Zelensky: Ukraine to meet with Russia for peace talks
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- Dave Lawler
President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that a Ukrainian delegation would meet with a Russian delegation near the Ukrainian-Belarusian border for peace talks "without preconditions."
State of play: A senior Pentagon official told reporters on Sunday that Russia has now committed two-thirds of its massed forces to the fight inside Ukraine, and has fired over 320 missiles, but still does not hold a major population center. Russia's advance on Kyiv has also stalled about 30km (19 miles) from the city center, the official said.
The latest: Zelensky said on Telegram following a conversation with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko that the two groups would meet on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, near the Pripyat River.
What they're saying: "Lukashenko has taken responsibility for ensuring that all planes, helicopters and missiles stationed on Belarusian territory remain on the ground during the Ukrainian delegation's travel, talks and return," Zelensky said.
- "Our president, from the beginning, even before the war started, was focused on the diplomatic solution," Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova said after the announcement, per CNN. "But he always said, 'we're ready for peace talks, we're not ready to surrender.'"
- Zelensky had previously rejected a Russian offer to meet in Minsk and offered alternative locations, including Warsaw and Israel.
- "We go there to listen to what Russia wants to say," Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Sunday. "We are bleeding, but we continue to successfully defend ourselves," he added, comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin's tactics to those of Adolf Hitler.
Between the lines: It's unclear what exactly can be achieved from negotiations between envoys sent byPutin and Zelensky, given that Putin's unprovoked invasion appears to be aimed largely at removing Zelensky from power.
- He has called on the Ukrainian military to topple their president and absurdly suggested that Zelensky's administration is comprised of Nazis (Zelensky is Jewish and lost family members in the Holocaust).
- Putin is also hardly acting conciliatory. He ordered Russia's nuclear deterrent forces on high alert on Sunday, citing Western sanctions and "aggressive statements." Kuleba said Kyiv sees that as an attempt "to raise stakes and to put additional pressure on the Ukrainian delegation" in the peace talks.
Driving the news: U.S. and Ukrainian officials say Russia's plan to rapidly encircle Kyiv have been thwarted.
- Ukraine's Defense Ministry says Ukraine has retaken all of Kharkiv — Ukraine's second-largest city, which lies on its eastern border with Russia and has endured some of the heaviest fighting of the war — after it was breached by Russian forces on Saturday. Ukraine also confirmed that Russian forces blew up a gas pipeline in Kharkiv.
- But defense analysts have warned that Russia is likely to respond to the stiff Ukrainian resistance with still more aggressive tactics. The Kremlin said Saturday that it would intensify its operations after a "pause." Forces from Chechnya have entered the fight, while Belarusian forces have reportedly been readied to deploy in support of Russia.
Meanwhile, Western sanctions and signals of resolve continue to flood in. Images of Russians standing in long lines at ATMs were shared widely on Sunday.
- The Kremlin and state media continue to tell Russians that no "war" or "invasion" is taking place, but instead states there's a limited defensive operation in eastern Ukraine.
- The large protests in Moscow and St. Petersburg, despite the threat of mass arrests, indicate that many Russians aren't buying it.
What to watch: Having already threatened any independent publications that report on Russian casualties or aggression with censorship, the government is preparing to crack down harder on its citizens.
- The Kremlin today announced that "the provision of any assistance to a foreign state" during the "military operation" would be considered treason, carrying a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
Editor's note: This is a breaking story, check back for updates.
Tags
Who is online
264 visitors
I would have demanded Paris.
I think it should have been on neutral ground, which Belarus definitely is not.
I agree. no expectations of any type of fair play should be associated with putin or his puppets.
Me, too. I can see that there are shady shenanigans afoot from here.
Putin and Lukashenko...birds, feathers, etc.
Did any report indicate which side of the border the meeting would be held? If not, why say it's in Belarus?
NPR reported that the meeting would be in Belarus.
I read it is to be held in or near Pripyat near Chernobyl close to the border on the Ukraine side
, cant say i blame the Ukrainians after what Belarus did to the Ryan air flight .
Russia sent a delegation to the southern Belarusian city of Gomel on Sunday, but Mr. Zelensky initially said he refused to meet in a country that has become a launchpad for Russia’s attacks.
Mr. Zelensky did, however, speak by phone to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko later on Sunday, and said that he agreed to have his envoys meet with the Russian delegation on the river Prypiat along the Ukrainian-Belarusian border. Mr. Lukashenko pledged during the conversation, the two men’s first in two years, that no Russian military activity would be carried out from Belarus in the meantime, Mr. Zelensky said.
Correct!
I agree. I don't believe Belarus's president can be trusted since he's an ally of Putin
[deleted]
Excellent!
I would have demanded that or perhaps Provence!
Didn't the North Vietnamese do that?
I just read an article that said Belarus will have its special forces join the Russian invasion. If this is true, IMO, the Ukrainians should boycott the meeting or at the very least demand that they be held in a neutral site.
These aggressors are disgusting human beings. The decent nations need to step in and stop this crap. The only reason aggressors act is because they believe they can prevail with a net positive result.
Unless it's the right thing to do, as several US Presidents have told the American people. The United States has been at war since 1941. When can the American people expect peace?
Unless what is the right thing to do, Nerm?
Doing nothing is not the right thing to do.
Standing by while Russia and Belarus attack Ukraine is not the right thing to do.
There are many options available to the world's nations other than standing by and allowing such aggression to happen.
First, I am not suggesting that the USA engage in war. There are many other options. But for your question, the real world does not provide that luxury. We cannot prevent assholes from being assholes and we cannot isolate ourselves from the effects. That is reality.
So are you are suggesting a isolationist approach by the United States? Sounds like it. We tried that in the years between WW I and WW II and look where that got us.
I have as much sympathy for Ukraine as I have for Russia. Which is none. The United States doesn't need to be involved in this shitshow. If Europe will not defend itself then why should the United States try? Why isn't the European Union and NATO leading the effort? Why does the United States have to be out in front?
Dumbass Biden has placed the United States into another quagmire. We'll be dealing with this shitshow for at least a decade. What do we do now? Are we going to cut spending on domestic programs so we can spend more to defend Europe? Are we going to be prioritizing defense spending and upgrading our nuclear arsenal? Or do we just spend ourselves into bankruptcy and not worry about it?
Nerm, you know we're part of NATO, right?
For most sane and reasonable people, war should be the extreme last resort of failed diplomacy. Then again, most people in the world right now doubt Putin is sane and reasonable.
but what started out as the 2nd largest/country & military in the world against #22
now is going to add Belarus and Chechnya to the Russian side.
Diplomacy won't work against the lies used to start this mess.
Capture Kalinsgrad and start attacking Belarus
moving forward Nato and UN troops into Ukraine from Poland.
Fire cruise missiles from the black sea and the Seas of Crete.
Turkey had better quickly decide if they want to stay in Nato
and let us use our air bases .
Time is running out.
Part of NATO? Without the United States there would be no NATO. The European Union countries wouldn't (and don't) waste their money on NATO.
Europe didn't even activate its response forces until the second day of Russian fighting inside Ukraine. Europe doesn't even want to provide munitions to Ukraine; Germany dragged its feet until today, the third day of Russian fighting in Ukraine.
Ukraine's military consists of 200,000 personnel (which includes 125,000 ground troops, 35,000 air personnel, and 15,000 naval personnel). Ukraine has 900,000 reservists and national guard troops. Ukraine could invade and defeat European neighbors given enough munitions. The Ukrainian military has been fighting a war in eastern Ukraine for eight years so battle hardened troops are available. And we're supposed to believe Russia did not know this?
Russia is fighting a Russian trained, battle hardened Ukrainian military that is much larger than the force Russia has committed. Everyone ignores that Russia used Ukraine to be a front line offensive force against Europe during the Cold War. Ukraine has not changed. And Ukraine has not neglected its military as has the rest of Europe.
The Ukrainian military could defeat NATO.
So, the US shouldn't be involved, but NATO, which wouldn't exist without the US, should?
How the hell does that even work, Nerm?
Explain the logic of holding both positions simultaneously, please.
It is called "Cognitive Dissonance". Chronic...
It doesn't work. And that's the point I'm making. Why does the United States maintain NATO only so the United States can fight the wars for Europe?
The United States thinking that maintaining NATO means Europeans will support our wars is nothing but lying to ourselves. Europe won't even defend itself and we don't need NATO to fight our wars.
Odd, Nerm. The last time we were attacked, NATO sent forces on our behalf to Afghanistan. Did we not need them? Were they failing to even defend themselves? Not only have they fought wars in Europe when member nations have been attacked, they've also fought alongside us when we've been attacked.
The NATO Resolute Support Mission was a non-combat role. The Hamid Karzai government invited NATO to participate. NATO did not fight in Afghanistan.
I seem to remember Sadam's million man army was suppose to be able to wipe out the coalition forces too during the first gulf conflict, how did that work out ?
What did the Resolute Support Mission replace, Nerm? What was NATO doing there prior to 2014?
Being involved in a war seems to be a necessity for the USA. As long as they exist, the arms manufacturers will be busy, because without that the American economy might tank.
Buzz, that wasn't called for. There isn't a single American on this conversation who wants this war to be happening, nor who wants America to be involved in it.
I'm sure nobody WANTS war, but Sandy, is there any other country that has involved itself in wars almost consistently over the last 80 years, not necessarily for the purpose of defending itself?
Maybe now with all the modern military equipment they have been given, but prior to the invasion? not a snowballs chance in hell... They were essentially equipped with Russian equipment, the same equipment that was so effective for Saddam Hussein
Ukraine had no defense against cruise missiles, standoff missiles, the airforces of the member nations... and that is only the beginning...
Ukraine joining NATO is a huge plus for NATO yes, and a big boost for the military effectiveness of Ukraine and NATO... (just on the basis of upgraded current equipment alone)
Well, let's see. We were criticized for not joining WWII early enough. Are we also to be criticized for joining at all? Even after being attacked, ourselves?
I'll go back a bit farther than 80 years, and we were criticized for not joining WWI early enough, too.
You know, Korea and Vietnam, I'll grant you.
Even Iraq, both times.
Afghanistan - well, we were attacked. It was kinda a big deal at the time.
Have you checked out how many wars in which Russia has been involved? It's a pretty long list, and involves a lot of invasions of other nations by Russia. Russia has been at war almost continuously since WWII, not just in Europe, but in the Middle East and Africa, as well. Angola? Somalia? Were they threats to Mother Russia?
So, yeah, I can name a country that has involved itself almost continuously in wars over the last 80 years, not necessarily for the purpose of defending itself. Russia.
And it's doing so now. Perceived threats aren't threats. They're excuses for aggression.
Buzz what 2 countrys industrial and military base came out of WW2 pretty much unscathed and able to confront anyone anywhere? those 2 countrys pretty much became the worlds go too country and world policeman , the Soviets and the US . thats why both those countrys did so well for as long as they did , they were the only places in town , the lone mercantile so to speak , that is until the other nations rebuilt and came into line to start competing . and both those countries did things as they saw fit , defended those they chose , and continued to fight either directly or indirectly through proxies , we call it the cold war era both sides wanted to come out on top , neither really did .
Chinas going down that same road right now , but they use politics and economics instead of proxy wars for leverage . and they will likely have the same result . they wont end up on top any more than Russia or the US has because there will always be other competition and those that disagree.
but you already know that because your old enough that you lived through all of it .
The decent nations need to step in and stop this crap.
But how?
So far many nations have sent a lot of military equipment. Have participated in sanctions and other measures.
I think the only way they could help more is by actually send in military forces to confront the Russian military-- which is obviously a foolish thing to do.
(I believe some individuals have actually said they'd voluntarily go there to fight the Russians, but I haven't followed up on that story, and in any event I wonder how many would actually go?)
Pun intended?
Maybe?
WTF???
What kind of military equipment? Advanced missiles? Advanced tanks? Fighter jets? Stealth bombers?
And how many Ukrainian fighters are there-- compared to the number of fighters NATO nations could filed?
I had to google it-- and discovered that NATO has 30 countries. How does the number of soldiers Ukraine can field compare to those that 30 other countries, combined, send to battle.?
In fact,how well do you think the Ukraine would stand up against even one NATO member militarily (i.e. the U.S.)
The Ukrainian military could defeat NATO? (Comments like that make me wonder if perhaps NT is not the best site for me at this time...)
Do you think that some of those large cap techs don't contribute much to our economy? Do you realize how much business Facebook does? Amazon? Netflix? Google? Microsoft? Apple?
And many more tech cos/
But aside from that-- what about the dollar values of companies such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Citibank, etc.
Pepsi, Coke, ..AT&T, Verizon...?
Chevron alone...ExxonMobile, how many other oiland gas companies are American?
Then there's Ford, GM< Tesla...
Actually I was thinking more in terms of having another unfriendly country directly on Putin's border
There have always been a fairly large number of people who claim that the "Military-Industrial Complex" has to much power.
But then again-- there have also been people who claim various other industries have too much power.
Recently a favourite sector to attack is Big Tech. And even some of their employees are jumping in:
77% of tech employees think Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook have too much power
And IIRC, ironically it wasn't some group of lefttists that coined that phrase ("Military Industrial Complex")-- it was a Republican! (President Eisenhower)
Not sure if he made up the term, or if was the first to really warn of the dangers he felt it posed.
Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq. (?)
Although I suppose it depends upon what is mean by "almost consistently" in this context.
(Transjordan conquered the West Bank by force and then illegally occupied it then annexed it, thus preventing the formation of a new state to be called Palestine-- but its basically been the country of Jordan all along)
And there was Britain perhaps--but don't know the history well enough to be sure without googling. And I'm not sure of the time frames, but they were continually fighting people in their colonies-- not to defend themselves.
Russia before and during Communism??
(Admittedly, world history is hardly one of my areas of expertise).
Of course.
First they could easily defeat the U. S.-- probably in a matter of a few days. And the Ukrainians would have no trouble defeating the armies of France or Britain and in fact the combined countries of Poland, Canada, Germany, Italy and a few others.
The Ukrainian military could defeat all of 'em (plus a few other NATO members I haven't mentioned)--- the Ukrainian military could defeat all of 'em-- with one hand tied behind their back!
Just curious NermL do you find you've been getting a lot of obnoxious sales calls lately-- people who have great deals on bridges they'd like to sell you?
He wasn't the first to use the term, but he was the first to use it publicly.... I believe the first was Chesty Puller, and the second was Alexander Vandegrift... The third was Ike...
What they all had in common, US General Officers....
OMG-- now you're starting to sound a lot like Buzz!
FWIW, that was the prevailing sentiment in the U.S. early in WWII. Yes, the vast majority of Americans felt we didn't need to be involved in that "shitshow".
Many people give the U.S. credit for actively choosing to take action in WWII to stop the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. But what many people forget is that the majority of U.S. opinion was overwhelmingly pro-neutrality-- we didn't want to get involved in "foreign wars". So we never chose to get involved in WWII...
Well-- until Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbour. So then we really didn't have a choice.
So what's your take-- do you think we are actually losing this war, winning..or actual stalemate?
Kav i read today , that there are protests because the Belarus government is talking about revoking their non nuclear status in their constitution in that country.
this is getting interesting to say the least , and not in a good way .
i also read that since the Chechen unit sent in to get the Ukraine government officials failed , that now russian spetnaz is being tasked with that operation.
I read the same. Russian nuclear weapons may be staged in Belarus.
Sandy , it might be time to unmothball the unit i was in that was used as a"carrot" back in 84-85 , to get the soviets to the table to talk , only time in my service i felt used and played as a sucker, but it was for a good cause .
USAF ground launched cruise missle unit( tomahawks) with nuke capability and very mobile we were .
Do you think all of this would have happened if Zelenskyy had refused NATO? As I see it, Democratic governments are doing their utmost to encircle, contain and isolate Communist nations. Do they actually think there wouldn't be a reaction to it?
Buzz i think you have it backwards .
nato didnt go ask the ukraines to join NATO, the ukraines applied to join first and were denied , up until they met some certain conditions . that's what the MAP was and is all about for their joining , .
Putin doesnt want it to happen because that puts another NATO aligned country on his border .
besides that if NATO membership is granted , the likelihood of joining the EU , away from the russian sphere of influence increases , thats something else Putin doesnt want , he is basically denying the country the right to choose for themselves which course to take .
Cuban Missile Crisis. Why should Putin feel any differently than JFK did?
Why should one sovereign nation be governed by another, Buzz? Why should Putin decide what treaties Ukraine enters? Why should Ukraine mollify Putin's paranoia?
We should have learned in the 30s that we don't appease madmen.
Nobody was going to isolate Russia until it showed itself to be aggressive. We were still engaging in trade with Russia, right up until they engaged in aggression. They've brought isolation on themselves.
And now his tantrum will backfire. Support for joining NATO is increasing in Sweden. NATO may well end up larger, stronger, and closer to Russia than it's ever been. How's that working out for him?
he shouldnt , and its not up to him anymore .
the longer the ukraines hold out , the more support they will gather , just the last week has been a week of change .
IF putin fails in this gambit and there is a chance he will, his option is nuclear armagedon .if he doesnt do that , the issue with china and taiwan changes drastically , if he does go nuclear , the china issue will be solved because nothing will be left anywhere .
thats why there was and is MAD, even when the cold war ended it was still in place , ever notice the doomsday clock all these years hasnt moved ?
Finland as well, they both have asked for immediate accession...
I think he is working himself up to it... Cause it is clear the gambit has failed, now that he is calling in the Belarus forces... It will still take months to subjugate Ukraine and it's becoming more and more clear that the Ukrainians are not going to quit...
He's being forced into a corner where he only has his nuclear threats to fall back on....
BUZZ, this isn't anywhere near the Cuban Missile Crisis... No similarity at all..
I see no road blocks for them getting in unlike what Ukraine faced ,
im starting to think this special military operation of putins , just might have given NATO what they needed to see to admit Ukraine now .
Thats why i said unmothball my old unit and equipment , send them to east Poland , if the soviets had a kaniption they were in Belgium , imagine putin when he realizes they are 15 mins or less from Moscow or anyone in the area that sides with him.....
Im betting the people of Belarus even with the puppet government , are not too happy right now . they didnt seem too happy about the joint exersize predating the incursion from their border either .
which makes me wonder how many would fight , since there are reports from independent watchdogs , the russian were told they were training , not invading and had to be beaten and tricked to go along and were not properly supplied , they figured they would be welcomed as liberators ....NOOOOT.
If you have to fight your own army personel to fight , your screwed.
That may be, but what's the chance that the Russian military will be willing to follow Putin into hell? If the Russians were to actually use nuclear weapons I don't think that NATO can or will just sit idly by.
Very unimpressed by the T-90.
Saw some opened up like tissue paper,
another, just a turret on the side of the road, presumably the survivors drove away in the bottom half
I want to know what they were hit with ....that was no molotov cocktail...
The "Special Mission" of Putin's was a Chechen Armored brigade that was To roam Ukraine searching out Ukrainian leaders for capture...
Ukrainian forces destroy convoy of 56 Chechen tanks, kill general near Kyiv – report
The Ukrainian forces destroyed it...
They can't handle the Viper anti-tank missile, much less anything we would shoot at them...
A TOW II or a Helfire II opens them up like a high powered rifle opens up an unopened tomato can....
the Javelin specifically hits from above, preferably the top of the turret.
but even if it misses it can detrack a tank or penetrate the bottom of the tank from above
The operator first picks from a small catalog of vehicles on the control screen,
then targets the T90 or T80 or other vehicle thermally and fires.
Prelaunch throws the projectile downrange, then the primary motor causes the missile to climb vertically
before descending on the weak spot of the pre chosen target.
Meanwhile the launch crew moves to a new location and can pick another target before the first one strikes.
well if the casualty reports i saw today say anything , a low of 300 to a high of about 500 for the ukrainians ,and a low of 3000 to a high of 5000 for the russian military , and thats not counting those that were captured or surrendered , remember none of those numbers are confirmed , and i rounded both down and up as appropriate for low to high in each case .
as a Putin predecessor said , 3-500 is a tragedy , 3-5000 once turned into a percentage is a statstic . gotta love Stalin and his logic , seems putin uses the same logic.
if putin is left with only his nuclear threats , he should be reminded frequently , that it is he that placed them on the table for use .
Ukraine war: St Javelin and the missile that has become a symbol of Ukraine's resistance
That is it's best firing profile against heavy armor, but pretty much any hit by a Javelin and you can retire the tank...
side note, i saw dee snyder , rocker from twisted sister , approved of the Ukrainians use of the song "we're not gonna take it ," as a battle song .
*** ear worm alert, too later , right?
And in some of the stupidest shit I've ever seen, some people are unhappy with it...
Dee Snider Receives Backlash for Ukraine Invasion Comments, Approves of Twisted Sister Hit “We’re Not Gonna Take It” as Battle Cry
But I think he defends his position very well..
2 sayings i remember from my misspent youth :
fuckem if they cant take a joke .
ya gotta learn to relax and embrace the suck
Yep if this comes to pass, it's another level of escalation... I believe it would be time for Germany to revisit it decision on nukes in Germany... they were talking about the possibility of it three days ago... It ties in with Germany's willingness to up their military commitment to Nato...
well i can sort of understand Germanys position .
being made to feel guilt for Hitler and the atrocities committed in German name , and how many generations since have had that pounded into them , , thing is todays Germans are not the Germans of yesterday that did or condoned those actions . todays Germans need to realize that they and they alone hold the key to where ever they go as a nation and society , and being able to defend ones nation and society is part and parcel of the package , and to never count on treaties or allegiances to do so for them , because even though the assistance may come , it may come too late .
Ukraine is proving that point to many right now .
What worries me, and should worry everyone, is that he is crazy enough, determined enough and desperate enough to do it.
I don't know, if they know what is actually going on it might be an issue but I'm pretty sure they haven't a clue....
Any Nuclear launch or bomb drop or artillery shell from Russian forces will force NATO's hand... That is a risk I think they cannot take...
So are you saying that Putin doesn't consider planting a NATO outpost on Russia's border a threat but JFK did consider planting Russian missiles 60 miles from Florida a threat, or that Putin does consider planting a NATO outpost on Russia's border a threat but JFK didn't consider planting Russian missiles 60 miles from Florida a threat?
That is the only thing we are waiting to see, and unfortunately, we won't know until it actually happens...
The big difference isn't the perceived threat... I'm sure he perceives a threat as unrealistic as that may be...
The difference is, there are no missiles aimed specifically at Russia like there was in the '60's... There is no real fear of Russia as a military force like there was the Soviet Union... Hence there is no need for any such attacks or invasions...
Russia's conventional military is having trouble with the Ukraine for christ's sake how long do you think they would last against a real superpower?
They are afraid of us... On a paranoia level... Putin's paranoia level that is...
Look at this is the last vestiges of soviet thinking lashing out trying to keep itself relevant.. When time, and the world, is resigning it to the dustbin of history...
Not at all like the Cuban Missile Crisis...
I think the Russian military leadership knows full well what the situation is, and they're not suicidal.
I wasn't thinking about the officer corps, I was thinking about the troops in the field...
The officer corps, is a wildcard, the older officers, (flag ranks) probably come from the same background as Putin, the younger officers, (service ranks) don't.... I doubt if they are suicidal s well, but how many are going to think outside the soviet box...
The Ukrainians being admitted to NATO would not mean they would be given mobile ground nukes as were being implemented by Russia and led to the Cuban missile crisis.
In fact, not only is NATO's missile defense not "nukes" aimed at Russia, they don't even contain any explosives.
Fact : NATO ballistic missile defense is not directed against Russia and cannot undermine Russia's strategic deterrence capabilities. It is designed to protect European Allies against missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
The interceptor missiles deployed cannot be used for offensive purposes. The interceptors contain no explosives. They cannot hit objects on the Earth's surface – only in the air. In addition, (missile defense system) lacks the software, the hardware and infrastructure needed to launch offensive missiles.
NATO invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense, an invitation extended to no other partner. Unfortunately, Russia refused to cooperate and rejected dialogue on this issue in 2013. Russian statements threatening to target Allies because of NATO's ballistic missile defense are unacceptable and counterproductive.
What Russia doesn't want is the rest of the world and neighbors being able to protect themselves from Russia, it has nothing to do with Russia being threatened by anyone else. If Ukraine became a member of NATO that would not mean nukes on Russia's doorstep, it would simply mean a closer network of defensive missile systems that could limit the threat of Russian military aggression on the rest of the world which Putin no doubt finds unacceptable.
I realized that. I was definitely thinking about the military command. The older officers have families, children, grandchildren. Younger officers have their whole lives ahead of them. I don't think they will be willing to sacrifice everything for Putin's lunacy.
There was a video of street fighting yesterday and the Ukrainians were using an old but still deadly weapon, the RPG and it looked like they took out 4 armored vehicles with the old weapon.
The Russians are in a totally different battlefield. It's not wide open territory but dense housing and forest and the ground right now will not support heavy battle tanks. As seen in the video I mentioned above the Ukrainians caught the Russians in a populated area, trapped and destroyed them.
Smart phones have changed the way we see the world,
in virtually real time, the Russian movements are being broadcast by cell phones and drones.
Putin is stuck in the past...and he doesn't trust anything he sees.
The irony is delicious..
I never knew we had ground launched nukes. I always thought that was a Soviet thing.
The things you learn from veterans around here...
Just because a weapon is of a older generation that does not mean it is not effective. Look at what the North Vietnamese did to the USAF/USN/USMC with their outdated MiG 17 and MiG 19's.
Totally in agreement, the RPG is a perfect case in point as is the MiG 17 and 19.
I might add the AK47, first used in 1947 and still one of the best weapons in the world.
Those "tomahawk" missiles are very versatile, they can be launched from a ship and many have been , when the navy launches a cruise missile it is usually a tomahawk , , dropped from bombers , and launched from the ground .
the ground launched cruise missiles are like driving oversized semi trucks
Thing about a tomahawk is it can have either a conventional or nuke warhead .
nuke tomahawks were in Great Britain and on Sicily in the 80s, and once they were stationed on the continent , the soviets had a fit , they didnt mind them on islands , but some place they could basically disappear to anywhere , they didnt like and went to the SALT table , they had their equivalent as you mentioned so knew just how hard they would be to keep track of if they were not on an island with limited places to go . .
He certainly seem a bit crazy-- but I wonder --how crazy?
If he nukes Ukraine (a country directly bordering Russia) the nuclear fallout onRurria would be horrific.
And anyway-- if he wants to conquer Ukraine and set it up as a Russian Puppet state-- its value would dimish ifthe entire country was subjectto nuclear fallout.
Hopefully these nuclear threats are merely threats-- hoping to get Ukraine and its friends to back down.
BTW, although he's been fairly unsucessful so far, I think he will change tactics and send in the remainder of troops he has in the area and ruthlessly attack Ukrainian civilians on a large scale-- and level much of major Ukrainian cities.
IIRC we had missile silos (ICBMs with nuclear warheads I believe) in North Dakota...I heard about that long ago, don't know if they're still operational.
Are those the ones that can be launched from submarines?
A few are but MIRV's allowed the reduction of many to just a relatively, (compared to 1950) few....
Yes, they can be launched from submarines as well... I believe most of the naval cruise missiles launched into Iraq were launched from subs, a few were launched from the two battleships but most were launched from subs..
Sandy , it might be time to unmothball the unit i was in that was used as a"carrot" back in 84-85 , to get the soviets to the table to talk , only time in my service i felt used and played as a sucker, but it was for a good cause .
USAF ground launched cruise missle unit( tomahawks) with nuke capability and very mobile we were .
I believe most Americans would be opposed to sending in any troops--- at all.
Half the country believes "its not our fight" and are very pro Putin. (Well they were until a few days ago when Fox News suddenly told them to change their views & they suddenly flipped! See, for example:
(Lord only knows what Fox News will tell them to think next).
And most of the rest of America who actually do strongly support democracies also mostly doesn't want to risk American lives.
And its long overdue!
To answer the last , yes there are still a good number of silos still active ,maintained and manned . some were closed as systems became too old or obsolete , but the majority are still there , still waiting , even with that unilateral disarmament thing
as to where , lot more places than just the Dakota states . i can think of 6-7 states off the top of my head .
Montana and Missouri are 2 I can think of. Probably Nebraska and Kansas, also.
There were missile silos in Arkansas but they've been mothballed. One of the worst Broken Arrows happened in Damascus, AR
one would also have to consider bases that also test these things , so add Alabama , California , you hit Montana and Missouri , the 2 Dakotas , and Wyoming has an AFB that has a missile wing in Cheyenne . Nebraska and Kansas and eastern and northern parts of Colorado.
Do you think that Putin will actually use his nukes?
I just read an article that said Belarus will have its special forces join the Russian invasion. If this is true, IMO, the Ukrainians should boycott the meeting or at the very least demand that they be held in a neutral site.
O f course none of this really matters. Putin has just ended his initial probing-- wherein the Ukrainians did amazingly well, and for the most part the Russians looked like complete buffoons.
But they've just entered the second stage of the invasion-- the one which really counts. The brave Ukrainians are greatly outnumbered, have very little amounts of heavy weapons (compared to the forces against them). And Putin, despite what his MAGA-cultist followers claim, has absolutely no considerations against the massacring of cvililians. (He started several significant cluster bomb attacks thelast day or two. Deliberately targeting civilians. .
In fact, he's deliberately going after civilians.
There 's not the slightest doubt in my mind that this will be like Chechnya all over again...
Why should Putin negotiate? Well, probably to try to fool the world into thinking he's a reasonable guy and willing to compromise! And some extremely naive people might believe him (Or even debate it endlessly online when his motives are so obvious).
The bravery and determination of Zelensky, members of parliament, the military, and the civilian population of Ukraine is exemplary, awesome, and admirable. I hope for the best results for them. Glory to Ukraine !
This 'meeting' would require a level of trust that neither Putin nor Alexander Lukashenko deserve.
Agreed. I fear for Zelensky's life.
Is he actually going? If he is, I fear this is all a setup.
No, it's a delegation, Zelensky isn't actually going to be there... (it would be a very stupid move for a national leader at war to take)
I don't know.
I hope that NWM is right.
Zelensky himself is definitely not going. The Russian delegation is going to be headed by a lower level functionary.
It was just announced that Zelensky is not going to be in attendance.
Setup? Nope-- its beyond a mere set-up. Its all insignificant bullshit is what it is. He's sending a delegation. And the Russians? IIRC their delegation is being headed by the head of The Ministry of Culture or some such minor official.
Actually Zelensky isn't as stupid as Putin's propagandists-- and that of the MAGA-cultists-- would have us think.
When I first heard of the meeting I was worried. (Guess I had been spending too much time on Social Media sites and watching TV news. Lots of analysis and absurd speculation by people who, frankly speaking, don't know their ass from a hole in the ground!).
And anyway, the only reason to have a meeting at all is if one thought Putin would be open to compromise. Why should he be-- when he's convenced he will winn (i.e. conquer all of Ukraine and not even have to occupy it!
(Why risk Russina troops by occupying it, when he can set up a puppet government of disposible Ukrainians?)
I do know.
Its all bullshit.
Think about it Sanday-- why on earth would Putin want a meeting?
The reason would be if Putin wants to offer a compromise.
(How much do people here know about Putin?)
Actually there is another reason-- which is why he is actually agreeing to a meeting. And that's because he knows how uninformed most people are-- and how gullible. (For starters-- Americans did elect Trump-- how dumb was that?).
AAnd how gullible...
So by agreeing to a meeting he's hoping to con gullible (and uninformed!) people to believe his intentions are noble.
(Or if not that, at least have them wondering if he may be a reasonable guy after all-- and wasting hours of their time speculating, when the truth should be obvious).
Yes, it is a set up. Nothing more than a propaganda ploy by Putin so he can try to convince the world that he wants a peaceful settlement when in fact he wants exactly the opposite!
Seems obvious to me (although I am mystified as to why so many people aren't aware of that).
Are they actually that gullible..or maybe naive is a better word.
"Agreed. I fear for Zelensky's life."
There was already word of an assassination attempt on him, or the plot to do so.
[deleted]
Apologies for all the typos!
This was the first time I started using my phone to make a series of comments on NT-- and for some reason I had an unbelievably difficult time editing comments before posting (never had so many problems previously when almost all the time when on NT I did it only from a regular computer). My phone has some problems when on the 'Net).
Putin takes another international diplomatic hit....
China’s Xi tells Putin to ‘resolve’ Ukraine conflict through ‘negotiation’
What is means, is China has evaluated the current situation and does not see a winning solution for Putin....
What hurts the most is him coming out and saying it publicly on the international stage...
Xi just shoved Putin into the corner...
That helps.
How so?
Both Putin and Xi see negotiation as gaining the Donesk and LBR
He already took the Crimea
Xi is telling him to quit while he is still somewhat "ahead".
If he can at this point... which I doubt...
Maybe.
BP announced that they are ending a 30 year relationship with a Russian oil company.
The world's largest wealth fund (Norway) $1.3 trillion is pulling its investments in Russia totaling around $2.5 billion.
And the hits keep coming....
I read that Switzerland is considering jumping on the sanctions band wagon against Russia.
The government said Friday that financial “intermediaries” in Switzerland were now banned from starting new business relationships with 363 Russian people and four Russian companies. Any existing business must be reported to the Swiss economic affairs secretariat. Further steps are under consideration. Source
If famously neutral Switzerland thinks you're being a shit, then you're being a shit.
My understanding is that Switzerland will decide today on whether to freeze Russian assets or not.
They have.
Wow....Russia's economy may be headed for the shitter
AeroFlot rents all of their modern aircraft on a month to month basis.
Now that the ruble is worthless, the owners and manufacturers are looking to seize the planes for
non payment as they land.
Looks like there will be a glut on the international used Airbus market!
Now that would make a difference...to a rational person!
I have to say I was a bit surprised at what traditionally neutral Sweden did.
But Switzerland?
Being neutral is in their genes-- or worse!
That surprised me indeed!
Its definitely going to go down hill.
Putin has been preparing for this ,,, so while things may be quite bad for a while, it might not be as bad as we hoped.
Hurts him?
How so?
(Does anyone seriously believe that that will change his course in the Ukraine? Well, actually there may be some here who actually believe that! ).
The Chinese is playing the same game a lot of others are--- pretending to be..."reasonable."
Maybe.
That's quite an assumption.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I'm not willing to claim I know what China's motives are.
What makes you think China is sincere about that anymore than Putin is sincere about wanting a meeting (that could accomplish anything) with Ukraine?
Here's another possibility: China wants to give the world they they are for world peace-- and in this situation they are doing this by urging moderation on Putin.
(China "tells" Putin to negotiate instead of fight? First of all, China is not the boss off Russia. Now he may discuss the matter with Putin-- but I can't see him telling Putin what to do.)
And if he did in fact tell Putin that he thinks it might be better to negotiate-- how is that "shoving Putin into a corner"?
Are you naive enough to believe that intheir relationship China pushes Putin around, "tells him" what he must do?
(Putin has his faults, which are many-- but I don't think he is the wimp you are making him out to be (Pushed into a corner by other leaders? Putin? Nonsense...)
I think it's to China's credit that it took a neutral position in this. It benefits from its relationships with BOTH Russia and Ukraine and it would have been foolish to take sides. Russia is a bordering nation and is supportive rather than negative about China, and I believe China is going to benefit from Russia's energy sources being cut off from elsewhere, and China has not only benefited from Ukrainian wheat, but it is important for the success of China's Belt and Road Initiative. China may not be able to TELL Putin what to do, but China's suggestions should be taken seriously by Putin.
Let's not let fear and loathing of China colour logical thinking.
A fairly good update:
Looks like the "peace talks" took place today . No resolution, but both sides indicated that further talks could take place. In the meantime, Russian troops continue to advance on Kyiv and Belarus may send special forces to join the Russian invasion. Doesn't sound good.
If this article is correct about Russia's difficulty securing Ukrainian airspace , it seems that with adequate aircraft and weaponry, Ukraine might be able to focus firepower on that 40 mile long convoy heading toward Kyiv. If we and other NATO countries wanted to help, that might be another option to consider? Time is a real problem for that solution though.
Time the problem? Maybe. I think that depends on what we have staged in Poland. I honestly don't know
heh, what US pilot wouldn't love to drop all their ordinance and then go to guns on that convoy.
Sure, but I think the Biden administration has ruled out US direct forces in Ukraine or in Ukrainian airspace. We could provide planes and ordinance but would need time to train Ukrainian pilots on the details.
pffft, a lot of the gunships are 2 seats. a couple cans of silver spray paint and some ukrainian air force decals, instant on the job training.
Some of those pilots get their training in the States.
Poland, Estonia and other former Soviet satellites switched to Nato/American airframes
years ago and mothballed their MIGs, SU27s and SU25s.
Those MIGs are now being donated to the Ukraine and "idle" Ukraine pilots and ground crews are in Poland
to prep and bring back those planes to Ukraine.
Many Polish pilots know the MIGs too well and might be doing more than lending a helping hand.
Now I see an update where all 3 countries are denying these reports of donating
flight ready Migs
Just imagine the Ukranian equivalent of the Kuwaiti "Highway of Death" in the 1st Gulf War!
I keep thinking of the A-10. That thing is amazing!
But I'm not up to date on the latest info.
(And anyway, despite its self-protective features, it probably would need more air cover to defend vs what the Russians could throw at it.).
But I am by no means well informed re: modern weaponry- hardly my "area of expertise"
I wonder if some Ukrainian pilots do also?
I'm not sure of the timing, but before independence, Ukraine was part of the USSR>
(Or was that too long ago?).
What other former Soviet satellite is in that area-- and migh help?
Romania? Hungary?
Czech Republic? Slovakia?
And I'm not sure how Turkey feels about all this (although I'm pretty sure they don't particularly love the Russians).
???
Of course they are.
Why provoke Putin unesessarily?
But of course their denial may or may not mean they aren't doing it.
And also stepping up their violent attacks on innocent civilians (which IMO are going to start to get even nastier very soon).
40 mile long convoy stuck 18 miles north of Kyiv. Ran out of fuel and food. How inept can they be? Point is they are sitting ducks right now and if Ukraine wants to cut the head off that convoy, now would be the time.
I remember reading how in Afghanistan the Russians had a tank line in a valley and the Afghanis took out the tank at the front of the line and at the rear of the line and the tanks were trapped. The Afghanis then took out every last Russian with sniper and anti-tank fire.
I saw a video on Facebook of a tank out of fuel encountered by a Ukrainian whom I assume must have been driving a tow truck. The Ukrainian asked if they were broken down. The Russians answered that they were out of diesel. "I can only tow you back to Russia." They all actually laughed a bit, and the tank stayed where it was.
There are some funny ways they're trying to confuse the russians - changing the road signs - and also adding to the road signs - things like - I had to edit this comment - Zelensky said something like, it not being the fault of the russians but putin so I don't think the signs said Fuck the russians - it may have - but probably more along the lines of just Fuck you - go home...
They did the same in WWII - removing road signs and so forth.
Apparently, some Russian electronic road signs were made in Ukraine, and therefore accessible to Ukrainian hackers, who made them say not especially flattering things about Putin.