The Struggle For Ukraine

[Trenchcoat]

You do realize the price Ukraine had to pay, right?  It wasn't exactly a goodwill gesture by Russia.

Ukraine had to give up Putin's close personal friend, Medvedchuk.  Putin is godfather to Medvedchuk's daughter.

Try looking at things from Putin's perspective.  What if Putin actually intends to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine?  Perhaps the reason Putin hasn't nuked Ukraine yet is because he was afraid his friend Medvedchuk would get killed in the blast.

And if he just killed the Azov fighters Russia was holding, the world would get in a huff about it.

But if he trades Medvedchuk, he can have him safely back in Russia.  The Azov fighters are returned to Ukraine, where they will die in the nuclear blasts.

At that point, no one will care about the Azov fighters. The collective world will be in such shock that it isn't funny.  If the world realizes that Putin is serious about using nukes...sh*t just got real.  The world will back down and placate him.  I think we all know that Biden won't do anything.  He's too busy trying to shake hands with imaginary people.

Medvedchuk is an old guy so he could cark it at any time so his usefulness is probably limited. Possibly he might be brought in to oversee the new Russian territories. I doubt that there is likely to be much of a big win for either side so far as the big picture is concerned, more just another prisoner swap for both sides convenience. With the separatist areas soon to become a part of Russia the argument with the Separatists had jurisdiction over whether the Brits, etc got shot as Mercenaries would no longer hold as it would fall on Russia as their claimed territory. So in that respects it likely became expedient just to let go off that issue.

[Trenchcoat]

I mean, just think for a minute, what it would mean, if Ukraine actually WON this war!!!

For sure if Ukraine won and left Russia knackered out economically and militarily then that could prove the opportune moment for a break up of the Russian Federation. Generally those that lose wars are most prone to such particularly large empires. So Putler despite wanting to gain more territory may bring about Russia's complete downfall as a result of all of his mis-calculations. Looks like we're going into the winter with this war first, Putler may figure the Ukrainians might be most hard pressed then and use it to strike in with heavy troop numbers, the 300,000. Odds are though this conflict will continue over into 2023 barring any collapse or putsch on the Russian side. I'm guessing then things will come to a head possibly. That or Putler will keep calling up more troops. Russia has a seemingly almost inexhaustible number of men to call up and throw in there possibly Putler is hoping Ukraine will get exhausting along the way if a long conflict seemingly without end and either come to terms or throw in the towel. It's making hard work of it if it goes the distance and of course unfortunately much human suffering and misery along the way with it.

[Bee Farmer]

As for Medvedchuck...well if Ukraine is nuked it will just mean he dies in Russia instead of Ukraine, because the radiation fallout WILL affect surrounding NATO countries which will trigger article 5 and bye bye Russia.

Radiation drifting across national borders will not trigger Article 5.  If it did, Chernobyl would have triggered Article 5, because radiation drifted around the world.

If radiation drifting across borders triggered Article 5, then airborne pollution drifting across borders could also be deemed an attack.  See my point?

Russians shot down over 1200 US planes in Vietnam.  That didn't trigger Article 5, so why would radiation drifting across a border?

Where do you draw the line of what an attack is?  I don't think NATO would respond militarily to a nuclear strike in Ukraine.  I do think countries would respond with even more severe sanctions, possibly to the point of cutting off all trade with Russia, and probably cancelling all Russian visas.

I do believe Russia (and China) will nuke America into oblivion when America is totally unexpecting it, but we are probably looking at more like 6-8 years in the future.

I am hoping that the partial mobilization is a sufficient escalation to convince the US to provide Ukraine with ATACMS missiles to hit farther into occupied territory, and I hope the US gives Ukraine serious numbers of Abrams tanks and Warthogs.

[Trenchcoat]

Russia's strength in war has generally relied on overwhelming with greater numbers. With Ukraine they failed at the outset partly by not bringing a large enough army to attack and envelope Ukraine from all side as it initially looked like they were aiming for, before the invasion begun. If Ukraine can overcome Russia with help from the west then the biggest gift the west could gain is a break up of the Russian Federation. That would split Russia up into many separate states thereby breaking the ability of any country there to raise a large army and overwhelm and dominate it neighbours. All depends on how this conflict pans out.

[Chelseaboy]

"to de-Nazify Ukraine as the site owner loves to claim" -- Not this site owner.

Apologies....i should have posted THAT site owner.

[Chelseaboy]

Radiation drifting across national borders will not trigger Article 5.  If it did, Chernobyl would have triggered Article 5, because radiation drifted around the world.

If radiation drifting across borders triggered Article 5, then airborne pollution drifting across borders could also be deemed an attack.  See my point ?

Chernobyl was a complete accident so not an act of war which triggers article 5.


Russia nuking Ukraine and causing radiation fallout over NATO countries is an act of war which triggers article 5.


Spot the difference ?


Your point about Chernobyl is valid in that the radiation fallout reached as far as the north of UK...which proves my point about radiation fallout from a nuclear strike on Ukraine WILL affect NATO countries....which will lead to the total obliteration of Russia with Nukes coming from the USA,UK and France. .


Bearing in mind the unreliability of Russia's poorly maintained missiles ..as shown by a lot of their missiles fired from Belgorod actually falling out of the sky and hitting Belgorod instead of Ukraine...there's a pretty good chance Russia will also be nuking themselves too.


As for your point about Russians shooting down US aircraft in Vietnam,well that isn't an attack on a NATO country,just as NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons to shoot down Russian aircraft  hasn't been considered an  attack on Russia by Putler.


Neither action affected either USA or Russian territory.


A nuclear strike on Ukraine,with Russia knowing full well the radiation fallout will hit NATO countries WILL be considered an attack on NATO,as it affects NATO members territory....and as the USA and UK have both already warned Putler " Nothing will be off the table in our response".


So Putler " Do you feel lucky " ?

[Trenchcoat]

I fear Krim may be right that chemical weapons may become Russia's favoured weapon of attack. Word around seems to suggest that is what he may do. Probably on Ukrainian forces mainly I would guess but with the Russians you never know. If possible Ukraine needs to prepare as best it can if not already for these chemical attacks but they may be limited to what they can do to protect themselves.

[Bee Farmer]

Russia nuking Ukraine and causing radiation fallout over NATO countries is an act of war which triggers article 5.

How would radiation be considered an act of war? It sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Think about it.  How much radiation drifting across the border is acceptable, and how much is too much?  After all, there is naturally some radiation that is naturally occurring.  Where do you draw the line between what is a tolerable amount of radiation, and what is intolerable?

which proves my point about radiation fallout from a nuclear strike on Ukraine WILL affect NATO countries....which will lead to the total obliteration of Russia with Nukes coming from the USA,UK and France. .

Once again, wishful thinking.  US nuclear doctrine only permits the use of nukes in the event of a nuclear attack on the US.

A nuclear strike on Ukraine,with Russia knowing full well the radiation fallout will hit NATO countries WILL be considered an attack on NATO,as it affects NATO members territory....and as the USA and UK have both already warned Putler " Nothing will be off the table in our response".

Where do you get the idea that radioactive fallout will be considered an attack on NATO? 

You don't actually believe everything the talking heads say do you?  Nothing will be off the table is a reference to boots on the ground, military confrontation, and more severe sanctions.  It is not a suicidal wish for mutually assured destruction.

Biden is afraid to do anything without everyone in NATO agreeing.  They had a hard enough time convincing all NATO countries to impose sanctions.  Do you really think they could convince everyone to use nukes on Russia, which would be a guaranteed way to destroy the economies of the NATO member countries?  Most countries are already reeling from the past few years of Covid, etc. 

We're already hearing NATO member countries wanting to encourage a ceasefire now, and allow Russia to keep all the territory it occupies now.  Let people go through a cold winter with low availability of heating fuel, exorbitant high prices when it is available, the continued financial drain of supporting Ukraine, the prospects of an even more severe economic recession, etc...do you really think they will have the stomach to accept much higher levels of pain?

Wealthy folks can handle a hit to their finances.  They don't like it, but they can tolerate it.  They still have enough money to pay the bills and put food on the table.
Poor people can't afford a hit.  As soon as costs start increasing, they start having to prioritize whether they pay bills, food, medicines, etc.  When your life becomes a daily struggle for survival, it's hard to care about the struggles of someone in another country.

[Trenchcoat]

Well Referendums under way in the occupied regions to join Russia, gee I wonder which way they will vote lol.

My guess is following this Russia will make all citizens Russian citizens, and push forward with further measures of Russification clamping down on all who push against the tide or refuse to go along with it. Odds are I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of men are forcibly conscripted into the Russian armies in these regions (Donbass & Luhansk mostly already have done) and then used as cannon fodder against the Ukrainian forces.

[Chelseaboy]

How would radiation be considered an act of war? It sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Think about it.  How much radiation drifting across the border is acceptable, and how much is too much?  After all, there is naturally some radiation that is naturally occurring.  Where do you draw the line between what is a tolerable amount of radiation, and what is intolerable?

Once again, wishful thinking.  US nuclear doctrine only permits the use of nukes in the event of a nuclear attack on the US.

Where do you get the idea that radioactive fallout will be considered an attack on NATO? 

You don't actually believe everything the talking heads say do you?  Nothing will be off the table is a reference to boots on the ground, military confrontation, and more severe sanctions.  It is not a suicidal wish for mutually assured destruction.

Biden is afraid to do anything without everyone in NATO agreeing.  They had a hard enough time convincing all NATO countries to impose sanctions.  Do you really think they could convince everyone to use nukes on Russia, which would be a guaranteed way to destroy the economies of the NATO member countries?  Most countries are already reeling from the past few years of Covid, etc. 

We're already hearing NATO member countries wanting to encourage a ceasefire now, and allow Russia to keep all the territory it occupies now.  Let people go through a cold winter with low availability of heating fuel, exorbitant high prices when it is available, the continued financial drain of supporting Ukraine, the prospects of an even more severe economic recession, etc...do you really think they will have the stomach to accept much higher levels of pain?

Wealthy folks can handle a hit to their finances.  They don't like it, but they can tolerate it.  They still have enough money to pay the bills and put food on the table.
Poor people can't afford a hit.  As soon as costs start increasing, they start having to prioritize whether they pay bills, food, medicines, etc.  When your life becomes a daily struggle for survival, it's hard to care about the struggles of someone in another country.

You seem pretty naive and uninformed about the effects of acute exposure to radiation..i'm not interested in informing you,so i suggest you read up on it.


If you don't think people dying of radiation sickness in NATO because of a nuclear strike by Russia within Europe isn't an act of war then you need help.


As for the USA nuclear doctrine,well watch their response if people in Poland,Estonia,Latvia etc start dying because of radiation sickness caused by Russian hitting Ukraine with a nuke...and be prepared to be shocked and in awe, seeing as that's what you believe.


By the way the USA nuclear doctrine says nothing about nukes only being used in the event of a nuclear attack on the USA as you claim..
The USA actually reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.
This bit will particularly enlighten you.
"The USA would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the USA, OUR ALLIES AND PARTNERS.


Just to clarify....Ukraine is an ally and partner.
Once again i suggest you do some reading...because i shouldn't have to teach you about your own country's nuclear doctrine.


As for NATO's agreement for Nuclear retaliation on Russia ,the USA,France and the UK have nuclear weapons for a reason and they wouldn't need NATO's agreement as Ukraine isn't part of NATO...but IS an ally and partner,hence the huge support being given to that country in this war.


NATO didn't agree to the USA and UK invading Iraq but we still did it.


So the reality for you is that the USA could actually launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia if they feel it's warranted in the current conflict.No doubt the USA is constantly monitoring Russia's nuclear activity in readiness for just such an event.


As for the general public....nope no lessening of support for Ukraine here in the UK,,,,still plenty of Ukrainian flags flying everywhere.


We're well aware Russia needs to be defeated ...we all see Putler threatening us with nukes.


Looks like the support for Ukraine is huge in the USA too...i saw a CBS studio audience spontaneously get out of their seats and give a standing ovation for Ukraine when the Ukraine Foreign Minister walked in for an interview this week.
He said i thank you for your reception,but i suspect this was for the Ukrainian people.
At that they all got out of their seats and gave another standing ovation.


By the way you should watch the interview if you can ...one thing in particular he said is that it's human to feel fear,but you need to rise above it to defeat Putin...as the Ukrainians are doing.
It might help you.
I sense fear in your postings,hence your clutching at false straws about the USA will only use nukes if the USA is attacked by nukes....and the public is not really interested in what happens in Ukraine.


Sorry to burst your bubble.

[krimster2]

politics is a combination of chess and poker
sometimes when you're down, you can raise your bet
and hope the higher ante leads to hesitation by the other players (interpreting it as higher risk)
but this is ALWAYS a bluff move, strictly for SHOW...
Putin, is WAY down in this game, and only has a short term strategy of bluffing
the end of the european oil and gas market will be the checkmate move that takes the king
not to mention, the USA's LNG exports will replace all the Russian gas
Russia's oil sells for a steep discount to China compared to Europe

in 5 more years
GAME OVER MAN!
for Russia's oil and gas industry! Dass Va Danya, don't let the door hit you on your jhoppa on your way out!!!
Paka!!!

[Bee Farmer]

If you don't think people dying of radiation sickness in NATO because of a nuclear strike by Russia within Europe isn't an act of war then you need help.

But the likelihood of people in NATO dying from radiation sickness because of a nuke used in Ukraine are practically non-existent.

I've visited Chernobyl twice.  I was exposed to more radiation during the flight to Ukraine than I was when I was at the reactor.

As for the USA nuclear doctrine,well watch their response if people in Poland,Estonia,Latvia etc start dying because of radiation sickness caused by Russian hitting Ukraine with a nuke...and be prepared to be shocked and in awe, seeing as that's what you believe.

But, they're not going to be dying.

By the way the USA nuclear doctrine says nothing about nukes only being used in the event of a nuclear attack on the USA as you claim..
The USA actually reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.
This bit will particularly enlighten you.
"The USA would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the USA, OUR ALLIES AND PARTNERS.

That's called bluff and bluster.  Let me assure you that the US will not risk a nuclear war over Ukraine.

Just to clarify....Ukraine is an ally and partner.
Once again i suggest you do some reading...because i shouldn't have to teach you about your own country's nuclear doctrine.

Just to clarify...Ukraine is not a NATO partner, and the US does not have any security guarantees to protect Ukraine.

The written nuclear doctrine is vague and ambiguous.  Don't waste your time reading it.  Talk to people in the know if you want to know what the real doctrine is.

as Ukraine isn't part of NATO...but IS an ally and partner,hence the huge support being given to that country in this war.

Saying that Ukraine is an ally and partner is vague and ambiguous.  And ally and partner in what ways?  Ukraine is being used as a "justifiable" proxy war against Russia.  That is why it is being given support.

So the reality for you is that the USA could actually launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia if they feel it's warranted in the current conflict.

No, the reality is that the US won't launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia over Ukraine.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  The US will never feel a pre-emptive strike is warranted against Russia.

Looks like the support for Ukraine is huge in the USA too...i saw a CBS studio audience spontaneously get out of their seats and give a standing ovation for Ukraine when the Ukraine Foreign Minister walked in for an interview this week.

LMAO.  You do realize that studio audiences are instructed on how to behave, and TV screens who they want in the audience, right?  Studio audiences are staged performances.

Once a week I travel to the big city. (over a million people.)  Do you know how often I see Ukrainian flags?  I can count on one hand the number of Ukrainian flags I have seen displayed all summer long.  Most folks in the US don't care about Ukrainians, and couldn't find Ukraine on a map.

A lot of Americans over age 30 still think that Ukraine is a part of Russia.  You would be astonished by the number of people who find out that I have been to Ukraine before, and think that I traveled to Russia.

Sorry to burst your bubble.  (And believe me, I live in America and I know American attitudes and beliefs far more than a Brit does.  Don't delude yourself into thinking that you know more about America than an American does.)

[krimster2]

4 trident submarines
2 in the pacific, 2 in the atlantic
contain enough nuclear weapons, to annhilate every major Russian city 20 minutes after launching...
there would be no central Russian government left
and these guys say, that Pootin's talkin BS
OK???

the US doesn't need to supply Ukraine with longer range weapons, just keep the current flow going like they have been!!!
the war is costing Russia $400 million/day vrs maybe $100 million/day for us
but Russia also has personnel and equipment losses
overall, a huge win for us, would be STOOPID of us to stop our enemy from destroying themselves this way, as opposed to using it as an opportunity to do as much damage as possible, but with the most minimum cost to you over the long term

game theory says to do EXACTLY what Biden's imaginary friend told him to do!!!!
praise Jesus!!
and pass the ammunition!

[ProfessorJeep]

As far as American support for the war goes, I still see it pretty evenly divided on social media along political lines. Just as it has been since the beginning.

Liberals “stand with Ukraine”; conservatives post online about how we should be spending that money at home.

I haven’t looked at surveys or polls, so I’m just talking in anecdotally, and that’s not worth much. But what I’ve seen online still feels about the same as I saw in the beginning.

[Jumper1]

I dont think its clearly divided,other than those not supporting
 tend to be conservative,mostly because of far right talking heads telling them not to.

But many conservatives support ukraine and want the usa to do so.
Countless ex military support ukraine.

So while non supportors tend to one side,that side tends in itself to be divided on this.
Overall in general i see mostly support

[krimster2]

conservatives post online about how we should be spending that money at home

guess where the money goes for the all the weapons we ship to Ukraine?

directly into the bank accounts of the US's military industrial complex
in other words, IT IS SPENT HERE!

[rwd123]

I am hoping that the partial mobilization is a sufficient escalation to convince the US to provide Ukraine with ATACMS missiles to hit farther into occupied territory, and I hope the US gives Ukraine serious numbers of Abrams tanks and Warthogs.

Russia has an equivalent to Article 5 with CSTO members. Attacking 'liberated' territories post-referenda may lead to Russia requesting support from CSTO members. Lukashenko 'cannot' say no, the Kremlin backed him during the last (disputed) presidential elections; the Belarus army would likely mobilize. Kazakhstan 'cannot' say no as the Russian Federation supported it earlier this year with an attempted coup.

If the Russian Federation declares war on Ukraine - how will it repel an additional 300,000 mobilized troops plus the Belarus army? (Shoigu intimated that Russia can mobilize 25 million if necessary.)

The more things escalate, the more people will die. Sadly there is no hope of a diplomatic resolution on the horizon, though at least with the prisoner swap parties are still communicating.

[Trenchcoat]

Russia has an equivalent to Article 5 with CSTO members. Attacking 'liberated' territories post-referenda may lead to Russia requesting support from CSTO members. Lukashenko 'cannot' say no, the Kremlin backed him during the last (disputed) presidential elections; the Belarus army would likely mobilize. Kazakhstan 'cannot' say no as the Russian Federation supported it earlier this year with an attempted coup.

If the Russian Federation declares war on Ukraine - how will it repel an additional 300,000 mobilized troops plus the Belarus army? (Shoigu intimated that Russia can mobilize 25 million if necessary.)

The more things escalate, the more people will die. Sadly there is no hope of a diplomatic resolution on the horizon, though at least with the prisoner swap parties are still communicating.

I agree with this, Russia is manipulating the situation via the fake Referendums to try and get more forces to the front. It knows it needs way more troops than the initial invasion force it used to overcome Ukraine's forces. I think you're right that Belarus probably won't try to avoid getting dragged in if it sees that Moscow is throwing a lot more troops into the battle and thinks its own input will likely sway matters there. If Belarus attacks from the north then they can strike down towards Lviv. That's a whole new front that Ukraine will have to turn and protect against.

Ukraine has already lost a lot of troops in this war as well as Russia. Ukraine likely has reserves it can call up but aside fro m troop training in the west these will likely be largely untrained and inexperienced troops who will likely need at least quick rudimentary training and mixing in with more experienced troops. Possibly may be as many as 100,000 or so before they've got to turn to the population at large and constript into the army all those it had not, those who already had jobs elsewhere, the less willing to fight, etc. Questions are always abound of whether enough guns exist, rudimentary training availability in such circumstances. Odds are they will be just given a gun and dumped into a trench or similar to try to hold the ground, unfortunately becoming cannon fodder by default in such circumstances. If I was Ukraine, if they haven't already I would mobilize such troops now and get whatever rudimentary training and guns in while they can. They probably won't have much time before the 300,000 arrive and again I think Putler will call up more men in addition to the 300,000 once he annexes Ukrainian territory and Ukraine counterattacks into it. In addition to any CSTO forces he will likely declare it war and hence be able to call up more men in Russia which he will likely do.

The worst thing Ukraine can do at the moment is become complacent over its victories to date. Odds are it is on the verge of facing a massive Russian Army being formed and it needs to get all the men it can to the front to avoid being overwhelmed by force if numbers alone. This may indeed be the most deadly phase of the conflict so far. The west will have to ensure that Ukraine has the small arms it's needs to counter as well as whatever chemical warfare measures are possible. Underestimating Russia at this juncture I feel is both likely and of course fatal to Ukraine.

A few weeks ago a high up British warrant officer in the British Army told troops go see loved ones, priests, etc and prepare to go to war (in Ukraine). It sounded like troops may be in the process of mobilizing to be sent out to Ukraine to fight. That I found an unusual prospect as generally this has been a proxy war with denials issued early on by western nations/NATO that they would be sending troops. However likely they may have had worked out early on from now how Putler would likely play matters and might now be ready to send troops knowing that Ukraine alone might be hard pressed to fend off a massive Russian/CSTO army by itself. The west knows that neither itself nor Russia will use nukes on each other so it's largely down to a ground warfare conflict and it could likely become a free for all for whoever wanting to take part doing so. I think in the next few days & weeks we will likely see this all slotting into place. I as ever am focusing strategically on the dating aspect of this all

[Chelseaboy]

But the likelihood of people in NATO dying from radiation sickness because of a nuke used in Ukraine are practically non-existent.

I've visited Chernobyl twice.  I was exposed to more radiation during the flight to Ukraine than I was when I was at the reactor.

But, they're not going to be dying.

That's called bluff and bluster.  Let me assure you that the US will not risk a nuclear war over Ukraine.

Just to clarify...Ukraine is not a NATO partner, and the US does not have any security guarantees to protect Ukraine.

The written nuclear doctrine is vague and ambiguous.  Don't waste your time reading it.  Talk to people in the know if you want to know what the real doctrine is.

Saying that Ukraine is an ally and partner is vague and ambiguous.  And ally and partner in what ways?  Ukraine is being used as a "justifiable" proxy war against Russia.  That is why it is being given support.

No, the reality is that the US won't launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Russia over Ukraine.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  The US will never feel a pre-emptive strike is warranted against Russia.

LMAO.  You do realize that studio audiences are instructed on how to behave, and TV screens who they want in the audience, right?  Studio audiences are staged performances.

Once a week I travel to the big city. (over a million people.)  Do you know how often I see Ukrainian flags?  I can count on one hand the number of Ukrainian flags I have seen displayed all summer long.  Most folks in the US don't care about Ukrainians, and couldn't find Ukraine on a map.

A lot of Americans over age 30 still think that Ukraine is a part of Russia.  You would be astonished by the number of people who find out that I have been to Ukraine before, and think that I traveled to Russia.

Sorry to burst your bubble.  (And believe me, I live in America and I know American attitudes and beliefs far more than a Brit does.  Don't delude yourself into thinking that you know more about America than an American does.)

People dying in NATO from a Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine would depend on where the strike is and the prevailing winds at the time.


Kiev is 431 miles/693km from Poland as the radiation blows.


As for American support for Ukraine,well Jumper is American and he says  "overall in general i see mostly support ".


The same would apply in the UK.


I cannot comment on other NATO countries,although the Hungarian President Orban is pro-Russian,and openly mocks Zelensky.... the EU is threatening to withdraw EU funding from the country due to corruption and anti-democracy issues.


He's recently won another term in office.so one can assume the Hungarian general population agrees with him...unless the vote was rigged of course.


Hungary has also yet to ratify Finland and Sweden joining NATO....surprise surprise.

[Chelseaboy]

I agree with this, Russia is manipulating the situation via the fake Referendums to try and get more forces to the front. It knows it needs way more troops than the initial invasion force it used to overcome Ukraine's forces. I think you're right that Belarus probably won't try to avoid getting dragged in if it sees that Moscow is throwing a lot more troops into the battle and thinks its own input will likely sway matters there. If Belarus attacks from the north then they can strike down towards Lviv. That's a whole new front that Ukraine will have to turn and protect against.

Ukraine has already lost a lot of troops in this war as well as Russia. Ukraine likely has reserves it can call up but aside fro m troop training in the west these will likely be largely untrained and inexperienced troops who will likely need at least quick rudimentary training and mixing in with more experienced troops. Possibly may be as many as 100,000 or so before they've got to turn to the population at large and constript into the army all those it had not, those who already had jobs elsewhere, the less willing to fight, etc. Questions are always abound of whether enough guns exist, rudimentary training availability in such circumstances. Odds are they will be just given a gun and dumped into a trench or similar to try to hold the ground, unfortunately becoming cannon fodder by default in such circumstances. If I was Ukraine, if they haven't already I would mobilize such troops now and get whatever rudimentary training and guns in while they can. They probably won't have much time before the 300,000 arrive and again I think Putler will call up more men in addition to the 300,000 once he annexes Ukrainian territory and Ukraine counterattacks into it. In addition to any CSTO forces he will likely declare it war and hence be able to call up more men in Russia which he will likely do.

The worst thing Ukraine can do at the moment is become complacent over its victories to date. Odds are it is on the verge of facing a massive Russian Army being formed and it needs to get all the men it can to the front to avoid being overwhelmed by force if numbers alone. This may indeed be the most deadly phase of the conflict so far. The west will have to ensure that Ukraine has the small arms it's needs to counter as well as whatever chemical warfare measures are possible. Underestimating Russia at this juncture I feel is both likely and of course fatal to Ukraine.

A few weeks ago a high up British warrant officer in the British Army told troops go see loved ones, priests, etc and prepare to go to war (in Ukraine). It sounded like troops may be in the process of mobilizing to be sent out to Ukraine to fight. That I found an unusual prospect as generally this has been a proxy war with denials issued early on by western nations/NATO that they would be sending troops. However likely they may have had worked out early on from now how Putler would likely play matters and might now be ready to send troops knowing that Ukraine alone might be hard pressed to fend off a massive Russian/CSTO army by itself. The west knows that neither itself nor Russia will use nukes on each other so it's largely down to a ground warfare conflict and it could likely become a free for all for whoever wanting to take part doing so. I think in the next few days & weeks we will likely see this all slotting into place. I as ever am focusing strategically on the dating aspect of this all

The best orc troops have already been sent to Ukraine...and they're losing.


Therefore i'm not sure how much use 300,000 ,probably unmotivated reservists will be in the grand scheme of things,especially as there must be big doubts over the quality of the military equipment they'll be supplied with,


The new 3rd Army Putler formed to reinforce his flagging troops in Ukraine were the first to run in Ukraine's counter-offensive in the Kharkiv region..so no reason to think these 300,000 will be any better,


I suspect a few HIMARS strikes causing carnage  among them will soon have them on their bikes and legging it.


Belarus troops will probably be unmotivated and Russia has already taken...and lost...a lot of their military equipment.
Lukashenko is also walking on very thin ice with his people....sending too many troops to Ukraine could well result in a coup against him while he's weakened.
Belarus volunteers fighting in Ukraine are praying he'll actually send troops into Ukraine so they can smash them and leave Lukashenko on his knees and ripe for his removal as President.


Would be hilarious if a new President is pro NATO and applies to join..imagine Putler's and Lavrov's faces : ))


Regarding the UK sending troops to help Ukraine i doubt that will happen unless the Ukrainian troops are seen to be struggling and there's no sign of that yet...it's the orcs who are retreating and fighting to hold their positions.


Then again our new PM does,quite rightly, intensely dislike Putler and his Kremlin...so who knows ?

[Trenchcoat]

The best orc troops have already been sent to Ukraine...and they're losing.


Therefore i'm not sure how much use 300,000 ,probably unmotivated reservists will be in the grand scheme of things,especially as there must be big doubts over the quality of the military equipment they'll be supplied with,


The new 3rd Army Putler formed to reinforce his flagging troops in Ukraine were the first to run in Ukraine's counter-offensive in the Kharkiv region..so no reason to think these 300,000 will be any better,


I suspect a few HIMARS strikes causing carnage  among them will soon have them on their bikes and legging it.


Belarus troops will probably be unmotivated and Russia has already taken...and lost...a lot of their military equipment.
Lukashenko is also walking on very thin ice with his people....sending too many troops to Ukraine could well result in a coup against him while he's weakened.
Belarus volunteers fighting in Ukraine are praying he'll actually send troops into Ukraine so they can smash them and leave Lukashenko on his knees and ripe for his removal as President.


Would be hilarious if a new President is pro NATO and applies to join..imagine Putler's and Lavrov's faces : ))


Regarding the UK sending troops to help Ukraine i doubt that will happen unless the Ukrainian troops are seen to be struggling and there's no sign of that yet...it's the orcs who are retreating and fighting to hold their positions.


Then again our new PM does,quite rightly, intensely dislike Putler and his Kremlin...so who knows ?

Yeah I don't think she was treated well by them last time she was in Moscow and their jibes towards her riding a tank probably didn't go down well.

The 300,000 will likely be the thin end of the wedge, we're likely talking many troops from CSTO countries and a bigger call up in Russia of the back of the 300,000. The 300,000 are pretty much all ex-military so trained and likely some will be used to enforce a bigger call up along with Police, etc. I wouldn't underestimate them, becoming over confident was Russia's initial mistake and Ukraine need to ensure it doesn't become theirs. Ukraine was able to manipulate a lucky break around Kharkiv but along the rest of the front they are hard pressed against heavy numbers already. Ukraine will have lost a lot of their professional army also and will training is taking place now is the time it really needs to dig deep, way deep and call up as many men as it can to the front to see off the massive army Russia is now forming. 300,000 troops in itself is not a trifle so I wouldn't underestimate them, then they will likely be added too by CSTO maybe another 200,000, then possibly another call up in Russia calling forth probably at least 500,000 or more. Odds are we are probably talking an Army of around 1 million men headed to Ukraine before the year is out, probably within the next month or so. 1 Million troops is going to be very hard for the Ukrainians to hold off, they'll be needing to up their troop numbers significantly also. Failing to do so will mean that they are overwhelmed by force of numbers. HIMARS are really limited to specific high value targets, sure some missiles can be sent in but Ukraine can't afford to use many of these missiles up like that as their expensive and limited and can only take out so many troops at any one time.

Historically Russia has focused on using force of numbers to win in conflicts. Here it has become the fallback strategy but it's a significant threat that Ukraine needs to take seriously. It can't afford to think that how it has been winning to date will still work against a massive army perhaps as much as ten times the size it is currently facing. If it does I fear that come Winter Ukraine may unfortunately not be doing so well and will be desperately trying to call up troops as it's lines crack under the pressure of massive numbers of troops storming in and hitting them. Now is the time Ukraine needs to act before it is too late!

[Chelseaboy]

Here's a couple of comments from Russian Telegram,regarding the 300,000 new recruits.


"The first wave,who arrived in Khabarovsk, are flying back to Yakutsk.Many are unfit due to health and age.Those who stay are taken to the military unit.
In Khabarovsk, they are shocked that Yakutia is sending everyone indiscriminately."


"The military prosecutor's office is carrying checks in some regions against individuals involved in mobilisation,with subsequent prosecution.To get the numbers ,they recruited blind,deaf,and even those who did not serve,and in addition the old ones ".


Nope i'm not hearing about any new elite stormtroopers itching to get at the Ukrainian forces 

[Jumper1]

How much has mobilization added to russian economy, those local centers  in poor provinces are getting some decent bribes,can you imagine in st peye amd mosciw 8f they ever start there?
Its every russian recruiting officers dream come true

[Jumper1]

Russia has an equivalent to Article 5 with CSTO members. Attacking 'liberated' territories post-referenda may lead to Russia requesting support from CSTO members. Lukashenko 'cannot' say no, the Kremlin backed him during the last (disputed) presidential elections; the Belarus army would likely mobilize. Kazakhstan 'cannot' say no as the Russian Federation supported it earlier this year with an attempted coup.

If the Russian Federation declares war on Ukraine - how will it repel an additional 300,000 mobilized troops plus the Belarus army? (Shoigu intimated that Russia can mobilize 25 million if necessary.)

The more things escalate, the more people will die. Sadly there is no hope of a diplomatic resolution on the horizon, though at least with the prisoner swap parties are still communicating.

With most oblasts not fully held, and 15% turn out rate for voting, armed guards walking with the electorial people to flats,  its a total shame and everyone knows it.

Russia invaded, russia is now  mobilizing,so who is esacalting? The defenders ,defending more strongly ?


As far as CSTO,
Kadyrov already stated he wont do it,he has met his quota.

The other members like to run their lips,at the west ,but unlikely to wsnt yo deal with public push back of avtially mobilizing
Because they are basically unfriendly to the usa,  than they are actual allies of russia.

[Chelseaboy]

I've just seen a selfie video from the Kavalerovsky enlistment office..it's one of the funniest things i've ever seen..pure comedy gold.


The seriously unimpressed Russian guy is saying "Here's i,we're going to the frontline.This is the state we're all going.All the guys are in this state." as he pans around to show old men and comatose drunks.


I've also now seen three videos of the equipment being supplied to the new recruits.....seriously rusty Kalashnikov's'


"These are the assault rifles we're getting.
(Background)  Wow .What are the pistols we're getting .F*cking hell.
This is f*cked.I'm in f*cking awe."..is the comments from one of the video's.


You can see by the way he's handling the rifle he's no novice...and this is the thanks he gets for previous military service.




I'm starting to feel sorry for these guys....i never thought i would for Russians...but they have no chance,many will be KIA on the first day,and they were conscripted,not volunteers.


They need to kill their commanding officer when they arrive at the front and immediately surrender to the Ukrainians.Maybe join the Freedom of Russia Legion and pay-back Putler for what he's doing to them.


I've also now seen that conscripts are receiving summons at 3 am and given three hours to pack.