Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121694964#Comment_121694964

The biggest with assets seizures in Europe going forward it then becomes a highly political weapon to guarantee various outcomes with countries making claims against another,

Yes the Americans did it against Cuba and Saddam to a degree but at the same time the US wouldn't allow anyone to seize there assets think of the invasion of Iraq,the same applies to trying to remove Hungary from EU votes it's open to abuse to guarantee predetermined political outcomes

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695086#Comment_121695086

Not sure we can reference Belarus while ignoring the reality of it being a Russian puppet state. And it's nothing to do with pettiness, it's just you're trying to argue Ukraine's nuclear weapons were Russia's and they were in their right to demand them back. It is pertinent to speak about what Russia classifies as its own property given this war is being prosecuted precisely because of one man's belief Ukraine is exactly that, a border mistake to be corrected.

In any case, the subject is extremely hypothetical as AFAIK Ukraine weren't able to bypass the codes and systems locking them out, so their destruction was as much pragmatic as it was a question of "ownership".

victorfranco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121694488#Comment_121694488

The argument here is that Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil somehow became the property of Ukraine in 1991. Its like talking to a wall. Just because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NORTHERN IRELAND. In 1921, does that somehow mean that Royal Navy warships in the southern part of the island are the property of the new state of Ireland?

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695287#Comment_121695287

Who owned the Soviet nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union was gone?

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695086#Comment_121695086

Do you do this deliberately? There were no Pershing missiles at Greenham Common, they were BGM-109G cruise missiles. I know because I was responsible for those guarding them for a while.

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695287#Comment_121695287

They were part of a deal one that Putin has reneged upon. Ukrained had possession and was a former part of the USSR as was Russia.

'After the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons that had been staged in Warsaw Pact states, including Ukraine, were transferred to Russian territory. This was done as part of a straightforward deal: The former Soviet states would voluntarily adopt a nonnuclear status in exchange for security guarantees that they would not be threatened with nuclear weapons in the future.In Ukraine's case, the transfer of custodianship of the nuclear weapons also was contingent upon the assurances of Russia, the United States, and the UK to Kyiv that its sovereignty and territorial integrity would be respected. Territorial integrity has been among Kyiv's main concerns, expressed repeatedly during the post–Cold War negotiations and afterward. These commitments were officially professed in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994. As one of the signatories, Russia assumed an obligation to serve as a guarantor of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.'

victorfranco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695062#Comment_121695062

I’ll give you that, BUT, since Washington controls the British Nuclear program it would be naive to think that the Brits could arm and launch one of their missiles completely independently. I can’t prove that only Washington hold Trident codes but any sane person would have to concede that the US would never cede that control.

Hoop66

The Politico article you're getting your points from is 10 years out of date.

victorfranco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695155#Comment_121695155

What about Kazakhstan? They forewent Soviet weapons on their soil at the urgency of the US. I don’t want to jump to conclusions or appear flippant but I can’t help thinking that the American facilitation was influenced by the fact that Kazakhstan is 70% Muslim.

victorfranco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695520#Comment_121695520

So that nullifies it then? Shall we dig up an article from 1991 about nuclear weapons in Ukraine… but because it’s33 years out of date then it’s nonsense, yes?

zv2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695287#Comment_121695287

It seems to me that if they belonged to the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union dissolved the spoils should be shared between Ukraine and Russia. That's not what happened.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695287#Comment_121695287

You realise that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was ultimately partitioned between Russia and Ukraine?

There was more than a name change. The USSR collapsed as a political entity. Ukraine was a constutient member state of the USSR.

Luna84

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121694909#Comment_121694909

I don't believe that. The Ukrainian's actually shoot the drones down with a German dual barrel anti aircraft gun with large calibre bullets(I forget the name of them) rather than using missiles. I'm not saying they aren't running low on missiles but they do not use missiles to shoot down the drones.

victorfranco

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695370#Comment_121695370

Ah relax, so the Pershings and Tomahawks were scheduled to be planted there. I was 6 at the time so can’t remember if they made it before being withdrawn.

Hoop66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695794#Comment_121695794

Pershings were never scheduled to be deployed at Greenham.

Paddigol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121688704#Comment_121688704

Of course. But this happens just as often with information presented in support of a positive angle for Ukraine. It's simply that everyone is generally happy to give those posts a free pass.

There's a big difference between posters who register here simply to troll anti-Ukrainian messaging and those who are happy to put information from both sides of the fence out there to be discussed.

Looked at another way, if the few posters who occasionally share links with what can be described as 'bad news for Ukraine' content were to disappear from here, virtually none of the remaining posters who put out very good information/ updates from the Ukrainian perspective would bother testing the opposite narrative.

Sigma101

There's been a lot of discussion over the last couple of weeks about the potential for a war between Russia and NATO in the medium term. Most people who dismiss the idea make the logical argument that Russia can't take on NATO if they can't even win the war with Ukraine. In his latest video, Anders Puck Nielsen thinks the prospect should be taken seriously. He doesn't envisage a war with all of NATO to gain territory. Instead, Nielsen believes that Putin could launch a "calibrated challenge" to Article 5, whereby Russia would attack a remote part of NATO territory, for instance northern Lapland. The gamble would be that some NATO countries would be unwilling to risk the lives of their soldiers and get drawn into a wider war for the sake of an unimportant piece of land in which they've no interest. This would ultimately lead to the collapse of NATO. In my view, this type of scenario, although still unlikely, becomes all the more realistic with Trump in the White House.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7GPBSyONU

Paddigol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121688893#Comment_121688893

You've a higher regard for the ability of random internet posters to undertake legitimate fact-checking exercises.

I've no doubt whatsoever that right now in Moscow there's a discussion taking place on an internet forum where some Russian poster who shares news from Ukrainian sources is getting slated and 'fact checked'.

What I see most of the time on here is not genuine fact checking but personal attacks on posters, full of childish put-downs.

As I said previously (and it's not dangerously naive), just counter any false info with evidence to the contrary and let the rest of us interpret it.

If I come across a report which suggests bad news for Ukraine, how far should I go in 'researching' it before putting it up here for discussion?

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695866#Comment_121695866

All his argument is based on Russia being stronger in bilateral 'negotiations' coming from 'a position of power'. Did he make this video back in 2021? I'd be confident of the Finns or the Poles on their own defeating Russia militarily.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695763#Comment_121695763

In most cases they have multiple systems but there's a well documented lack of missles for the multiple other systems they use ,it depends on where the Gepards( guns) are in relation to the attacks too ,

saabsaab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695866#Comment_121695866

Indeed Russia may target a NATO base if it may be used to supply assets to Ukraine to test resolve especially if Trump wins. NATO countries should be ready for this and have a prepared military response.

Wolf359f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695892#Comment_121695892

How far to go? If it was tweet, just read a few of the comments. The cargo 300 crap was explained in the comments on the tweet and also clarified by the original tweeter where he said a couple died, not 300.

As for reports, the general consensus is just look at the other reports the site in question made. If the website refers to Nazi's in Ukraine, Russia fighting NATO troops in Ukraine and various tripe like that, i'd hope you can figure that out.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695961#Comment_121695961

I honestly don't think he will, I think most of the bluster is around the idea of Putin attacking a NATO state is just pushing up arms sales, and defence spending, which is great for a handful of companies in the EU and US

macraignil

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695892#Comment_121695892

"If I come across a report which suggests bad news for Ukraine, how far should I go in 'researching' it before putting it up here for discussion?"

Since you don't have a history on this thread I am aware of, of miss reading social media posts and never admitting getting your interpretation wrong even after it was clearly pointed out to you, I don't think there would be a very severe demand for fact checking. Like a reasonable person if you're shown to be incorrect it could be nice to admit it rather than always doubling down that you are the expert that knows the truth even though mysteriously need to provide nothing to back up your opinion other than flippant put downs of posters who have revealed inaccuracy in what you have professed to be fact.

Looks to be a very worrying time for putin. Can't even hold onto parts of Ukraine he has occupied since 2014.

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-armed-forces-of-ukraine-advanced-towards-horlivka/

Wolf359f

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121695763#Comment_121695763

Ukraine's mobile AA teams use a combination of German Gepards and various manpads. With the mobile teams they were responsible for about 45% of all drones that were downed, the rest would have been downed by the larger fixed AA systems. The problem is Ukraine is so large and Russia have been flying drones and missiles on looping paths trying to evade Ukraine's air defense. Taking one night's poor results (43% success rate) and assuming it's solely because of conserving missiles is a bit of a stretch. You can look through previous months and see sometimes a higher amount of drones get through:

20th September 2023: 16/30 shot down (53%)

26th September 2023: 26/38 shot down (68%)

While other days they would have a much higher success rate.

It's impossible to say if it's down to reserving AA missiles without knowing where all the drones were attacking:

Ukraine said Russian forces had launched two missiles and 35 attack drones across Ukraine and that 20 of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) had bypassed air defence systems.

“The enemy directed some of the attack UAVs along frontline territories, trying to hit fuel and energy infrastructure, and civilian and military facilities near the front line and the state border with the Russia,” the air force said in a statement.

I highly doubt Ukraine has fixed AA systems that close to the Russian border.