[RD] War in Ukraine: Other topics

[warpus]

X links are still allowed on this site? That's disappointing. Why link to some sort of a propaganda account though? Surely there's better sources.

 

[Kaitzilla]

It was probably the Russians.

Chernobyl is not far from Ukraine's Capital City. (100km)
Any mass release of radiation would be devastating for Ukraine.


Kamikaze suicide attacks in WW2 were only really stopped by the invention of proximity fuses I think.
Cheap drones have made the human-controlled bomb really make a come-back.

 

[r16]

americans spent what , 350 billions ? Trump demanded 500 . Zelensky said yes . Except it is a plot to get Putin to offer more . Zelensky , being heroic and smart thinks Putin will pay , maybe 600 . Yes , ı know . Have seen people in action around here . Anyone who thinks Russians did that at a time a certain US Defence Minister nominee supposedly goes around Europe telling the Russian Navy of all things would beat the USN , and that on a day some USS Truman got its paint scarred in a collusion off Suez , kindly remember the days you laughed at Seymour Hersh claiming it was Ukranians who blew up the Northstream . Remember how it was proven that Russians did that ?

biden would have cared for Zelensky ; heroic days at the talking circuit . Pay enough and Trump will not care if Zelensky ends up on a pike , sans body .

but yes , ı saw a couple days ago that there are still forum members who think Russians must surrender .

 

[red_elk]

Jeez, somebody bombed Chernobyl.

Whoever did it is crazy!

Attacks against nuclear plants happened before. Russia-controlled plant in Energodar was attacked by drones several times.
Yes, it is crazy.

americans spent what , 350 billions ? Trump demanded 500 .

Part of them was likely stolen in America, another one in Ukraine.

 

[r16]

don't do smart things against Russians . They will copy it .

Russia is being set aflame by hundreds of arson attacks

The Kremlin blames a campaign of subversion and psychological warfare

www.economist.com

The curious spate of arson attacks by Russian pensioners

Ukrainian authorities may have been involved in wave of blackmail scams causing destruction on Putin’s territory

www.telegraph.co.uk

“The police are already looking for you. I’m a scammer.” How Russians are tricked into attacking military enlistment offices and polling stations

For years, phone scammers have been stealing money from Russians, but since the start of the war in Ukraine, they have begun persuading their victims not only to transfer their sav...

en.zona.media

three of the same because the two British ones ask you to install cookies .

 

[Snowygerry]

China is not a military threat against the US. Taiwan for sure is a target, but not the US. China's power is in its economic position and its ability to stir up trouble around its edges. I do not think Trump would engage China militarily. Probably wouldn't defend Taiwan.

To be fair, between Trump and Putin, Xi is looking like the reasonable one here, the city of Ghent will adjust its foreign policy accordingly.

Ghent becomes a Mecca for Chinese students and researchers

New figures from the East Flemish capital show a big increase in the number of Chinese nationals registered with the local authorities in Ghent. In only four years their number has risen by a third. Nearly 1,100 Chinese nationals are now registered

www.vrt.be

 

[Zardnaar]

China build their 3d and 4th aircarier (1-2 year left), and iirc started build 5th. Yellow Sea you know. So, overseas parts of USA can be at target. If something go wrong.
Just today was released video, where Chinese fighter jet use flares against US navy Poseidon

Technically they can fly planes off them. In combat lol. Two are complete garbage.

There's 11 supercarriers in the world. China has 0, USA has 11.

Chinese missiles might be deterrent close to China. Power projection very dubious. Never been tested, lacks doctrine and experience. Lacks dedicated carrier planes with underpowered engines.

 

[Ordnael]

UK offers peacekeeping troops to Ukraine ahead of Paris talks​

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/fast-moving-ukraine-diplomacy-means-europeans-must-do-more-official-says-2025-02-17/

LONDON/PARIS, Feb 17 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has become the first European leader to say he is ready to put peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, making the commitment ahead of an emergency leaders' meeting in Paris to discuss Europe's role in a ceasefire.
Starmer's comments underlined a growing realization among European nations that they will likely have to play a larger role in ensuring Ukraine's security as Washington works alone with Russia on a potential end to the three-year conflict.

Sweden would consider contributing to post-war peacekeeping forces in Ukraine, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Monday, adding that negotiations would need to progress before any such decision was taken.
U.S. President Donald Trump stunned Ukraine and European allies last week when he announced he had held a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, without consulting them, to discuss bringing an end to war.
That effort was due to advance with talks this week in Saudi Arabia between U.S. and Russian officials.

Trump's Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, said on Saturday Europe would not have a seat at the table for any peace talks. Washington sent a questionnaire to European capitals to ask what they could contribute to security guarantees for Kyiv.
At Monday's summit in Paris, President Emmanuel Macron was to host leaders from Germany, Italy, Britain, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, which will represent Baltic and Scandinavian countries, along with the European Union leadership and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
A French presidency official said the discussion would look at "the security guarantees that can be given by the Europeans and the Americans, together or separately," with peacekeepers being just one element of the security guarantees.

Starmer, who is expected to travel to Washington to meet Trump next week, said on Sunday that Europe was facing a "once in a generation moment" for the collective security of the continent, and it must work closely with the United States.
He said Britain was ready to play a leading role in delivering security guarantees for Ukraine, including being ready to put "our own troops on the ground if necessary".
"The end of this war, when it comes, cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin attacks again," he wrote in the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
The European meeting in Paris is taking place after dozens of similar summits have shown the 27-nation EU to be unable to come up with a cohesive plan to end the Ukraine war. Britain is not an EU member but has been a leading supporter of Ukraine.

EUROPE NEEDS 'TO DO MORE, BETTER'​

A Ukrainian official told Reuters last week that only Britain and France had so far signalled any willingness to send troops at some point. However, that could be changing.
Sweden's Kristersson said on Monday there was "absolutely a possibility" of sending peacekeeping forces.
"There needs to be a very clear mandate for those forces and I don't think we can see that until we have come further in those negotiations," he said on the sidelines of a military exercise in Stockholm.

A peacekeeping force would raise the risk of a direct confrontation with Russia and would stretch European militaries, whose arms stocks have been depleted supplying Ukraine, and who are used to relying heavily on U.S. support for major missions.
The French presidency official said Europe needs "to do more, better and in a coherent manner for our collective security." However, some countries were unhappy that the Paris meeting was not a full EU summit, EU officials said.
The French presidency official said the meeting would facilitate future discussions in Brussels and at NATO.

Ukraine Far From First Country Israel Supplied Captured Russian Arms​

Ukraine Far From First Country Israel Supplied Captured Russian Arms

Israel has already had a long history of passing on Russian weapons it captured off the numerous battlefields of the Middle East.

www.forbes.com

Ukraine hopes Israel will transfer Russian weaponry recently captured from the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon as Israel is showing much less reluctance about sending Kyiv lethal weapons. If it does so, Ukraine will not become the first country Israel has transferred Russian, and in the Cold War days Soviet, armaments it captured from its Arab adversaries over the decades.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel, Yevgen Korniychuk, recently expressed his country’s hope that an Israeli parliament (Knesset) bill introduced in November advocating the transfer of captured Hezbollah weapons to Kyiv passes.

In its recent ground war against Hezbollah in South Lebanon, which ended in a ceasefire in late November, the Israeli military found surprising quantities of Russian-supplied weaponry, which Moscow had transferred via the former Syrian military. The Wall Street Journal quoted a senior Israeli officer who estimated that as much as 70 percent of Hezbollah arms captured by Israel in that recent war were Russian. Israel suspects Russia used a route from its Tartus naval base in Syria, an area Moscow knew Israel was less likely to strike, to transfer the weapons, some of which were manufactured as recently as 2020.

In the short few intervening months, historical changes have occurred in the regional balance of power. Israel eliminated Hezbollah’s leadership and much of its strategic stockpiles of offensive Iranian-made surface-to-surface missiles. In another strategic setback, the Iran and Hezbollah-allied regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria was deposed by Islamist-led rebels in early December, severing Iran’s critical land bridge and reducing the possibility that Tehran can help Hezbollah rearm any time soon. On top of that, Russia also lost its ally in Syria and is scrambling to secure continued access to Tartus and its coastal airbase there. Whatever the outcome of ongoing negotiations on this matter with the new authorities in Damascus, it’s unlikely Moscow will ever have the same level of military access in Syria it enjoyed under Assad.

That could be good news for Kyiv, which still needs all the weapons it can get. Since the start of the current full-scale Russia-Ukraine war in February 2022, Israel refused to deliver Kyiv any lethal aid, citing its need to coordinate with Russia in Syria, where it repeatedly attacked suspected Iran-related targets for over a decade. With Russia weakened and Iran and its militia proxies no longer welcome in Syria, that argument is weaker than ever, if not completely invalid.
There are already positive signs of change. Israel recently gave the U.S. up to 90 interceptor missiles for the MIM-104 PAC-2 Patriot missile system from storage, which the U.S. military will send to Kyiv, giving a boost to that country’s beleaguered air defenses. While Israel has never had much love for the Patriot since acquiring the system three decades ago, its agreeing to transfer them is progress, especially considering Israel previously rejected a U.S. request for older MIM-23 Hawk systems it has long had in storage collecting dust.

The captured Russian weapons from Hezbollah are small arms and ammunition, including AK-103, PKM machine guns, and Draganov sniper rifles. Still, even the extra ammunition would doubtlessly help Ukraine as it continues fighting a deadly war of attrition against Russia, especially if transfers include some of the captured 9M133 Kornet anti-tank guided missiles.

Furthermore, by arming Ukraine with these particular arms, Israel would signal its displeasure with Russia aiding its Hezbollah nemesis. Such a move would echo Washington’s supply of thousands of infantry weapons and over 500,000 bullets to Ukraine that it seized from an Iranian arms shipment to the Houthis in Yemen.

There was speculation in January that recently captured Russian weapons from Hezbollah were already en route to Ukraine in light of the movement of American transport aircraft between Germany’s Ramstein and Israel’s Hatzerim airbases. Small arms deliveries are also much less conspicuous than strategic systems like the Patriot. Israel may also want to keep quiet about any transfers to avoid publicly antagonizing Russia while simultaneously getting some form of payback for Moscow arming Hezbollah.

Such a covert arrangement would certainly not come without precedent. As early as 1956, Soviet state-run media claimed that Israel had given Soviet-made weapons it captured in Sinai during that year’s Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, the infamous Suez Crisis, to the government of Camille Chamoun in Lebanon.

Israel would go on to capture vast quantities of light and heavy Soviet weaponry in the conventional Arab-Israeli wars of June 1967 and October 1973. One year after the latter conflict, Israel agreed to make available 82 Soviet-made Strela shoulder-fired air defense missiles and 507 Sagger portable anti-tank missiles for Iraqi Kurdistan’s Peshmerga forces—which the U.S., Israel, and Iran under the Shah were covertly supporting against Iraq. In return, Washington agreed to replace those captured Israeli weapons with American-made Redeye and TOW anti-tank missiles.

When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, it captured small arms from the Palestine Liberation Organization and sold those arms to Iran. The move was seen retrospectively as a “prelude to the Iran-Contra affair” three years later. During that scandal, Israel officially denied transferring weapons to the Contras in Nicaragua. On the other hand, it admitted giving 600 Soviet-made rifles to Washington, “knowing that they might be supplied to the Contras.”

Israel would occasionally transfer heavy Soviet military hardware. For example, it supplied its allies in Lebanon, the Lebanese Forces and South Lebanese Army, with captured Soviet-made T-54 tanks and a modified Israeli version called the Tiran in the 1980s during the violent civil war in that country. During the same period, it also supplied these groups Soviet-built M-46 and D-30 towed artillery, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s extensive arms transfer database.

Incidentally, when American-made M113 armored personnel carriers appeared during Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria’s civil war decades later, speculation arose that Hezbollah had taken them from the Lebanese Army. However, subsequent analysis concluded Hezbollah most likely captured them from the South Lebanese Army, which disbanded after Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in 2000.

Israel made use of the ubiquitous Soviet T-55 tanks it captured in those historical conventional wars with its Arab neighbors to build a new vehicle for its army, the Achzarit APC. Israel built approximately 300 of these APCs on the chassis of captured Arab T-55s. Weighing 49 tons, the Achzarits are heavier than those vintage Soviet main battle tanks.

There are no signs Israel will supply Ukraine with the Achzarit or other APCs or tanks in its inventory, and it’s not likely to do so. Nevertheless, as previously outlined here, Israeli firms have long specialized in modernizing and upgrading Soviet-era military hardware for foreign clients. As its depleting war with Russia grinds on, Ukrainians are still using “souped-up Soviet-era weapons” to stave off Russian advances. Therefore, Israeli know-how and assistance in upgrading its Soviet arsenal could still greatly benefit Kyiv.

Whatever ultimately does happen, Israel has had a long history of passing on Russian weapons it captured off the numerous battlefields of the Middle East, and it doesn’t look like that will end any time soon.

 

[Ordnael]

Ukraine balks at signing Trump deal to hand over its mineral wealth​

Ukraine balks at signing Trump deal to hand over its mineral wealth

The U.S. and Ukraine are back-and-forthing on a deal to exploit Kyiv’s rare earths in return for Washington’s support.

www.politico.eu

KYIV — Despite U.S. insistence, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy refused to sign a draft agreement to hand over half of his country’s rare earth minerals to American companies in exchange for military support, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

“The deal was not signed yet. Sides are discussing the details,” said a Ukrainian official familiar with the negotiations who was granted anonymity to discuss ongoing talks. “Lawyers are working on it. In their draft, the U.S. has described a very complicated way how they want to get 50 percent [of Ukraine’s rare earths].”
The official added that the U.S. scheme “might not work” as it could fall afoul of Ukrainian law.

Kyiv has been actively trying to entice the transactional U.S. president to see Ukraine’s mineral wealth as a solid reason to continue backing it against the Russian invasion.

Donald Trump’s officials have suggested a mineral deal could be an “economic shield that would show the Russians U.S. has interests in Ukraine.”

Earlier this week, Trump said that the U.S. would need $500 billion in Ukrainian minerals to repay it for the military and civilian support given to Kyiv since the start of the war — a figure much higher than America’s actual aid.

However, the deal still isn’t done as the two sides negotiate the final details.

“So the Ukrainian side passed their draft version to [the U.S. side]. And they are working on it. While Ukrainians are working on American proposals,” the official said.
A person familiar with negotiations told POLITICO: “The Americans were not happy with the Ukrainian proposals.”

Another problem with the U.S. draft is that it reportedly has no real security guarantees for Ukraine except for the possible deployment of U.S. troops to protect the minerals if there’s a deal with Russia to end the war.

Zelenskyy cited the security guarantees at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, in saying that the rare earths deal is not ready yet.

"We have to talk about it as investments; and it needs to be formulated correctly," Zelenskyy told reporters at the Munich gathering. "And we can think about how to divide profits," he added.

"All of this would be tied to security guarantees," the Ukrainian leader said. "And I still don't see this connection with the security guarantees in the document yet."

Doing a deal​

The mineral issue is now one of the key aspects of cementing U.S. support for Ukraine.
On Thursday, Zelenskyy’s meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance during the Munich Security Conference was reportedly postponed from the morning to the evening because the Ukrainians wanted to make amendments to the critical minerals deal.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Zelenskyy discussed the minerals agreement at a reception with U.S. officials in Munich on Friday night, according to a person familiar with the conversation. It was implied but not explicit that the U.S. would protect its interests in the "joint venture," they said.

Zelenskyy, according to U.S. lawmakers who met with him in Munich, said he is reviewing the American proposal to make sure it complies with Ukrainian law.

“I think he did what any responsible person would do,” said Republican Senator Thom Tillis. “He said he would read it and see whether it comports with our laws and constitution, that sort of thing.”

But the draft deal may contain legal snares, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told POLITICO.

He said Trump has no legal right to Ukraine’s raw minerals as Kyiv signed a strategic partnership with the EU in 2021 on them.
“Today, Trump claims Ukraine's raw materials as a way to fuel America's economy. But these raw materials are not only Ukrainian, they're also European.," Kuleba said. "Why should Europe give away the resources that should fuel its own economy to America?"

One of the lead architects of the proposal, Senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, said he is dangling Ukraine’s mineral wealth in front of the president to persuade him that Ukraine is worth protecting — even pulling out a map to show Trump where Ukraine’s riches are located.

“The main thing for me is that Ukraine has value — literally has value,” Graham said at a POLITICO Pub event on the sidelines of the Munich conference. “Trump now sees Ukraine differently … I said these people are sitting on a gold mine … I showed him a map, ‘look!’”

Earlier this week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent brought a draft agreement on economic cooperation, including rare earths, and presented it to Zelenskyy during a visit in Kyiv.

At a news conference after the meeting with Bessent, Zelenskyy said: “We really want to sign it as soon as possible. Because we don’t want to waste time.”

Bessent said: “We believe this agreement will be a strong signal to the Russian leadership of the U.S. commitment that we have here. And we think it will be a strong signal to the American people that the money that is coming to Ukraine, we have shared values, we have shared security, and we look to increase our shared economic commitment.”

Selling Ukraine’s minerals​

Ukraine started shopping Trump its critical minerals even before he won the U.S. election.

In September, Zelenskyy presented him with the so-called victory plan for Ukraine, where Kyiv offered its strategic partners a special agreement for the joint protection of the country's critical resources, as well as joint investment and use of this economic potential.

Ukraine has deposits of 22 of the 50 materials the U.S. has identified as critical. The country is particularly rich in graphite, lithium, titanium, beryllium and uranium, according to Ukraine’s natural resources and environment ministry.

The resources are essential to manufacture batteries, radar systems and armor — key to the defense and tech industries — and would go some way to reducing U.S. reliance on Chinese minerals.

“From the perspective of the potential U.S. or EU support, developing Ukraine's mining sector could directly contribute not only to Western self-sufficiency and economic security but also to strengthening both Ukraine's economy and defense capacity,” said Maria Repko, deputy director of the Kyiv-based Center for Economic Strategy think tank.

However, many of those resources are in parts of Ukraine under Russian control, and Moscow also wants them.
“These resources are key to Russia’s own industrial and military capabilities, enabling further economic self-sufficiency and reducing reliance on Western supplies,” Repko said.

 

[r16]

kiev rejecting a deal in Saudi Arabia without Ukranian participation and giving Zelensky the gravitas of a great statesman even if there is no way he can accept the peace without being dubbed the [Jewish] TRAITOR is good news . It is imperative that the Ukranian defeat should be on a scale that those who measured the distances the turrets flew in the air for world records should be hounded from every single forum after claiming it was treason of at least betrayal by the West that decided the outcome and the Communists didn't by any single measure .

When did the US Army stop using horses?

Answer (1 of 7): Aside from the official mounted cavalry units of the US Army some seven decades ago — there has been a resurgence in the use of horses and pack mules by the US Army Special Forces since 1995. So much so, that a horsemanship school run by the Marines in the Sierra-Nevada mountains...

www.quora.com

might open or might not . Back in 2004 or so , according to some other qoura thing Pentagon tried to use its stocks of riding gear from 1940s but Afghan mules were not to the US standarts and new stuff was developed . If one can't laugh at pack animals , one can always mention the single T-34 that parades each year these days .

 

[r16]

oh , the thing one should remember is how Biden's team decided the War was not vote getter it was back in the Midterms of '22 and should be put away ... That's why American supporters suddenly decreased in availability online and their places were taken by Europeans .

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

When did the US Army stop using horses?

Answer (1 of 7): Aside from the official mounted cavalry units of the US Army some seven decades ago — there has been a resurgence in the use of horses and pack mules by the US Army Special Forces since 1995. So much so, that a horsemanship school run by the Marines in the Sierra-Nevada mountains...

www.quora.com

might open or might not . Back in 2004 or so , according to some other qoura thing Pentagon tried to use its stocks of riding gear from 1940s but Afghan mules were not to the US standarts and new stuff was developed . If one can't laugh at pack animals , one can always mention the single T-34 that parades each year these days .

Donkeys, mules, knives, and crossbows are confirmed still in use.

This is a civilizations forum, so that's "comforting" to know.

 

[Ordnael]

Donkeys, mules, knives, and crossbows are confirmed still in use.

This is a civilizations forum, so that's "comforting" to know.

Somewhere among the highest mountains peaks of the world where the snow is half a meter deep and the wind hurts your face there's a phalanx in defensive formation with whiskers frozen since antiquity waiting to defeat a tank!

 

[EnglishEdward]

UK offers peacekeeping troops to Ukraine ahead of Paris talks

Our Prime Minister is another idiot who thinks he is some sort of world statesman.

Our retired generals say we don't have enough troops.

Here is the link.

UK military too 'run down' to lead Ukraine peace mission, says ex-Army chief

Lord Dannatt says up to 40,000 UK troops would be needed for such a mission and "we just haven't got that number available".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[saamohod]

Our retired generals say we don't have enough troops.

That's bad. Because countries like China or North Korea have more than enough troops.

 

[EnglishEdward]

This is one of the reasons why I think a formal peace treaty is better
than a ceasefire and a frozen conflict like in Korea.

I realise that this all must be a grave disappointment to you.

Despite all the endless rhetoric the politicians in most of the West were neither
prepared to send troops nor to properly divert manufacturing to a war economy basis.

For instance the UK has less ships and soldiers than it had three years ago.

 

[saamohod]

a formal peace treaty is better

There will be no peace unless Russia is deterred from invading again, and no deterrent has yet been offered. No agreement with Russia or their words can be trusted, simply because they broke all the previous ones.

 

[Verbose]

This is one of the reasons why I think a formal peace treaty is better
than a ceasefire and a frozen conflict like in Korea.

I realise that this all must be a grave disappointment to you.

Despite all the endless rhetoric the politicians in most of the West were neither
prepared to send troops nor to properly divert manufacturing to a war economy basis.

For instance the UK has less ships and soldiers than it had three years ago.

What makes you think a formal peace treaty has any more validity than a cease fire? Because it says "formal", "peace" and "treaty"? None of which has mattered one iota before as afar as Ukraine's situation is concerned.

Whether the UK has the troops or not is very secondary to the main point of the situation – which is that Ukraine is defended by the Ukranians. It is the major fly in the Russian ointment – who would have thunk the Ukranians would make a fight of it? Any "formal peace treaty" that compromises that is worse than useless.

As long as the armed forces of Ukraine still hold the frontline, then possible additions of NATO, or whatever, expeditionary forces – to enforce a cease fire – might provide additional value.

 

[Gorbles]

Our retired generals say we don't have enough troops.

Maybe we don't. I feel that's a topic best left to currently-serving staff, as they'll be able to understand a lot better the logistics and what aid can possibly be offered.

Certainly, that's completely separate to your personal preferences for how the conflict should end. Not sure why you're tying them together.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Ceasefires are customarily seen as temporary so a resumption in hostilities would surprise no one.

Reneging on treaties that Boris Yeltsin had signed is one thing, but it would be much harder for Vlad Putin
to maintain credibility if he reneged on a formal peace treaty that he now signs. This is in the context
of world opinion, in particular the perceptions of players such as China, India and Brasil etc. support.

For instance China has de facto supported Russia in recovering majority Russian speaking area.
They might well take the view that if he breaks a treaty and invades Western Ukraine he's on his own.

The NATO countries have had three years to intervene or build up their military industrial
base, but have with the honourable exception of mainly Poland done nothing.

And this in part explains Donald Trump's new administration's line.

The purpose of sending peace keeping troops is to also discourage Russia from reneging on a formal treaty.