Russia alphabet (their phonetically sound Z is З) so it's already strange they would choose that, if it's staging it makes sense because there's that much hardware, easy to just tag what vehicles are going where
Click to expand...

An area I've limited knowledge of but in a previous job I worked alongside the armed forces a bit (field testing products) and for exercises, etc. a marking like this would sometimes be used to tag those acting as the opposing force.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
What you're linking is just fluff by US media to give the impression it was never intended as a promise to aid against Russian aggression, in order to back the US governments opinion/stance on the matter.
Click to expand...

That isn't correct - I initially linked to a journal article from the Royal Institute of International affairs, now known as Chatham house:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/

And a short opinion from an international law blog

https://opiniojuris.org/about/
Opinio Juris was the world’s first blog dedicated to the informed discussion of international law by and among academics, practitioners and legal experts. The blog was founded in 2005 by three legal scholars: Chris Borgen (St. John’s University); Peggy McGuinness (St. John’s University); and Julian Ku (Hofstra). Kevin Jon Heller (University of Copenhagen/ANU) joined the following year. The contributors aim to describe and analyse international law where it is most controversial and ambiguous.
Click to expand...

ubersonic said:
The general consensus is that the oddly worded text was supposed to read:
Click to expand...

General consensus from whom?

ubersonic said:
Basically we will help them if they are attacked, or threatened with nukes. This is what Ukraine claimed was originally agreed upon and makes more sense as there would have been no need to commit to aiding them if they get nuked if you're also committing to aid them against the threat of being nuked.
Click to expand...

Why is that the case, why would that missing comma otherwise mean there is seemingly some legal commitment to go to war on their behalf if they're nuked? The passage mentions providing assistance, how does that translate into some rock-solid agreement to go to war?
 
Definitely feel. Putin doesn't have much to lose.
Starting to think this is more likely to happen than not unfortunately. There are just no ramifications for putin and Russia that won't hurt Europe more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom