Wars & Rumours of Wars

nivek

As Above So Below
British soldier fighting alongside Ukraine marines in Mariupol says his unit has 'no choice but to surrender' after 'running out of food and ammunition'... as mayor says a 'carpet of corpses' covers the streets

A British soldier fighting alongside Ukrainian marine in Mariupol has said his unit has no choice but to surrender to the Russians. Former care worker Aiden Aslin, 28, who moved to Ukraine in 2018 after falling in love with a woman from Mykolaiv, said forces have run out of supplies with Russians closing in.

It comes after claims Russia used chemical weapons dropped from a drone over Mariupol last night, as Putin continues his brutal assault on the strategic port city.

Aslin said in a message posted via a contact on Twitter: 'It's been 48 days, we tried our best to defend Mariupol but we have no choice but to surrender to Russian forces. 'We have no food and no ammunition. It's been a pleasure everyone, I hope this war ends soon.'

The post added: 'We're putting this out after direct consultation with his family. Until we're told otherwise we'll continue working on sharing the facts of the war. Hope for a prisoner exchange.'

Aslin, from Newark, Nottinghamshire, is now in his fourth year with the Ukranian armed forces and was due to get married this Spring and complete his service in September.

When Russia launched their brutal invasion, Aslin was stationed in the Donbass region where separatists and the Ukrainian armed forces have been fighting since 2014.

There are an estimated 10,000 civilians who have been killed by Putin's army in Mariupol which has seen some of the worst fighting of the war. Corpses are now 'carpeted through the streets' of the crucial port city, according to its mayor Vadym Boychenko.

He accused Russian forces of having blocked weeks of attempted humanitarian convoys into the city in part to conceal the carnage. Boychenko said the death toll in Mariupol alone could surpass 20,000.

Boychenko also gave new details of allegations by Ukrainian officials that Russian forces have brought mobile cremation equipment to Mariupol to dispose of the corpses of victims of the siege. Russian forces have taken many bodies to a huge shopping center where there are storage facilities and refrigerators, Boychenko said. 'Mobile crematoriums have arrived in the form of trucks: You open it, and there is a pipe inside and these bodies are burned,' he said.

Boychenko spoke from a location in Ukrainian-controlled territory but outside Mariupol. The mayor said he had several sources for his description of the alleged methodical burning of bodies by Russian forces in the city, but did not further detail the sources of his information.


...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Doomed Moskva Russia warship is 'seen burning in satellite image' after Ukraine missile strike 'killed ALL 510 aboard' Putin's Black Sea flagship

Satellite images show the pride of Putin's Black Sea Fleet burning while other vessels are scrambled to rescue those onboard before it sank after it was struck by Ukrainian missiles in an attack which Kyiv has claimed killed all 500 crew including its captain. Radar satellite imagery of the northern Black Sea on April 13 appears to pinpoint the Soviet-era Moskva warship, which Ukraine said was struck by two Neptune cruise missiles fired by one of its batteries near the port city of Odesa. Other vessels are seen in attendance. As one of the largest ships lost in combat since the Second World War, the Moskva's sinking is a huge blow to Russian military prestige.

56678797-10723973-image-a-52_1650101165444.jpg


.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Putin races to salvage military secrets on board sunken Moskva: Russian president 'scrambles eight-ship flotilla to wreck of Black Sea Fleet flagship to secure coding devices and unexploded missiles'

Putin has launched a major salvage operation to the wreck of the downed Black Sea Fleet flagship to secure military secrets including coding devices, unexploded missiles, and possibly even attempt to bring the bodies of dead sailors back home, naval experts have claimed. An eight-ship salvage flotilla including Kommuna, the world's oldest active warship, and submarine has been sent to the site of the sunken Moskva 80 miles off the coast of Odessa from Sevastopol, the large naval base in Russia-annexed Crimea, according to a report by Forbes. Military expert HI Sutton has suggested that Putin may be hoping to retrieve 'cryptological materials - radios and keys indicating secret codes - as well as any weapons or logs that might be of interest to a foreign power'. He explained that the sole purpose of the 315ft-long Kommuna, which was built 110 years ago for Tsar Nicholas II's navy and served in the Imperial and Soviet navies during both world wars, is to recover sunken vessels and cargo after a shipwreck or other maritime casualty. But since the Moskva is around 160ft under water, experts believe it is unlikely that Kommuna will attempt to salvage the entire wreck.

56678149-10745747-image-a-26_1650701622070.jpg


.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
How much dirt does Zelensky have on Biden? He got $800M a week ago. And now he gets ANOTHER $800M?

Screenshot_20220423-162325.jpg
 

kellyb

Adept
It's not dirt on Biden motivating this. It's just that the US wants to dominate the world, so draining Russia of resources via a proxy war with us in Ukraine serves that purpose.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
It's not dirt on Biden motivating this. It's just that the US wants to dominate the world, so draining Russia of resources via a proxy war with us in Ukraine serves that purpose.

Proxy wars between major powers has been the game since direct confrontation could and just might lead to annihilation. Putin's made pains to remind us all of that because I think a relatively small NATO force could chop that vaunted Red Army to pieces in short order. The Russians made a bad move and will now pay for it and the Ukrainians will suffer like Iraqis, Kurds, Syrians, Afghanis, Vietnamese etc etc
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Proxy wars between major powers has been the game since direct confrontation could and just might lead to annihilation. Putin's made pains to remind us all of that because I think a relatively small NATO force could chop that vaunted Red Army to pieces in short order. The Russians made a bad move and will now pay for it and the Ukrainians will suffer like Iraqis, Kurds, Syrians, Afghanis, Vietnamese etc etc

When big countries do wars of words, small countries do the real dying part.

Although I wouldn't count Russia as a big country, it has GDP smaller then South Korea.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Doomed Moskva Russia warship is 'seen burning in satellite image' after Ukraine missile strike 'killed ALL 510 aboard' Putin's Black Sea flagship

Satellite images show the pride of Putin's Black Sea Fleet burning while other vessels are scrambled to rescue those onboard before it sank after it was struck by Ukrainian missiles in an attack which Kyiv has claimed killed all 500 crew including its captain. Radar satellite imagery of the northern Black Sea on April 13 appears to pinpoint the Soviet-era Moskva warship, which Ukraine said was struck by two Neptune cruise missiles fired by one of its batteries near the port city of Odesa. Other vessels are seen in attendance. As one of the largest ships lost in combat since the Second World War, the Moskva's sinking is a huge blow to Russian military prestige.

56678797-10723973-image-a-52_1650101165444.jpg


.

One question I have is if Ukraine hit Moskva with Harpoon missile, why didn't Ukraine repeat the attack once again to sink all the other auxiliary ships that gathered to help Moskva? It was such a major opportunity to wipe out at leas three or four more Russian ships. That would be a huge moral boost for Ukrainians, yet they missed the chance. Why?
 

AD1184

Celestial
One question I have is if Ukraine hit Moskva with Harpoon missile, why didn't Ukraine repeat the attack once again to sink all the other auxiliary ships that gathered to help Moskva? It was such a major opportunity to wipe out at leas three or four more Russian ships. That would be a huge moral boost for Ukrainians, yet they missed the chance. Why?
Ukraine is reported to have used its native-developed Neptune anti-ship missile to sink the Moskva. A fact seemingly confirmed by Russia, as it struck the manufacturer's headquarters with a cruise missile immediately after the attack. Destroying the support ships that were rescuing the survivors would probably amount to a needless escalation, leading to greater Russian reprisals. Russia will be naturally more wary about deploying its vessels along Ukraine's remaining Black Sea coast, without Moskva's support flotilla being sunk as well.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow


I'm posting it here because I don't know where else to put it.

But it is very interesting photo, because media always makes you see only the mythical action side of the wars. But this photo shows more of the dark side. These guys even can count themselves as a lucky, because they've been pulled out and reached somebody who can give them medical care. Who knows how many wounded died in some fox hole while waiting to be saved.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable


I'm posting it here because I don't know where else to put it.

But it is very interesting photo, because media always makes you see only the mythical action side of the wars. But this photo shows more of the dark side. These guys even can count themselves as a lucky, because they've been pulled out and reached somebody who can give them medical care. Who knows how many wounded died in some fox hole while waiting to be saved.


Interesting description of a newbie encountering 1st US Marine Division survivors on Guadalcanal in here.
upload_2022-4-25_7-15-22.png
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Moscow says it CAN attack military sites in NATO countries who support Ukraine and provide arms and may target diplomats in Kyiv with 'retaliatory strikes'

The Kremlin has warned it could target military sites in NATO countries which are supporting Ukraine amid Russia's invasion. Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, suggested that strikes could be authorized against NATO states who provide arms to Ukraine.

She warned: 'Do we understand correctly that for the sake of disrupting the logistics of military supplies, Russia can strike military targets on the territory of those NATO countries that supply arms to the Kyiv regime? After all, this directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory.'

Her words came after Britain's Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said that the UK backed Ukrainian air strikes on Russian infrastructure. He added that it would be 'completely legitimate' for British weapons to be used in such attacks, even though none are currently thought to be.

But his remarks were seized upon by the Kremlin, with the defense ministry accusing him of 'provocation'.

In a significant escalation of tensions, Moscow also warned that it would be prepared to strike back at 'decision-making centers' in Kyiv in retaliation, even if Western diplomats were present.

.
 

AD1184

Celestial
Moscow says it CAN attack military sites in NATO countries who support Ukraine and provide arms and may target diplomats in Kyiv with 'retaliatory strikes'

The Kremlin has warned it could target military sites in NATO countries which are supporting Ukraine amid Russia's invasion. Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, suggested that strikes could be authorized against NATO states who provide arms to Ukraine.

She warned: 'Do we understand correctly that for the sake of disrupting the logistics of military supplies, Russia can strike military targets on the territory of those NATO countries that supply arms to the Kyiv regime? After all, this directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory.'

Her words came after Britain's Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said that the UK backed Ukrainian air strikes on Russian infrastructure. He added that it would be 'completely legitimate' for British weapons to be used in such attacks, even though none are currently thought to be.

But his remarks were seized upon by the Kremlin, with the defense ministry accusing him of 'provocation'.

In a significant escalation of tensions, Moscow also warned that it would be prepared to strike back at 'decision-making centers' in Kyiv in retaliation, even if Western diplomats were present.

.
Would it have adversely affected the outcome in Ukraine if James Heappey had just kept his stupid mouth shut on this occasion?
 

AD1184

Celestial
Quite a good opinion piece in the Guardian today on the Russo-Ukrainian war:

Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now | Angus Roxburgh

"Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now
Angus Roxburgh


"By providing arms but avoiding military intervention western leaders are prolonging this hideous conflict. Talks are the best way out.

"Few people in the west doubt that Ukraine is fighting a just war. Russia’s invasion was entirely unprovoked. Whatever complaints it may have had about Nato expansion or Ukraine’s mistreatment of Russians in Donbas, nobody had attacked Russia, and nobody was planning to. Vladimir Putin launched a straightforward war of aggression and territorial conquest.

"It follows that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. But it is not at all clear that the kind of support we are giving (and not giving) is the right way to go about preserving the Ukrainian nation.


"The longer this war rages on, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities, industry and economy. Yet the west’s current approach of supporting Ukraine’s war aim of defeating the aggressor, and providing arms for that purpose while pointedly avoiding direct military intervention, is guaranteed to prolong the war. Russia’s progress may be slowed, but it’s highly unlikely to be stopped, far less pushed out of Ukraine, and in the meantime the grinding destruction and hideous war crimes will continue."
I don't think that very many people who are gung-ho on the issue of supporting Ukraine with military aid against Russia fully appreciate the consequences of this for Ukraine itself.

From the comments on the above article, we can see a few common counter arguments to seeking a negotiated peace between Ukraine and Russia.

One is that it should not be up to the west, but up to Ukraine to decide whether to seek a negotiated peace. This argument would be fair enough if it was purely a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, Ukraine is able to resist Russia because it is receiving assistance from the west: monetary, humanitarian, and, most contentiously, offensive weapons and other military equipment. This aid is provided by western countries at risk to themselves, and thus they rightly have a say on what conditions they will provide this aid. And when the war is done, assuming Ukraine still exists, then no doubt it will come to the west for further aid to rebuild itself. Ukraine can be the sole determiner at its own expense, and not at ours.

Stripped of persiflage, another argument against is that an assumption is made that the talks will fail, due to the character of Putin, therefore they should not be attempted. There is a risk of failure in mediation. However, that is not an argument not to make an attempt. Compared to war, negotiations are cheap, and the potential gains are immense.

There is an immense cost to Ukraine of continuing its fight. Tens of thousands of lives lost, still more maimed for life. Millions displaced from their homes. Hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, plus more lost on the expense of keeping the war going. Further, it is likely that it will permanently lose a lot of its territory to Russia, including all, or most, of its economically vital Black Sea coastline.

In a negotiated peace, Russia may accept fewer territorial gains, and thus Ukraine would lose less territory, and there will be the benefit of the conflict coming to an end sooner. Every day the conflict goes on, the higher the cost of it for Ukraine. If the invasion is halted by Russia because it can no longer continue, that is not to say that Russia will withdraw, or that Ukraine will be able to push Russia back to within the borders before 2022, much less 2014.

It seems probable that the war could have been avoided, or at least made much less likely, if Ukraine and its western allies had been willing to make a few, what by now seem trivial, compromises (accept the loss of Crimea, and Luhansk and Donetsk, agree not to join NATO or the EU). Critics of this view say it would not have worked because they somehow have clairvoyant powers that let them know that Putin could not have been prevented from launching a costly and desperate invasion by giving him what he had asked for. Now, Ukraine has lost all of these things*, and much more.

*Some might quibble that Ukraine retains the hope of gaining EU membership. However, the benefits to a country like Ukraine of EU membership are principally economic. It does not enhance freedom, democracy, sovereignty, or the right to national self-determination. You have to rein in some of these desires as the cost of joining. The economic and intangible damage done to Ukraine as a result of this war far outweighs anything it could have stood to gain from EU membership for generations.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Quite a good opinion piece in the Guardian today on the Russo-Ukrainian war:

Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now | Angus Roxburgh

"Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now
Angus Roxburgh


"By providing arms but avoiding military intervention western leaders are prolonging this hideous conflict. Talks are the best way out.

"Few people in the west doubt that Ukraine is fighting a just war. Russia’s invasion was entirely unprovoked. Whatever complaints it may have had about Nato expansion or Ukraine’s mistreatment of Russians in Donbas, nobody had attacked Russia, and nobody was planning to. Vladimir Putin launched a straightforward war of aggression and territorial conquest.

"It follows that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. But it is not at all clear that the kind of support we are giving (and not giving) is the right way to go about preserving the Ukrainian nation.


"The longer this war rages on, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities, industry and economy. Yet the west’s current approach of supporting Ukraine’s war aim of defeating the aggressor, and providing arms for that purpose while pointedly avoiding direct military intervention, is guaranteed to prolong the war. Russia’s progress may be slowed, but it’s highly unlikely to be stopped, far less pushed out of Ukraine, and in the meantime the grinding destruction and hideous war crimes will continue."
I don't think that very many people who are gung-ho on the issue of supporting Ukraine with military aid against Russia fully appreciate the consequences of this for Ukraine itself.

From the comments on the above article, we can see a few common counter arguments to seeking a negotiated peace between Ukraine and Russia.

One is that it should not be up to the west, but up to Ukraine to decide whether to seek a negotiated peace. This argument would be fair enough if it was purely a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, Ukraine is able to resist Russia because it is receiving assistance from the west: monetary, humanitarian, and, most contentiously, offensive weapons and other military equipment. This aid is provided by western countries at risk to themselves, and thus they rightly have a say on what conditions they will provide this aid. And when the war is done, assuming Ukraine still exists, then no doubt it will come to the west for further aid to rebuild itself. Ukraine can be the sole determiner at its own expense, and not at ours.

Stripped of persiflage, another argument against is that an assumption is made that the talks will fail, due to the character of Putin, therefore they should not be attempted. There is a risk of failure in mediation. However, that is not an argument not to make an attempt. Compared to war, negotiations are cheap, and the potential gains are immense.

There is an immense cost to Ukraine of continuing its fight. Tens of thousands of lives lost, still more maimed for life. Millions displaced from their homes. Hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, plus more lost on the expense of keeping the war going. Further, it is likely that it will permanently lose a lot of its territory to Russia, including all, or most, of its economically vital Black Sea coastline.

In a negotiated peace, Russia may accept fewer territorial gains, and thus Ukraine would lose less territory, and there will be the benefit of the conflict coming to an end sooner. Every day the conflict goes on, the higher the cost of it for Ukraine. If the invasion is halted by Russia because it can no longer continue, that is not to say that Russia will withdraw, or that Ukraine will be able to push Russia back to within the borders before 2022, much less 2014.

It seems probable that the war could have been avoided, or at least made much less likely, if Ukraine and its western allies had been willing to make a few, what by now seem trivial, compromises (accept the loss of Crimea, and Luhansk and Donetsk, agree not to join NATO or the EU). Critics of this view say it would not have worked because they somehow have clairvoyant powers that let them know that Putin could not have been prevented from launching a costly and desperate invasion by giving him what he had asked for. Now, Ukraine has lost all of these things*, and much more.

*Some might quibble that Ukraine retains the hope of gaining EU membership. However, the benefits to a country like Ukraine of EU membership are principally economic. It does not enhance freedom, democracy, sovereignty, or the right to national self-determination. You have to rein in some of these desires as the cost of joining. The economic and intangible damage done to Ukraine as a result of this war far outweighs anything it could have stood to gain from EU membership for generations.

I've just read one of the major mainstream sites that war in Ukraine will last for years.

US and allies have a priority to bleed Russia dry, all the way to the bone, through combination of sanctions and war expense, and now they have once in a lifetime opportunity. If they miss it they will regret. If they don't miss opportunity they can break up Russia into pieces and get all these Russia's commodities at a prices they can control. Its no brainier.

Russia will bleed quite fast, with its antiquated weaponry and zero chance to stop inflow of super high-tech NATO weaponry through Ukrainian western borders that will forever be out of Russia's reach. NATO effectively has Russia cornered in an unsustainable condition. I guess guys from Rand Corporation are drinking champagne every day.

Only additional expense for the West is cost of welfare for those 4 million Ukrainian women and children who are now in EU. But that's not covered by US tax payer's money, but with EU taxpayer's money, so it should be OK :).
 
Last edited:

AD1184

Celestial
I've just read one of the major mainstream sites that war in Ukraine will last for years.

US and allies have a priority to bleed Russia dry, all the way to the bone, through combination of sanctions and war expense, and now they have once in a lifetime opportunity. If they miss it they will regret. If they don't miss opportunity they can break up Russia into pieces and get all these Russia's commodities at a prices they can control. Its no brainier.

Russia will bleed quite fast, with its antiquated weaponry and zero chance to stop inflow of super high-tech NATO weaponry through Ukrainian western borders that will forever be out of Russia's reach. NATO effectively has Russia cornered in an unsustainable condition. I guess guys from Rand Corporation are drinking champagne every day.

Only additional expense for the West is cost of welfare for those 4 million Ukrainian women and children who are now in EU. But that's not covered by US tax payer's money, but with EU taxpayer's money, so it should be OK :).
I think you are right that the goal of the US is to force the Russian Federation to break up under economic and political pressure from an unaffordable, unwinnable war in Ukraine that Putin cannot afford politically to withdraw from.

I think that more than this being a fortuitous opportunity for the US, it is actually the product of more than a decade's manoeuvring in the region to lay a trap for Russia in Ukraine. It was well known that Russia considered the alignment of Ukraine to be a strategic issue of existential importance. Continued NATO encroachment in the region, even after the Georgia-Russia conflict of 2008, the continued focus of NATO on Russia, and the US-backed Euromaidan putsch in Ukraine in 2014, has been to fuel Russian paranoia and to cause it to lash out at Ukraine.

One benefit that the US no doubt seeks is that the collapse of the Russian Federation will cause it to be unseated as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as there is no other way to achieve this. The US took Russia's vetoes of its attempts to intervene in Syria personally. There could then either be a more compliant 'successor state' formed of the western Russian states after a regime change, or some other arrangement entirely, if the successors will not play along, where Russia is not replaced as a permanent member, or another state is appointed permanent member in its stead.

It also perhaps offers a solution to the question of how to sort out Russia's east-west alignment. As a vast trans-Eurasian empire, it is too big to be admitted either into the EU or NATO. Its eastern territories are too remote and indefensible, leaving a potential flashpoint with China. But if its borders could be shrunk to its European regions, then perhaps it could more palatably be inducted into the western fold under new leadership.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
But fun is going to be kicked on all new level.

Now that Ukraine is starting to receive heavier weapons, Ukraine is going to use that opportunity to revenge for all the destruction that Russia had done to their country. So, Ukraine had already started attacks on Russian territory, but with heavier weapons we can only expect that to intensify.

With that context goes observation that Ukraine had been so emboldened that peace negotiations had all but stopped.

And there lays a dormant beast. More successful Ukrainians become with attacks on Russian and Belarusian towns more chance that Russians will respond with nuclear attack on Ukraine.
 
Top