The Times anticipates possible fall of Kiev this year.

It’s time we talked about the fall of Kyiv​

Far from this being a frozen conflict, a nightmare scenario is edging into view because the West is failing to send arms
Iain Martin

It is July and the Russian army is at the gates of Kyiv. President Zelensky delivers an emergency broadcast to repeat his defiant words, first uttered in February 2022, that he does not need a ride out of Ukraine. No, he needs ammunition to stay and fight the Russians. If only the West had listened and done more when the brave Ukrainians were pleading for help, that might have made the difference. While the allies squabbled and the United States eventually provided another $60 billion in aid, as spring turned to summer, Putin’s troops broke through the lines in the south and east. Retreating Ukrainian forces were able only to slow the advance. When the Russians closed in on the capital, a new wave of refugees fled Ukraine seeking safety from incessant bombardment. This is the nightmare scenario now being contemplated by western policymakers. Events are forcing military and civilian leaders in London, Washington, Paris and Brussels to map out the catastrophic collapse of Ukrainian forces denied the weapons and munitions they need.

Contrary to the predominant view that this is a perpetual “frozen conflict”, with neither side able to win a decisive advantage, the front line is bitterly contested and there is a real risk of Ukrainian forces being pushed back. Nato leaders must hope their gathering in Washington in July for a summit celebrating the 75th anniversary of the alliance is not consumed by such a crisis. Only a year ago, it was all very different. The hope then was of a Ukrainian spring offensive that would reclaim territory. That didn’t work and, as the American magazine Foreign Affairs put it this week, “Ukraine is bleeding. Without new US military assistance, Ukrainian ground forces may not be able to hold the line against a relentless Russian military.”

The governments who support Ukraine most strongly are clearly worried and considering even the worst scenarios. The US Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, has issued several warnings that Ukraine is running out of money, while urging Congress to pass the aid bill that is stuck amid legislative infighting. The US risked being responsible for Ukraine’s defeat, she said.

 
The Times anticipates possible fall of Kiev this year.

It’s time we talked about the fall of Kyiv​

Far from this being a frozen conflict, a nightmare scenario is edging into view because the West is failing to send arms
Iain Martin

It is July and the Russian army is at the gates of Kyiv. President Zelensky delivers an emergency broadcast to repeat his defiant words, first uttered in February 2022, that he does not need a ride out of Ukraine. No, he needs ammunition to stay and fight the Russians. If only the West had listened and done more when the brave Ukrainians were pleading for help, that might have made the difference. While the allies squabbled and the United States eventually provided another $60 billion in aid, as spring turned to summer, Putin’s troops broke through the lines in the south and east. Retreating Ukrainian forces were able only to slow the advance. When the Russians closed in on the capital, a new wave of refugees fled Ukraine seeking safety from incessant bombardment. This is the nightmare scenario now being contemplated by western policymakers. Events are forcing military and civilian leaders in London, Washington, Paris and Brussels to map out the catastrophic collapse of Ukrainian forces denied the weapons and munitions they need.

Contrary to the predominant view that this is a perpetual “frozen conflict”, with neither side able to win a decisive advantage, the front line is bitterly contested and there is a real risk of Ukrainian forces being pushed back. Nato leaders must hope their gathering in Washington in July for a summit celebrating the 75th anniversary of the alliance is not consumed by such a crisis. Only a year ago, it was all very different. The hope then was of a Ukrainian spring offensive that would reclaim territory. That didn’t work and, as the American magazine Foreign Affairs put it this week, “Ukraine is bleeding. Without new US military assistance, Ukrainian ground forces may not be able to hold the line against a relentless Russian military.”

The governments who support Ukraine most strongly are clearly worried and considering even the worst scenarios. The US Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, has issued several warnings that Ukraine is running out of money, while urging Congress to pass the aid bill that is stuck amid legislative infighting. The US risked being responsible for Ukraine’s defeat, she said.


Opinion piece. Would be more effective if the Russian army was actually at the gates of Kyiv.

I have said thexwar will be likely decided by December. Front line isn't going anywhere until Jube at the earliest (May severe optimist).

And Russuan logistics ad combined arms failures it's unlikely you can pull this off.

Moderator Action: Off topic removed. This is not for a historical discussion of WW1 or WW2. Following posts removed. leif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moderator Action: If you wish to discuss other wars, please start a thread for that purpose. This thread is staying on topic. Back to news please.
 
Opinion piece. Would be more effective if the Russian army was actually at the gates of Kyiv.

I have said thexwar will be likely decided by December. Front line isn't going anywhere until Jube at the earliest (May severe optimist).
This is very good for Russia.
And Russuan logistics ad combined arms failures it's unlikely you can pull this off.
Like, what failures exactly? Failure to send arms? Oh right that’s the west.
 

Russia shuts down UN watchdog tracking North Korea sanctions​

Russia has shut down a panel of UN experts that have for years monitored sanctions against North Korea.

The panel last week said it was probing reports that Russia violated rules by buying North Korean weapons like ballistic missiles for use in Ukraine.

The UN's Security Council has imposed a series of sanctions on Pyongyang since 2006 for its nuclear weapons programme.

Those restrictions are still in force - but the experts group set up to monitor violations will now be disbanded.

In a Security Council vote on Thursday, Russia used its veto power as a permanent member to block the renewal, while 13 of the other 14 member states present voted for it. China, Pyongyang's closest ally, abstained.

Russia's block triggered a wave of condemnation from the US, UK, South Korea and other Western allies and comes after a year of high-profile public meetings between Moscow and Pyongyang leaders.

This is the first time Russia has blocked the panel - which has been renewed annually by the UN Security Council for 14 years.

Ukraine's Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on social media Russia's veto was tantamount to "a guilty plea" that it was using North Korean weapons in the war.

The US, UK and France all told the Council that Russia was silencing the watchdog because it had begun to report on Moscow's own violations of the rules- specifically purchasing weapons from North Korea for the battlegrounds in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, South Korea's representative at the UN criticised Russia's "blind self-centeredness" and said it had no justification "for disbanding the guardians" of the sanctions regime.

"This is almost comparable to destroying a CCTV to avoid being caught red-handed," Ambassador Hwang Joon-kook said.

Russia has consistently denied using North Korean weapons and its representative at the UN again dismissed the accusations on Thursday.

Vasily Nebenzia also argued that the panel of experts had no added value.

"The panel has continued to focus on trivial matters that are not commensurate with the problems facing the peninsula," said Mr Nebenzia, who also added that sanctions had imposed a "heavy burden" on the North Korean people.

Since 2019, Russia and China have sought to persuade the Security Council to ease sanctions.

The Security Council first imposed sanctions in 2006 in response to a North Korean nuclear test, and has since passed 10 more resolutions strengthening them as Pyongyang's nuclear activity has continued.

However Kim Jong Un's regime has largely ignored the sanctions- despite their impact on the economy. The North Korean leader has rapidly continued nuclear weapons development and has pursued a more aggressive and dangerous military strategy in recent years.

The UN experts say North Korea continues to flout sanctions through increased missile test launches and developing nuclear weapons. The regime launched a spy satellite this year - with technology believed to have been provided by Russia.

In breach of the sanctions, it also continues to import refined petroleum products and send workers overseas, and the UN panel's most recent report detailed a campaign of cyber attacks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68691417
 
Russian unmanned grenade launcher platforms, destroyed by Ukrainian aerial drones.

1711720509125.png
 
This is very good for Russia.

Like, what failures exactly? Failure to send arms? Oh right that’s the west.

Russian logistics failures are due to their dependence on rail transport.

Modern armies since 1939 xan generate deep, break through in combined operations. USA can do it, Germans could, Soviets learnt the hard way.


Rissias recreating WW1 due to their military bring a potemkin one more propaganda and cope.
 

One wonders if the US would actually know. It's one thing to just react in a manner of the type "it's Russia, so of course they are lying", and quite another to present evidence that you are correct.
 

One wonders if the US would actually know. It's one thing to just react in a manner of the type "it's Russia, so of course they are lying", and quite another to present evidence that you are correct.

It's very unlikely.

1. Ukraine gains nothing from this act.

2. Not their style. Drones or artillery sure.

3. Russia lies a lot.

4. Russia had issues with Islamists going back 30+ years.
 
US officials have been strangely active in denying Ukrainian involvement. Comparing to EU, for example.
One would expect claims like "there's no evidence Ukraine has anything to do with it", but they just outright deny it.
 
US officials have been strangely active in denying Ukrainian involvement. Comparing to EU, for example.
One would expect claims like "there's no evidence Ukraine has anything to do with it", but they just outright deny it.
Ah, so today we're believing US officials? Interesting.
 

One wonders if the US would actually know. It's one thing to just react in a manner of the type "it's Russia, so of course they are lying", and quite another to present evidence that you are correct.

Come on now. Can’t you see how desperate they are to pin this on Ukraine?
 

One wonders if the US would actually know. It's one thing to just react in a manner of the type "it's Russia, so of course they are lying", and quite another to present evidence that you are correct.
The US warned Russia of an impending attack.
 
US officials have been strangely active in denying Ukrainian involvement. Comparing to EU, for example.
One would expect claims like "there's no evidence Ukraine has anything to do with it", but they just outright deny it.
No use in denying blatant lies is there, evidence is wasted on the habitual liar.

Logical arguments are no counter to the absurd falsehood.

Better to leave them in their ignorance, even reinforce ambiguity.

In war it is common to “activate” each others enemies, they recruit Chechens for example, it is entirely possible, even likely, some Western intelligence service(s) infiltrated IS Korason no ?
 
If you want conspiracy, rather than a comical contrive of Ukraine into this terrorism attack, you should rather wonder why it took more than a full hour for the Russian forces to intervene despite having a center in spitting distance.
 

One wonders if the US would actually know. It's one thing to just react in a manner of the type "it's Russia, so of course they are lying", and quite another to present evidence that you are correct.
How is it called when you ask someone to bring evidence of something that doesn't exist ?
 
No, I think it is entirely likely some of IS veterans from Syria were recruited as double agents and sent to the far east with a big bag of money to motivate the local chapter of IS, happened in Afghanistan all the time.

We know thousands travelled from Europe to fight for IS, they would be the ideal candidates for such a mission.

Such a conspiracy theory requires no evidence at all, so what logical argument could you bring against it ?
 
Top Bottom