Search results

doubtful. though i expect the end outcome to be a peace negotiation with some Ukraine ceded to Russia, then admission to NATO of Ukraine the next day. this end, Russia may well be playing for negotiating position.

pretty obvious that replacing a military man with a economist is not going to help miltary strategy. either he's there for the whole country to a war economy, or someone who'll follow a more direct input from Putin. which doesn't usually go well. interesting to see analysis in the coming...

the comments from Putin sound like nothing more than a leader placing blame on the other side. the West wont talk, it's all their fault. the only chink in the display is the acknowledgment of not developing, there's obviously difficulties and better to say they are others fault. that said, if...

US has provided missle defense systems to Ukraine. they dont have any missile destroyers in the Black Sea, due to long standing maritime agreements. their range is limited anyway, which helps narrow strip of Israel but not much use 100miles in land in Ukraine. NATO aircraft flying missions...

i'll throw it out there if FSB were behind this, they could have done a better job of making it look like Ukraine involvement. as it is, there's just opportunistic use to blame Ukraine. here's another interesting side, what if the Kremlin are actually convincing themselves its Ukraine...

dont know why anyone wants this to be a false flag. look at the comms out of Russia - possible traces of Ukrainian involvement, hardly emphatic conviction. Russia know its not Ukraine and can bearly even drum up some mock evidence, just making use of an utter failure of security to stir up...

cant see Transnistria as anything more than sideshow. it has no port, Russia hasn't got the air assets to deploy around a hostile Ukraine. may be they drum up a reason for the seperatist there to attempt some western front in Ukraine, diverting resources and attention.

would be embarrassing if they then won in court. then have to pay back.

if there is mechanisms then it's a moot discussion and that can be done. the fact that nothing like that has happened and experts cite no legal way to do so, or looking for one, indicates there is not. international and national laws say we can impose santions and freeze assets, and have done...

you go through a proper process with established international agreement. you dont just dip into their accounts without a legally sound basis. Nazi gold was stolen wasn't it? so it gets returned to the orginal owner. yes, it would be unethical and illegal* to seize the crazed lunatic's money...

we have a legal system based on the rule of law, we dont change law or apply it differently because we dont like someone or they are out of favour. like, say, Russia. seizing funds is one thing, if we were to start stealing their money we'd be no better than them.

while you may be right on the coward part, he is not stable decision maker. it would be an extremely high risk strategy to deploy NATO and call his bluff. high risk due to the consequnces if we get that wrong. after years of saying the war to protect Russia from NATO, putting NATO troops in...

yeh, would be very counterproductive and strategic fail to deploy troops. some members might talk about it, wont be more than that.

if you dont know, maybe look it up before coming to such a conclusion? we've given billions in aid, including training 22k Ukrainian troops, providing 200 armoured vehicles, tactical vehicles, 15000 anti-tank missiles, mobile artillery, MRLS missile systems, storm shadow cruise missiles...

the most interesting part of the interview was in the interview at all, it's Carlson saying about Crimea, that Putin would go nuclear to keep it. that's tell us something about where eventual negotiations will go.

of course not. its just the GDP goes up, not improving peoples lives. same happend during war, UK GDP rose significantly while people were on rations. the trouble is most have underestimated Russian's tolerance of war economy conditions, they'll lump it a long time. and so with the Ukrainians.

i did see a video mocking up some thing along those lines. seemed a bit far fetched (micro drones with miniture guns) but the principle sounds scarily credible. not much to defend it, local wireless blockers or EMP, bodygaurds armed with large swatters.

one of the more strategic consequences of this war is how influential drone have been and will change warfare. the Russian navy appear defensless against this threat, while in the Red Sea can see UK and US have already adapted/prepared.

the British Army chief wants a larger budget to recruit and train a larger standing army. he absolutly does not want an untrained, enthusiastic conscripted mob.

East Germany and Poland was never part of Soviet Union and i doubt Russian was spoken formally. the notion seems far fetched and i dont see any other claim about this law. there is something about Putin directing officals to document Russian assets abroad though. if Russians, Russian or...