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

Status
Not open for further replies.
0007 said:
rqWFosw.png
Click to expand...
Minusorange said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

zxlFUFX.png
https://www.ft.com/content/c8eedb92-9512-4648-8146-d1450fcbd7e9

lUAW7Bc.png

Wus5liY.png

gOUMVdg.png
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
Yugoslavia broke up because of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, not because of NATO carving it up.
Click to expand...
The two aren't mutually exclusive causes. I didn't list the breakup of the USSR as that had happened by then, obviously Yugoslavia would never have broken up if the USSR hadn't dissolved, but likewise if that hadn't happened there wouldn't have been an independent Russia to get worried when NATO got involved in the Yugoslavian wars.

To be clear I'm not saying we shouldn't have gotten involved in Yugoslavia, or that the Russians were correct in their belief/fear that our willingness to aid the break up one former soviet state translated into a desire to splinter more (including Russia). I was just explaining that it was a primary factor (especially in the wake of Russia's loss in Chechnya) in their decision to elect a military rebuilder in Putin instead of another economic/political reformer.
 
ubersonic said:
The two aren't mutually exclusive causes. I didn't list the breakup of the USSR as that had happened by then, obviously Yugoslavia would never have broken up if the USSR hadn't dissolved, but likewise if that hadn't happened there wouldn't have been an independent Russia to get worried when NATO got involved in the Yugoslavian wars.

To be clear I'm not saying we shouldn't have gotten involved in Yugoslavia, or that the Russians were correct in their belief/fear that our willingness to aid the break up one former soviet state translated into a desire to splinter more (including Russia). I was just explaining that it was a primary factor (especially in the wake of Russia's loss in Chechnya) in their decision to elect a military rebuilder in Putin instead of another economic/political reformer.
Click to expand...
You were blaming the west for the ills of Russia, the rise of Putin and the general gangsterism of the Russian state.
Maggie Thatcher said we can do business with Gorbachev and leading to Reagan and Gorbachev overseeing peristroika and the break up of the USSR. People like Putin in the ranks of the KGB were horrified. Gorbachev was deposed and ever since the push has been to restore what was taken from it. In reality the Soviet satellites want nothing to do with Russia or a revitalised empire. They were brutalised and robbed for forty odd years and are doing quite nicely now thank you. So Putin has to bully everybody to try and 'persuade' them that they are wrong.
 
I wonder if it's been so easy to take out generals because the centralised command structure of the Russian military is directly correlated to the veracity and strength of whatever method their using to communicate?

Just find the biggest, most active node and it's probably a commander.
 
— RTRS
[May 01 2022, 15:41:45 BST]: Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Evacuation Of Civilians From Azovstal Has Begun
[May 01 2022, 15:42:29 BST]: Ukraine President Zelenskiy: First Group of About 100 People Is Already En Route From Mariupol Steel Works
[May 01 2022, 15:43:10 BST]: Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Civilians From Azovstal Will Be Met in Ukrainian-Controlled City of Zaporizhzhia On Monday
[May 01 2022, 15:43:51 BST]: Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Ukraine and U.N. Are Working on the Evacuation of Other Civilians From the Plant in Mariupol
 
That attack is interesting, some more reports that they might have injured the head of the Russian Armed forces himself who seems to have flown down to push for some sort of "win" for May 9th. Will be interesting to find out just how much damage was done there, potentially they've killed a bunch of high-ranking officers, staff officers etc..

 
andybird123 said:
You're calling them "mercenaries" because they get paid. Anyone who joins the army is called a "volunteer" because it distinguishes between forces that recruit people who join up through their own choice vs. countries that force people to join the army (look up "conscription"). It doesn't mean they join up for free, all armed forces globally are paid. It's not misleading, it's the actual definition of the words in the context they are being used.
Click to expand...
British army £100 a day.
Ukrainian army $100 a day.
Volunteer who’s “not” a mercenary $2000 a day.

You’re right it’s not widely publicised. You’re obviously a bot for even asking.
All wars pretty much have the same thing if they are big enough and go on long enough. No shame. We’re too far into info wars for people to even admit it though.
Only the baddies would employ merc’s as they are morally wrong.
Insert whatever war you want.
 
Last edited:
Terminal_Boy said:
Show your working please as I believe the annual salary of a Private in the British Army is around £20K, which approximates to £55 per day. Please note that this is before tax.
Click to expand...
Yep I know sergeants on 35k. Kept the maths simple.
Squaddies on f all.

Mercs $ source Sunday Times. Or the BBC.
www.bbc.co.uk

Ukraine: Private militias recruiting former soldiers

Private militias are "scouring" social media to recruit former soldiers, veterans say.
www.bbc.co.uk

Although some of the reporting by the BBC has been crap. If you find the 'story' is just that I'll be more than happy.
 
Last edited:
EbuoQqC.png
hP08V9a.png
fhdvHja.png
I7hl23q.png
[May 01 2022, 16:43:18 BST]: U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Schumer: Provision Would Enable U.S. to Seize Assets of Oligarchs and Send Money to Ukraine
 
Last edited:
Hagar said:
You were blaming the west for the ills of Russia, the rise of Putin and the general gangsterism of the Russian state.
Click to expand...
No I wasn't, I made no mention of the gangsterism of the Russian state or appointed blame for it's current ills, I simply expanded on another posters post about Russian relations being somewhat good in the 90s until Putin, by explaining what lead to that changing of Russian opinion on the west and the rise of Putin. I also said we (the west) were justified in the actions we took that helped contribute to it.

The world is not 1s and 0s, it's not agree with one side 100% or the other 100%, admitting that some actions of the west which seemed a good idea at the time (and were, like a said it was the right call) contributed to the rise of Putin is not the same as blaming the west for the rise of Putin or the current state of Russia and it's actions. Just as admitting that helping Osama and co defeat the Russians in Afghanistan contributed to the rise of Al-Qaeda is not the same as blaming the CIA for 9/11.
 
dowie said:
What is the source for this claim re: mercinaries?
Click to expand...
I think from what I've been following of the conversation, it's one of those "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist" type semantics arguments.

The general argument/debate seems to be why we call foreign fighters paid by Russia to fight "mercenaries" but foreign fighters paid by Ukraine to fight "volunteers".

It's a very grey area as legally speaking both would be defined as mercenaries by the UN Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. However one key factor is that Russia (like the UK, US, et al) never signed the convention as it also applies to soldiers employed via PMCs and there was no point signing a UN convention you have no intention to even try and adhere to, so the fact we're acknowledging their mercs as mercs has no legal blowback for them, they're allowed mercs and nobody can do anything but complain. Ukraine on the other had did sign the convention and so by recruiting foreign fighters for the defence of Ukraine they are in breach, however as everyone apart from Russia is labelling them volunteers it seems like the world is simply turning a blind eye to the breach given what's happening in Ukraine.

I for one have no issue with that, because while Ukraine's actions may be against the letter of the convention they are not against the spirit of it because it was designed to stop the use of mercenaries in internal conflicts and acts of aggression, not to stop the use of mercenaries to defend your country from genocide (as that wasn't conceived as something that should be an issue in the modern world).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom