Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Conscripts, reservists don’t and won’t take part in operation in Ukraine - Putin​

Missions are carried out only by professional troops, Putin said

MOSCOW, March 8. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin said conscripts and reservists aren’t taking part in Russia’s military operation in Ukraine and won’t do so.

"I would like to emphasize that conscripts aren’t and won’t be taking part in hostilities, and there will be no additional call-up of reservists from the reserve," he said in a video address to women on the occasion of the International Women’s Day celebrated on March 8, which was posted on the Kremlin website. "Missions are carried out only by professional troops."
 

sferrin

Junior Member
Registered Member
The treaty has a specific clause which allows land testing of missiles just not the deployment of either those missiles or their launchers.
Russia regularly does land based tests of naval launched missiles at a test range. This is allowed under the treaty.

Sure, as long as they're below 500km range.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US publicly did a land based missile test which would breach treaty limits if deployed just months after they left the treaty.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This included the test of a new missile that very year. You can't develop a new weapon system like a cruise missile in a single year.
It had to be in development for years already.

Not true at all. They launched a Tomahawk from a land launcher. Wasn't a "new" missile. As for the other missile, if you read the links I posted, the US gave Russia YEARS to explain their apparent violation. They never did. Had they done so the other missile (3000km range) likely would have never come about. It's not as though they "discovered" a Russian violation and magically had a new missile a couple months later.

The US let it slip out why they developed this weapon when they left the INF Treaty in the first place. That the missile was developed to counter Chinese SLBMs and MRBMs in the Pacific. Also guess what it is supposed to be Mk 41 VLS compatible. Same as AEGIS Ashore.

Link please. Show where they "accidentally let slip" that they exited the INF Treaty so they could develop weapons to counter the Chinese. And no, none of the new weapons under development are Mk41 VLS compatible.


Sorry but AEGIS Ashore base in Poland still makes no sense as a platform to intercept missiles from Iran.

Sure it does. Would take longer to explain though, and probably better for another thread.
 

Gloire_bb

Major
Registered Member
Not true at all. They launched a Tomahawk from a land launcher. Wasn't a "new" missile. As for the other missile, if you read the links I posted, the US gave Russia YEARS to explain their apparent violation. They never did. Had they done so the other missile (3000km range) likely would have never come about. It's not as though they "discovered" a Russian violation and magically had a new missile a couple months later.
Oh cmn, there was an outright presentation on this missile by Ru mod, with actual missile in the room. They(US) just ignored it, siting their very secret sources instead, because the decision was made beforehand. They wanted their missiles against China and just wanted someone else to be responsible for it.
One of those events that added to Russian idea that the west doesn't understand diplomacy.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
That's the famous difference between justification and reason. Once the Ukraine enters the EU and even the NATO the country is done for the recreation of Romanov's Russia. NATO being a thread, nazis in Ukraine, genocide etc. are just poor justifications. Putin's imperialistic fantasies are the actual reason.

I don't buy that argument. Some things you can only get one way: through war. The US didn't win Japan and Germany because they both love McDonald's, the US conquered them in war.

If Russia lost strategically, it lost when Gorbie succumbed to a Western information war and dissolved the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. I can't fathom how any Russian could willingly dismantle the empire Russia bled so much to win.
Pardon for straying, but I can't resist to say this as a response to your rhetorical question on why Gorbie allowed for the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, simple: To be featured in a PIZZA HUT COMMERCIAL.
 

KYli

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
But a dissection of the Russian military’s performance so far, compiled from interviews with two dozen American, NATO and Ukrainian officials, paints a portrait of young, inexperienced conscripted soldiers who have not been empowered to make on-the-spot decisions, and a noncommissioned officer corps that isn’t allowed to make decisions either. Russia’s military leadership, with Gen. Valery Gerasimov at the top, is far too centralized; lieutenants must ask him for permission even on small matters, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Sure, as long as they're below 500km range.
No. There is no such limitation for missile tests.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
1. Each Party shall eliminate all its intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, and all support structures and support equipment of the categories listed in the Memorandum of Understanding associated with such missiles and launchers, so that no later than three years after entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter no such missiles, launchers, support structures or support equipment shall be possessed by either Party.

The US violated the treaty the moment they put AEGIS Ashore with Mk 41 VLS in service in Europe. Mk 41 VLS was always able to launch Tomahawk cruise missile. Tomahawk cruise missile was designed to carry either conventional or nuclear payload.

INF Treaty does not limit range of ship based intermediate range missiles but it does limit range of land based ones. In fact INF Treaty was highly unequal for Soviet Union. Since back then Soviet Union had RSD-10 missile in large numbers but little numbers of Kh-55 in service. The US had the opposite situation. Then again it was signed by Gorbachev the butcher of the USSR.

11. A ballistic missile which is not a missile to be used in a ground-based mode shall not be considered to be a GLBM if it is test-launched at a test site from a fixed land-based launcher which is used solely for test purposes and which is distinguishable from GLBM launchers. A cruise missile which is not a missile to be used in a ground-based mode shall not be considered to be a GLCM if it is test-launched at a test site from a fixed land-based launcher which is used solely for test purposes and which is distinguishable from GLCM launchers.

i.e. it is possible to conduct land based tests of naval missiles.

Not true at all. They launched a Tomahawk from a land launcher. Wasn't a "new" missile. As for the other missile, if you read the links I posted, the US gave Russia YEARS to explain their apparent violation. They never did. Had they done so the other missile (3000km range) likely would have never come about. It's not as though they "discovered" a Russian violation and magically had a new missile a couple months later.
Except they did. They said Iskander-M was never going to have range over 500km and that other tests were for naval cruise missiles.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Link please. Show where they "accidentally let slip" that they exited the INF Treaty so they could develop weapons to counter the Chinese. And no, none of the new weapons under development are Mk41 VLS compatible.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Finally:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Trump told reporters Monday outside the White House that Beijing's growing arsenal played into his decision to withdraw from the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even though China is not a party to the pact. His justification ‘includes China, and it includes Russia, and it includes anybody else that wants to play that game,’ Trump said.” "You can’t do that. You can’t play that game on me," he added.
 
Last edited:

windsclouds2030

Senior Member
Registered Member
Extremely important statements by Putin (MUST SEE!) 07 MARCH 2022

As some of you know, Putin spoke at length with a group of Russian flight attendants. This is SUCH AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT that I asked one of our interpreters (thanks E.!) to subtitle the video. I am also posting the transcript below. In this exchange, Putin spells out in quite some details WHAT Russia is doing and WHY she is doing it. ~ Andrei

PS: please press “cc” to see the English language captions



Putin explains the military situation and why Ukraine might lose its future

Source:

Translated and subtitled by Eugenia

[Flight Attendant] My question concerns the current situation in Ukraine. We all support your actions and the special operation that is underway there. Naturally, the most important question, which, one way or another, all of us have asked ourselves, is why this special operation has started. Could it not have been avoided? Rationally, we do understand and support your actions, but as women we cannot help but worry: for our family, relatives, for those who are in Ukraine. We know that the civilians are not impacted. But nevertheless, tell us, reassure us: what are we to expect at the end of this road? What will be the end result of the military operation in Ukraine?

[President Putin] I will be brief but still will have to start, as they say, from “the center of the field”. I said about this at the start of the operation and also spoke about this before this decision has been made, a hard decision, without a doubt.

What is this about? The fact of the matter is that after the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine, which, unfortunately, was strongly supported by the Western countries – let us face it. They do not even hide the fact that they have spent $5 billion on it, not to mention cookies given away on Maidan, and so on. And after that, instead of bringing the situation back on track, even if it had spiraled out of control, even if it had been the act of the overzealous locals – there is such legal term, i.e. planned one thing, but the result turned out to be something else – they still could have, and should have, returned the situation back onto the political track.

Furthermore, shortly before the coup, the foreign ministers of the three countries came to Kiev in 2014 and signed an agreement with the Ukrainian government acting as guarantors of this agreement to ensure that the situation would be developing in the political sphere. But nothing like that occurred. They organized a coup d’état and supported the perpetrators. What followed were the well-known events related to the Crimea and the southeast of Ukraine, Donbass, where people refused to support the coup. As we know, the Crimea made a decision; people came to vote in a referendum to return to the Russian Federation. Naturally, yes, naturally, we cannot but support that decision, al the more so, since they felt they were in danger from the nationalists and neo-Nazis. There is strong evidence that they were absolutely right in that.

Later, or, rather, in parallel, the events in Donbass were taking place. What have these events led to? People resisting the results of the coup were persecuted. Eventually, the new Kiev authorities initiated a military operation on that territory. They have conducted two large-scale punitive operations using of heavy weapons and combat aviation. They directly attacked Donetsk destroying the city squares with aviation, using tanks and artillery. Both these military campaigns failed. The Ukrainian army suffered defeat. After that, so-called Minsk agreements, or the Package of Measures, to use the official term, have been concluded. The agreements offered a path for a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

We did everything we could to direct the events along this path, to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine as well as to protects the interests of the people living in these territories. What did these people demand? Nothing but the basic things: the right to speak their mother tongue, i.e. the Russian, and maintain their traditions and culture. These were by no means extraordinary demands. But no. These territories were put under economic blockade; disconnected from the banking system; the supplies of food were stopped; the payments of the pensions and social assistance were suspended. Sometimes, some handouts were given, but in order to get those pensions and benefits a person had to cross the separation line.

Now listen. I will now say something that may sound rough but the situation compels me to say it. You know that occasionally in some regions packs of stray dogs attack people, injure or even kill them (this is a separate problem, and it is for the local authorities to deal with). But then these animals are poisoned or shot dead. But people of Donbass are not stray dogs. Approximately 13,000-14,000 people have been killed during these years. Over 500 children have been killed or injured. But what is particularly intolerable is that the so-called “civilized” West has preferred all these years to look the other way. All these years – 8 years! Eight years!

( . . . )

See the rest of transcript at the site of The Vineyard of the Saker!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


NOTE: I can download the video, but cannot get the English.SRT file, only the Russian.SRT file is available for download. If any one knows how to download the English.SRT file, please info or simply share the English .SRT file by uploading it to some free file hosting service in the net.
 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
But a dissection of the Russian military’s performance so far, compiled from interviews with two dozen American, NATO and Ukrainian officials, paints a portrait of young, inexperienced conscripted soldiers who have not been empowered to make on-the-spot decisions, and a noncommissioned officer corps that isn’t allowed to make decisions either. Russia’s military leadership, with Gen. Valery Gerasimov at the top, is far too centralized; lieutenants must ask him for permission even on small matters, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The sources are American, NATO, and Ukrainian officials? They couldn’t even use a POW?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top