Jump to content

KYHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by KYHorn

  1. Blinken and the larger administration's messaging has been so inconsistent and unclear on this but they seem to be moving ever so slowly (their MO for the duration of this war) in the right direction (see NYT article below).

     

     

    Inside the White House, a Debate Over Letting Ukraine Shoot U.S. Weapons Into Russia

    After a sobering trip to Kyiv, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is urging the president to lift restrictions on how Ukraine can use American arms.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/us/politics/white-house-ukraine-weapons-russia.html#:~:text=Inside the White House%2C a,Ukraine can use American arms.

    Spoiler

    Smoke rising from a partially collapsed apartment building.
    The aftermath of what Russia said was a Ukrainian attack on Belgorod, Russia, earlier this month.Credit...Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
    David E. Sanger
    By David E. Sanger
    Reporting from Washington

    May 22, 2024
    Since the first American shipments of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, President Biden has never wavered on one prohibition: President Volodymyr Zelensky had to agree to never fire them into Russian territory, insisting that would violate Mr. Biden’s mandate to “avoid World War III.”

    But the consensus around that policy is fraying. Propelled by the State Department, there is now a vigorous debate inside the administration over relaxing the ban to allow the Ukrainians to hit missile and artillery launch sites just over the border in Russia — targets that Mr. Zelensky says have enabled Moscow’s recent territorial gains.

    The proposal, pressed by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken after a sobering visit to Kyiv last week, is still in the formative stages, and it is not clear how many of his colleagues among Mr. Biden’s inner circle have signed on. It has not yet been formally presented to the president, who has traditionally been the most cautious, officials said.

    The State Department spokesman, Matthew A. Miller, declined to comment on the internal deliberations over Ukraine policy, including Mr. Blinken’s report after his return from Kyiv.

    But officials involved in the deliberations said Mr. Blinken’s position had changed because the Russians had opened a new front in the war, with devastating results. Moscow’s forces have placed weapons right across the border from northeastern Ukraine, and aimed them at Kharkiv — knowing the Ukrainians would only be able to use non-American drones and other weaponry to target them in response.

    In an interview with The New York Times this week, Mr. Zelensky said the inability to fire American missiles and other weaponry at military targets in Russia gave Moscow a “huge advantage.”

    For months, Mr. Zelensky has been mounting attacks on Russian ships, oil facilities and electricity plants, but he has been doing so largely with Ukrainian-made drones, which don’t pack the power and speed of the American weapons. And increasingly, the Russians are shooting down the Ukrainian drones and missiles or sending them astray, thanks to improved electronic warfare techniques.

    Now, the pressure is mounting on the United States to help Ukraine target Russian military sites, even if Washington wants to maintain its ban on attacking oil refineries and other Russian infrastructure with American-provided arms. Britain, usually in lockstep with Washington on war strategy, has quietly lifted its own restrictions, so that its “Storm Shadow” cruise systems can be used to target Russia more broadly.

    The British foreign secretary, David Cameron, a former prime minister, said during a visit to Kyiv ahead of Mr. Blinken’s that Ukraine “absolutely has the right to strike back at Russia.”

    The United States is now considering training Ukrainian troops inside the country, rather than sending them to a training ground in Germany. That would require putting American military personnel in Ukraine, something else that Mr. Biden has prohibited until now. It raises the question of how the United States would respond if the trainers, who would likely be based near the western city of Lviv, came under attack. The Russians have periodically targeted Lviv, though it is distant from the main areas of combat.

    Another hint of a shift came in recent days. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, in repeating the usual administration position — “our expectation is that they continue to use the weapons that we’ve provided on targets inside of Ukraine” — seemed to suggest that there may be exceptions made for Russian aircraft operating in the safety of Russian territory, just over the border, enabling pilots to release glide bombs into eastern Ukraine.

    “The aerial dynamic’s a little bit different,” Mr. Austin allowed, but he struggled to articulate the new standard. “And so — but again, don’t — don’t want to speculate on any — any one or — or any type of engagement here at the podium, so.”

    When a reporter followed up by asking whether such aerial operations by the Russians were “off-limits or not off-limits?” Mr. Austin did not respond.

    The Russians are accustomed to such debates, and they have been unsubtle in playing to American concerns about an escalation of the war.

    This week they began very public exercises with the units that would be involved in the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the kind that would be used on Ukrainian troops. Russian news reports said it was “a response to provocative statements and threats from Western officials against Russia.”

    But the administration appears less sensitive to such threats than it was in the early days of the war, or in October 2022, when there were fears that Russia, its forces failing, might use those weapons against Ukrainian military targets. During that incident, some administration officials, picking up conversations among Russian officers, feared there was a 50 percent chance a nuclear weapon could be detonated.

    The current exercises, in contrast, are being dismissed as bluster and muscle-flexing.

    In a notable break from the administration’s public position, Victoria Nuland, who left her position as No. 3 official in the State Department this spring, is now making a public argument that the administration needs to drop its ban on the use of its weapons against targets inside Russia.

    “I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game,” she said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

    “I think it’s time for that because Russia has obviously escalated this war,” she added, noting that Russia’s attack on Kharkiv is an effort “to decimate it without ever having to put a boot on the ground. So I think it is time to give the Ukrainians more help hitting these bases inside Russia.”

    Ms. Nuland was always among a far more hawkish camp inside the administration, and her view was in the minority. But over time she won more and more of the arguments over whether to send more sophisticated missiles and artillery systems to Ukraine, and each time Mr. Biden relented, the worst fears he had about escalation did not materialize.

    In his interview with the Times, Mr. Zelensky dismissed fears of escalation, saying President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had already escalated the war. And he thought it unlikely that Mr. Putin would ever make good on his threat to unleash a nuclear weapon.

    Mr. Biden and some of his aides are clearly not convinced. Over the past year they have said they believe there is some red line out there that would unleash a more severe reaction from Mr. Putin. They just don’t know exactly where that is, or what the reaction might be.

    In private with Mr. Blinken last week and in his interview with The Times, Mr. Zelensky argued that at this desperate stage of the war, it was critical to let him use American weapons against Russian military units.

    “This is part of our defense,” Mr. Zelensky told The Times. “How can we protect ourselves from these attacks? This is the only way.”

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
    • Rage+1 4
  2. Interesting shakeup here. How many generals do they have if it's supposedly going to make a difference in their ability to provide rest to current front line troops??

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/24/ukraine-generals-front-line-russia-soldiers/

    Ukraine to fire generals and send them to front lineMove to cut top brass by two thirds aims to boost morale among rank and file soldiers feeling the heat from Russian aggression.

    Spoiler

    Ukraine to fire generals and send them to front line
    Move to cut top brass by two thirds aims to boost morale among rank and file soldiers feeling the heat from Russian aggression

    James Kilner
    24 May 2024 • 8:27pm

    32
    Volodymyr Zelensky addresses marines in Kyiv. The Ukrainian president is facing a manpower problem

    Ukraine plans to sack some of its army generals and send them to the front line in an effort to boost morale among soldiers.

    Kyiv has been struggling against waves of Russian attacks as it loses ground in the eastern Donetsk region.

    Soldiers have complained they are outmanned and outgunned and that the military’s upper ranks are bloated.

    The army has not said how many generals would be reassigned but it said it would cut around two thirds of top staff.

    A Ukrainian soldier carrying a mortar shell in Chasiv Yar
    A Ukrainian soldier carrying a mortar shell in Chasiv Yar. The army is under pressure from increased Russian attacks CREDIT: Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu via Getty
    “With the released personnel, it is planned to replenish units at the operational and tactical levels, as well as military combat units,” said Brig Gen Yevhen Ostryansky, head of Ukrainian military defence planning.

    Advertisement

    Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has looked to modernise its military in line with Nato countries. 

    As well as reducing the number of generals, that means empowering non-commissioned officers and junior officers to make battlefield decisions.

    Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers were trained by Nato forces in Europe last year and Nato military planners integrated ahead of the country’s much-hyped counter-offensive.

    Ukrainian army medics treat wounded soldiers at a stabilization point
    Ukrainian army medics treat wounded soldiers at a stabilization point CREDIT: Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu via Getty
    However, with the counter-offensive proving a disappointment and Russia steadily making gains on the ground, Ukraine is under pressure to bolster frontline forces and give tired units a rest.

    The recruitment drive it was banking on has not panned out as hoped.

    In his briefing, Gen Ostryansky said that strengthened recruitment rules and the redeployment of generals from rear command centres to frontline combat units would allow more exhausted soldiers to rest.

    Advertisement

    “This will make it possible to rotate units that perform combat tasks in the combat zone for a long time,” he said.

    Russia has been advancing along the front line in Ukraine since October, and earlier this month it opened a new front north of Kharkiv. 

    Since he took over as commander in chief of Ukraine’s military in February, Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi has been credited with injecting more energy and purpose into Kyiv’s forces. 

    He regularly tours front-line units and is a favourite among Ukrainian soldiers.

     

    • Haha 1
  3. Here's a real escalation

    Russia starts ‘tactical nuclear drills’ near Ukraine border

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/22/russia-starts-tactical-nuclear-drills-near-ukraine-border 

    Spoiler

    nuclear drills’ near Ukraine border
    ‘First stage’ of exercises involves Iskander and Kinzhal hypersonic missiles and is seen as a warning to Ukraine’s Western allies.

    Russian soldiers on top of an an Iskander missile launching system capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. A weapon appears o be lifted by a crane system into the air
    Russian soldiers on an Iskander missile launching system during the exercises [Russian Defence Ministry via Reuters]
    Published On 22 May 2024
    22 May 2024
    Russia has begun the first stage of tactical nuclear weapons drills, involving Iskander and Kinzhal missiles, in areas bordering Ukraine.

    The Russian Ministry of Defence said on Tuesday that the drills were taking place in its Southern Military District, which borders and includes parts of Ukraine that Moscow has occupied and illegally annexed since its full-scale invasion began in February 2022.

    KEEP READING
    list of 4 items
    list 1 of 4
    Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 817
    list 2 of 4
    Belarusians who fought against Russia with Ukraine face new battle
    list 3 of 4
    Zelenskyy pushes allies for direct involvement in Ukraine’s war with Russia
    list 4 of 4
    Russian playwright and director go on trial over ‘justifying terrorism’
    end of list
    The ministry did not give the exact location of the exercises.

    Belarus, where Russia said last year it was deploying tactical nuclear weapons, is also expected to take part.

    Since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow has repeatedly talked up its arsenal of nuclear weapons and its readiness to deploy them in the face of a security threat.

    Nuclear analysts say the exercises are designed as a warning signal by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to deter Ukraine’s Western allies, which have provided weapons and intelligence to Kyiv, from wading more deeply into the war.

    The exercises are to ensure that units and equipment are ready for “the combat use of non-strategic nuclear weapons to respond and unconditionally ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Russian state in response to provocative statements and threats of individual Western officials against the Russian Federation”, the ministry said.

    Putin ordered the drills after Western politicians suggested they might be willing to go further in their support of Ukraine.

    Advertisement


    Earlier this month, French President Emmanuel Macron said he had not ruled out deploying troops to Ukraine under certain conditions, while the United Kingdom’s foreign minister, David Cameron, said Kyiv had the right to fire Western missiles at Russian territory.

    Russia’s Southern Military District is the command centre for its offensive on Ukraine, with its headquarters in Rostov-on-Don, 60km (40 miles) from the border with Ukraine.

    Sign up for Al Jazeera
    Weekly Newsletter
    The latest news from around the world. Timely. Accurate. Fair.
    E-mail address
    Subscribe
    By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
    protected by reCAPTCHA
    The Defence Ministry published footage showing trucks carrying missiles to a field where launch systems were prepared and troops at an airfield readying a bomber to carry a nuclear warhead.

    It said the drills involved practising the loading of launch vehicles, driving to designated launch sites and loading planes with Kinzhal missiles, which are hypersonic weapons.

    It did not indicate whether any test firings had taken place.

    Advertisement


    “The exercises are, obviously, a signal in response to discussion of NATO countries’ troops in Ukraine,” Nikolai Sokov, a former Soviet and Russian arms control official, told the Reuters news agency. “The most important features are advance announcement and visibility.”

    Western militaries will be watching the exercises closely and seeking to draw conclusions about how much warning time they would have if Russia deployed such weapons for real, he said.

    Tactical nuclear weapons, also known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, are designed for use on the battlefield and have vast destructive potential.

    Russia has about 1,558 non-strategic nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, although there is uncertainty about the exact figures.

     

    • Rage+1 5
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  4. Lots of people saying it's confirmed. 

    JUST IN: Iran's President Ebrahim Raisi is confirmed dead after rescuers reached the crash site.

    Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian is also dead.

    The discovery came after a long night of searching in freezing conditions. 

    Shortly before the discovery, Iranian Red Crescent Society head Pir-Hossein Kolivand said the situation was “not good.”

    According to Reuters, the helicopter was completely burned in the crash.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 2 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

    Kobe!

     

    2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

    I suppose there are two bigger questions:

    1.  Do you play Learning to Fly by Tom Petty or Pink Floyd at the memorial?

    2.  Do you get a discount for cremation services in a situation like this?  Just because the are bereaved doesn't make them fucking saps.

     

     

    3. Which Surly poster will out their fetish on this thread?

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  6. Ruh-roh. The Defense Minister was also on board.

     

    "Raisi, 63, is a hard-liner who formerly led the country’s judiciary. He is viewed as a protégé of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and some analysts have suggested he could replace the 85-year-old leader after his death or resignation from the role.

    Raisi won Iran’s 2021 presidential election, a vote that saw the lowest turnout in the Islamic Republic’s history. Raisi is sanctioned by the U.S. in part over his involvement in the mass execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988 at the end of the bloody Iran-Iraq war.

    Under Raisi, Iran now enriches uranium at nearly weapons-grade levels and hampers international inspections. Iran has armed Russia in its war on Ukraine, as well as launched a massive drone-and-missile attack on Israel amid its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It also has continued arming proxy groups in the Mideast, like Yemen’s Houthi rebels and Lebanon’s Hezbollah."

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  7. Former Senator Rob Portman (R) recently wrote a piece detailing a plan for victory for Ukraine in anticipation of the Biden admin's plan that is required by the recent Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan aid. I don't think it goes far enough, as it's essentially a list of weapons and systems everyone here knows about, but it's a fairly brief read that is important, if nothing else, because of the political side he comes from. 

    https://thedispatch.com/article/a-plan-for-victory-in-ukraine/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Russia Opens Up New Front in Northeastern Ukraine&utm_campaign=The Morning Dispatch_Paid Subscribers Only_Russia Opens Up New Front in Northeastern Ukraine#comments

    A Plan for Victory in Ukraine

    Congress wants a strategy for Ukraine to win, not merely survive. The administration should embrace it.

    By Rob Portman

     

    Spoiler

    A Plan for Victory in Ukraine

    Congress wants a strategy for Ukraine to win, not merely survive. The administration should embrace it.

    By Rob Portman

    May 9, 2024

    image.png.6f7e8b316cda7a7929bc78881897bf71.png 

    An M142 HIMARS launches a rocket on a Russian position from an unspecified location in Ukraine on December 29, 2023. (Photo by Serhii Mykhalchuk/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images)

    One of the most consequential parts of the recently passed supplemental aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan is a little-noticed provision that requires the Biden administration to submit a strategy to Congress regarding U.S. support for Ukraine. Notably, for the first time since Russia’s full-scale invasion began, the Biden administration will be mandated to present an assessment “of the resources required … to help hasten Ukrainian victory against Russia’s invasion forces.”

    Although a loud minority of lawmakers opposes any aid to Ukraine, this requirement in the legislation reflects a bipartisan concern of many in Congress that the administration’s oversensitivity to “escalation” has restricted the provision of more effective weapon systems Ukraine has requested and has limited the use of some U.S. weapons provided, contributing to Ukraine’s disadvantage on the battlefield and the current bloody stalemate. The new law makes clear that Congress wants a plan for Ukraine to win, not merely survive. The administration should embrace it.

    Section 504 of the supplemental mandates “a classified independent assessment from the Commander, U.S. European Command, describing any specific defense articles and services not yet provided to Ukraine that would result in meaningful battlefield gains” within 45 days. Having heard from U.S. commanders in congressional briefings—and in Germany and Poland during a dozen or more trips to Ukraine—I’m confident that if the Biden administration allows military judgment to prevail, its response will point the way to breaking the stalemate in Ukraine’s favor.

    With the correct approach, the administration has an opportunity to give Ukraine an advantage on the battlefield and bring this unprovoked, illegal, and brutal Russian attack to an end, forcing Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness. Investing in Ukraine’s capabilities on the battlefield will help create leverage that both the United States and Ukraine will need in those eventual peace talks. 

    Among the opponents of providing assistance to Ukraine are those who cling to unrealistic and convenient arguments that somehow, if America pulls back, Vladimir Putin will come to the bargaining table, and Ukraine can remain a free, independent democracy. There is simply no evidence in the history of aggression by dictators or in the words or deeds of Vladimir Putin to support this argument. Russia’s best theory of victory in this war depends on the exhaustion of America’s support for Ukraine. Pulling back our assistance will only help fulfill Putin’s dreams of conquest and empire.

    The only realistic way to end the conflict is to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to win on the battlefield and inflict enough pain on Russia that a favorable settlement is possible. Approving one or two badly needed weapons in small numbers, after long delays, has not had the battlefield impact Ukraine needs. Rather, the Biden administration must redouble our coordination with our European allies to provide a suite of capabilities that can be employed together to achieve maximum results.

    Putin will come to the table in good faith only when he knows that he cannot wait us out. I agree that European allies can do more to support Ukraine’s war effort, although they have actually contributed more than many Americans may realize. With the passage of the new supplemental funding bill, total U.S. commitments are now about $173 billion. As a bloc, the European Union’s total assistance commitments to Ukraine currently stand at roughly $155 billion. Even so, American leadership is essential to sustaining this progress and making European military assistance, in particular, more impactful and durable. 

    At this point, I believe the U.S. commitment to move quickly to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs and the training to use them effectively is just as important as the dollar amount of aid provided. The same scenario has played out time and time again: Ukraine requests a particular weapon, the Biden administration initially says no, then eventually provides it after months—or years—of bipartisan congressional pressure. Inevitably, the weapon quickly makes a significant difference: Stinger missiles early in the conflict, HIMARS two years ago, and longer-range ATACMS missiles more recently. Think of all of the lives that could have been saved if we had provided those weapons systems earlier.

    Russia’s air force is currently bombarding civilian targets every day, and Ukraine needs F-16 fighter jets as soon as possible to stave off those attacks. But that requires more than just supplying U.S. planes: It means expediting and expanding the training already underway, as well as the issuing of licenses to allies around the world who are willing and able to provide such aircraft to Ukraine but need our permission. Based on recent reports, it seems that operational F-16s will be slowly trickling into Ukraine later this year, meaning that they may not make a significant impact until at least 2025. Sadly, this is emblematic of the administration’s slow-walking of assistance to Ukraine. Had the administration acted sooner, F-16s would already be protecting Ukraine’s skies against the deadly Russian attacks on civilians and infrastructure.

    On the ground, Ukraine needs tanks to punch through Russian lines and retake territory. Some American M1A1 Abrams tanks have been provided, along with British Challengers and a larger number of German Leopards. They have proven effective, but there are not enough. After more than a year of stalling, the United States only provided about 31 tanks—a token gesture seemingly designed to pressure the Germans into providing Leopards. We have hundreds more that could be routed to Ukraine from allies or our own stocks. 

    One of the biggest sticking points has been long-range missiles capable of striking critical logistics and command nodes behind Russian lines. Ukraine has asked for them for two years, and reports indicate that the U.S. has supplied a small number of such missiles. More ATACMS missiles and other long-range missiles are desperately needed. In fact, Congress included an explicit requirement in the supplemental that the administration provide more of these missiles. But the administration currently places onerous conditions on their use out of concern of escalation. British Foreign Minister David Cameron’s recent announcement that the United Kingdom would allow Ukraine to use UK-supplied long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory is a welcome development, and the U.S. should follow it. Russia has attacked Ukraine from Russian territory since Day 1. The administration must allow Ukraine to defend itself.

    Next, Ukraine’s air defense needs to be bolstered immediately. Ukraine needs long-range air defense systems, like Patriots, to defend against the Russian- and North Korean-made ballistic missiles and Iranian-made drones raining down on Ukrainian cities. America’s enemies have redoubled their support for Russia’s terror-bombing campaign, so America and our allies must unite to stop it. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg noted recently that NATO countries have the spare capacity to provide more air defense missiles; all that’s needed is the political will to do so. This is also true for short-range air defense systems to defend against both the ubiquitous Russian drones as well as Russian strike aircraft near the frontlines, which have taken advantage of Ukrainian air defense missile shortages to significantly increase their deadly attacks.

    In particular, Ukraine desperately needs more sophisticated electronic warfare (EW) systems to counter Russian “first-person view” or “kamikaze” drones. This new breed of relatively inexpensive but deadly drones has been used to devastating effect by both sides in this war, destroying vehicles and equipment that are orders of magnitude more expensive than the drones themselves. Bolstering Ukraine’s EW capabilities would enable it to disable and disorient more Russian FPV drones, thus better protecting Ukrainian forces and preserving their combat power for future offensive operations.

    The administration should also increase the number of cluster munitions sent to Ukraine, particularly the 155mm dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM). First provided in July 2023 following months of Ukrainian requests and pressure from Congress, DPICMs have been a major game-changer on the ground—often stopping Russian infantry assaults in their tracks. Originally built during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union’s numerical superiority in artillery, the United States has about 3 million of these cluster munitions in storage and could easily send more. These would be invaluable to bolstering Ukraine’s low stockpiles of artillery ammunition and blunting future Russian assaults. 

    A successful effort requires more than equipment and munitions: We cannot neglect the importance of training for Ukrainian soldiers. State-of-the-art equipment means little in the hands of ill-trained recruits, uncoordinated units, or poorly commanded armies. Ukraine recently passed a mobilization law to conscript thousands of new troops to refill its ranks and form new units for future offensive operations. Training these new conscripts to realistically prepare them for combat and teach them how to conduct complex offensive operations requires that the U.S. and its allies redouble their efforts. 

    Finally, it is important to help Ukraine’s defense industry recover so it can eventually sustain its own needs. The Ukrainians have been remarkably innovative in adapting U.S.-provided equipment to suit the conditions and developing their own new capabilities, particularly in areas like drone warfare. Significant opportunities exist for U.S. companies willing to invest in Ukraine, and relevant agencies like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) should be more aggressive in helping them do so. 

    Through the recently passed supplemental, Congress made it clear, in bipartisan fashion, that it wants to hear from the Biden administration how to change the dynamic on the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor. All we need now is for the administration to follow this congressional intent “to hasten Ukraine’s victory against Putin’s war of aggression” by providing Ukraine the weapons it needs to win.

     

    • Hook 'Em 6
  8. 22 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

    Hold on to your butts... No telling where this goes and who gets blamed for what...

     

     

     

     The first minutes after the attack on Robert #Fico - the prime minister's security guards evacuate him to his motorcade while eyewitnesses hold the shooter According to preliminary information from Slovak media, Fico was shot multiple times. One to the abdomen, one to the head. He's in serious condition.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  9.  

     https://united24media.com/latest-news/estonia-considers-sending-troops-to-support-ukraine-in-non-combat-roles-318

    Estonia Considers Sending Troops to Support Ukraine in Non-Combat Roles

    MAY 14, 2024 15:07

    Estonia’s government has engaged in “serious” discussions regarding sending troops to western Ukraine. These forces would assume non-combat, logistical roles to free up Ukrainian soldiers for frontline combat, stated Estonian National Security Advisor Madis Roll.

    Roll’s remarks followed statements from the head of Estonia’s Armed Forces, General Martin Herem, who previously said that there were internal military discussions months ago regarding the potential deployment of troops to western Ukraine for roles such as medical services, logistics, or air defense in certain western cities.

    Madis Roll emphasized their preference for a NATO-led mission “to show broader combined strength and determination”. However, he left open the possibility of collaborating with a smaller coalition.

    “Discussions are ongoing,” Security Advisor said. “We should be looking at all the possibilities. We shouldn’t have our minds restricted as to what we can do.”

    Roll, speaking on May 10, pointed out that NATO members currently opposed to troop deployment might reconsider their stance over time, saying that this scenario is “not unthinkable as time goes on”.

    This follows Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė expressing the willingness to send Lithuanian troops to Ukraine for training purposes.

    “If we just thought about the Russian response, then we could not send anything. Every second week you hear that somebody will be nuked”, said Šimonytė.

    The potential deployment of Western troops to Ukraine has opened the door to a debate, ignited by the French President Emmanuel Macron’s comments, suggesting such a course of action might be necessary in the future.

    • Hook 'Em 5
  10. Full footage of the clash between Ukrainian border guards from Frozen Group and Russian invaders in Kharkiv Oblast on 10 May. A shorter episode emerged yesterday. 

    They repelled a Russian attack on their positions and withdrew successfully, although somewhat struggled to find directions at first. Everyone survived.

    Added subtitles where possible.

     


     

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...