News Forum - UKRAINE UPDATES

[vlad]

The Russian Air force does not have air superiority otherwise there would be waves coming in Bombing.  There mindful that some will be shot down as we have seen i or 2 being downed. That's why we haven't seen low-flying aircraft on the news.

[Tim_Melb]

12 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

How do you know the Ukrainians dont have any aircraft?

Because Zelenskyy is asking for 70 aircraft which means he has pilots for 70 aircraft. Given he only had about 70 to begin with that means he has lost them all or most of them. And since he has been asking for them since about day three that means that the Russian first strike which was clearly designed to take out the Ukranian air force was a big success. 

[Rookiescot]

6 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

Because Zelenskyy is asking for 70 aircraft which means he has pilots for 70 aircraft. Given he only had about 70 to begin with that means he has lost them all or most of them. And since he has been asking for them since about day three that means that the Russian first strike which was clearly designed to take out the Ukranian air force was a big success. 

US: Ukraine has ‘significant majority’ of its military aircraft | Conflict News | Al Jazeera

Now thats Al Jazeera. Hardly western friendly.

Now it is from March 4th but it demonstrates your belief that Russian first strike was a big success is pure fantasy. 

[Tim_Melb]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

US: Ukraine has ‘significant majority’ of its military aircraft | Conflict News | Al Jazeera

Now thats Al Jazeera. Hardly western friendly.

Now it is from March 4th but it demonstrates your belief that Russian first strike was a big success is pure fantasy. 

Just propaganda, note the "US says" just like the US says that Putin is begging the Chinese for munitions, pure fantasy!

[Rookiescot]

15 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

Just propaganda, note the "US says" just like the US says that Putin is begging the Chinese for munitions, pure fantasy!

OK please provide a link to support your claim that Russia has destroyed the Ukrainian air force. 

[Tim_Melb]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

OK please provide a link to support your claim that Russia has destroyed the Ukrainian air force. 

Hers one and I'm sure I could find more easily since this took about ten seconds and as it's from a neutral source it's a hell of a lot more reliable than your stupid Wikipedia references that can be written and edited by any body. 

https://frontierindia.com/ukrainian-airforce-combat-aircraft-totally-destroyed-some-escaped-to-poland-and-romania-says-russia/

[Rookiescot]

Just now, Tim_Melb said:

Hers one and I'm sure I could find more easily since this took about ten seconds and as it's from a neutral source it's a hell of a lot more reliable than your stupid Wikipedia references that can be written and edited by any body. 

https://frontierindia.com/ukrainian-airforce-combat-aircraft-totally-destroyed-some-escaped-to-poland-and-romania-says-russia/

Says Russia.

[Fester]

9 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Says Russia.

or India

[Poolie]

15 minutes ago, Fester said:

or India

What's the point in asking for a link, and then when you get one, disparaging it?

All links to a media source are dodgy anyway.

[EdwardV]

8 hours ago, KRLMRX said:

I see no reason to guess what thoughts are in Putin's head.  I suppose it also changes, depending on the development of the situation

True, but then you don't have too. All you need to do is see the pattern of what he has done:

1) 2008 - Attacks Georgia, setting a blocking force to cut off access through the western side of the Caucasus. 

2) 2014 - Invades Crimea, blocking access through the Black Sea

3) 2019 - Installs a new and secure government in Kazakhstan, securing against access through central Asia

4) 2020 - Places peace keepers (read troops) in Nargorno Karabakh, occupying the lower Caucasus and in effect cutting off access through the western side of the Caucasus.

5) 2022 - Invasion of Ukraine. The occupation of which along with Belarus blocks access through the Central European Plain.  

These are all areas that were either occupied or controlled by both the USSR and the Russian Empire at it's height. They are all historical access points through which invading armies entered Russia. The only question going forward is if and when he attacks the Baltic States, and does he push out of Ukraine to occupy the Polish Gap and Bessararabinan Gap. Problem is all three of those spots reside inside NATO countries. This is why the West has every intention of bleeding out the Russian army in Ukraine. 

[EdwardV]

8 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

As I have said he would only do it if things are going badly for Russia which right now they are not. But if NATO enter the conflict that could be an entirely different situation. Right now as you say it's just a threat to keep them out of it but if the decided to do what the idiots I was replying to suggest and create a no fly zone and start attacking ground targets or as you suggest send in ground units then the whole dynamic will change. Under those circumstances he would be quite comfortable making strikes against NATO targets and not just a n the field. You need to understand Putin is Russian and what that means. He is not an American with a furry hat and he is not a loony he is Russian and if he feels that he is going to lose he will be more than happy to make it a draw in the most horrific way. 

Besides the fact I never suggested sending in ground troops, I was just running with your scenario. Fact is NATO doesn't currently have the heavy ground troops in place in order to eject Russia from Ukraine. Most of the heavy troops needed are in Turkey and America. I doubt the European part of NATO could clobber together more than 2-3 brigades, not nearly enough. The vast majority of European NATO troops are set up for defensive operations. Until the US starts sending over heavy divisions, which they are not, there isn't going to be any ground war (at least not started by NATO). 

I still don't agree Russia would nuke NATO, not without them actually entering Russia. NATO isn't sending in ground troops, they don't have to. They can just lob hundreds of missiles attacking Russian supply depots, transportation centers and bridges inside Ukraine. Basically destroying the army's ability to move and fight. You honestly think Russia could get away with dropping nukes on NATO forces inside NATO countries in order to stop an air war over Ukraine? Keeping in mind you can't drop nukes on NATO bases without inflicting huge amounts of civilian deaths. The resulting outrage and long lasting damage to Russia isn't worth the minimal damage to NATO forces. You don't end up with a draw that way, you end up losing even worse. Keeping in mind I don't even think NATO will do an air war. They can just keep pumping in weapons and supplies, the Ukrainians will do the rest.  

[JohnC]

24 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

Besides the fact I never suggested sending in ground troops, I was just running with your scenario. Fact is NATO doesn't currently have the heavy ground troops in place in order to eject Russia from Ukraine. Most of the heavy troops needed are in Turkey and America. I doubt the European part of NATO could clobber together more than 2-3 brigades, not nearly enough. The vast majority of European NATO troops are set up for defensive operations. Until the US starts sending over heavy divisions, which they are not, there isn't going to be any ground war (at least not started by NATO). 

I still don't agree Russia would nuke NATO, not without them actually entering Russia. NATO isn't sending in ground troops, they don't have to. They can just lob hundreds of missiles attacking Russian supply depots, transportation centers and bridges inside Ukraine. Basically destroying the army's ability to move and fight. You honestly think Russia could get away with dropping nukes on NATO forces inside NATO countries in order to stop an air war over Ukraine? Keeping in mind you can't drop nukes on NATO bases without inflicting huge amounts of civilian deaths. The resulting outrage and long lasting damage to Russia isn't worth the minimal damage to NATO forces. You don't end up with a draw that way, you end up losing even worse. Keeping in mind I don't even think NATO will do an air war. They can just keep pumping in weapons and supplies, the Ukrainians will do the rest.  

Excellent post and well explained  

I'm very doubtful the Ukrainians are capable of doing the rest myself but we shall see. 

It's nice to see a reasoned response rather than the usual name calling

[KRLMRX]

8 hours ago, Smithydog said:

"the main thing is the result, and Stalin's is noticeably better". Sure 20 million dead better according to a Soviet Newspaper!

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died-as-victims-of-stalin.html

You sure do have an unusual sense of what results are better! 

newspaper as a source of data is definitely cool.

the article of 1989, when the Soviet government allowed to print everything and about everything, this is the period of the collapse of the USSR, the degradation of public consciousness.

At that time, on state TV, prime-time showed crooks charging water and curing cancer with the power of thought.

You have no idea about the atmosphere of that time in the USSR, so your reference to this newspaper is ridiculous. 

By the way, the author of the article writes: Mr. Medvedev said he had no special access to official archives, but relied on his own compilations of material over the years and recent publications in the Soviet press. The dude just just made it up to be in the mainstream.

dude just made it up to be popular

[KRLMRX]

8 hours ago, Smithydog said:

The following article gives a good understanding of what has happened and continues.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/03/30/forced-migration-in-crimea-as-part-of-russias-hybrid-strategy/

Here again is the link to the article that supported my statements in the previous post.

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3275174-population-of-crimea-increased-by-one-million-due-to-migration-from-russia-during-occupation-expert.html

Multiple articles discuss what has happened. These are just two.

But it seems forced expulsions have become a way of life for the regime installed in the Crimea and controlled by the Russians. 

https://khpg.org/en/1594308593#:~:text=Such deportations are a war,flagrant violation of international law.

It is clear why Putin doesn't fear the consequences of a war crimes trial. He has already gotten away with it in the Crimea, so probably considers himself "untouchable". 

No wonder many of those refugees fear what will happen. They have seen it already from this seemingly ego driven Autocrat. So much for a "Peacekeeping" mission.

Is there any data not from Ukrainian newspapers affiliated with the current Euro-oriented regime, which publish clearly biased information? I

f I send you a link to the Crimean state newspaper, will you agree with the information in it?

[KRLMRX]

1 hour ago, EdwardV said:

True, but then you don't have too. All you need to do is see the pattern of what he has done:

1) 2008 - Attacks Georgia, setting a blocking force to cut off access through the western side of the Caucasus. 

2) 2014 - Invades Crimea, blocking access through the Black Sea

3) 2019 - Installs a new and secure government in Kazakhstan, securing against access through central Asia

4) 2020 - Places peace keepers (read troops) in Nargorno Karabakh, occupying the lower Caucasus and in effect cutting off access through the western side of the Caucasus.

5) 2022 - Invasion of Ukraine. The occupation of which along with Belarus blocks access through the Central European Plain.  

These are all areas that were either occupied or controlled by both the USSR and the Russian Empire at it's height. They are all historical access points through which invading armies entered Russia. The only question going forward is if and when he attacks the Baltic States, and does he push out of Ukraine to occupy the Polish Gap and Bessararabinan Gap. Problem is all three of those spots reside inside NATO countries. This is why the West has every intention of bleeding out the Russian army in Ukraine. 

I respect your erudition in military-historical-geographical matters, but...

2008 - Russian troops entered Georgia after an attack by the Georgian army (trained by the Americans for several years) on Russian peacekeepers who were in South Ossetia under a UN mandate. The United States after 09/11 simply razed Iraq to the ground, Putin just destroyed the Georgian army, he is a relative humanist.

2014 - after the coup in Ukraine, thugs supported by the "West" came to power, one of the first to adopt a law abolishing the Russian language as the state language, 99% of Russian speakers in Crimea, a revolution began, Putin took advantage of this.

2019 - here you are confusing something, President Nazarbayev was replaced by his friend Tokayev, what does Russia have to do with it?

2020 - peacekeepers were in Nagorno-Karabakh and until the last aggravation, their number increased, possibly with the consent of both sides.

2022 - everything continues, it's too early to draw conclusions.

[EdwardV]

14 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

I respect your erudition in military-historical-geographical matters, but...

2008 - Russian troops entered Georgia after an attack by the Georgian army (trained by the Americans for several years) on Russian peacekeepers who were in South Ossetia under a UN mandate. The United States after 09/11 simply razed Iraq to the ground, Putin just destroyed the Georgian army, he is a relative humanist.

2014 - after the coup in Ukraine, thugs supported by the "West" came to power, one of the first to adopt a law abolishing the Russian language as the state language, 99% of Russian speakers in Crimea, a revolution began, Putin took advantage of this.

2019 - here you are confusing something, President Nazarbayev was replaced by his friend Tokayev, what does Russia have to do with it?

2020 - peacekeepers were in Nagorno-Karabakh and until the last aggravation, their number increased, possibly with the consent of both sides.

2022 - everything continues, it's too early to draw conclusions.

Talk about revisionist history: 

Georgia: 

Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008. On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area.[32][33][34][35][36] Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetians broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement.[37][38][39][40] To put an end to these attacks, the Georgian army units were sent in to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August.

From there Russia move in and kicked the heck out of the Georgian army. 

Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia

Crimea: "revolution'? Is that what we are now calling an invasion from Russia's little green men? That's too funny.

Kazakhstan: President Nazarbayev had lost control of the country, Putin simply replaced him with a more stable stooge. Not saying anything nefarious happen, Putin was just making sure control is in place. Kazakhstan doesn't need Russian troops, it just need to exist as a solid Russian vassal. It's size and sparseness will do the rest. 

Nagorno-Karabakh: "consent" is the term used by a Russian diplomat with armed soldiers behind him. 

[Fester]

4 hours ago, Poolie said:

What's the point in asking for a link, and then when you get one, disparaging it?

All links to a media source are dodgy anyway.

I didn't ask for a it. Glad you feel it was dodgy. 

[Tim_Melb]

4 hours ago, EdwardV said:

Besides the fact I never suggested sending in ground troops, I was just running with your scenario. Fact is NATO doesn't currently have the heavy ground troops in place in order to eject Russia from Ukraine. Most of the heavy troops needed are in Turkey and America. I doubt the European part of NATO could clobber together more than 2-3 brigades, not nearly enough. The vast majority of European NATO troops are set up for defensive operations. Until the US starts sending over heavy divisions, which they are not, there isn't going to be any ground war (at least not started by NATO). 

I still don't agree Russia would nuke NATO, not without them actually entering Russia. NATO isn't sending in ground troops, they don't have to. They can just lob hundreds of missiles attacking Russian supply depots, transportation centers and bridges inside Ukraine. Basically destroying the army's ability to move and fight. You honestly think Russia could get away with dropping nukes on NATO forces inside NATO countries in order to stop an air war over Ukraine? Keeping in mind you can't drop nukes on NATO bases without inflicting huge amounts of civilian deaths. The resulting outrage and long lasting damage to Russia isn't worth the minimal damage to NATO forces. You don't end up with a draw that way, you end up losing even worse. Keeping in mind I don't even think NATO will do an air war. They can just keep pumping in weapons and supplies, the Ukrainians will do the rest.  

I don't disagree that right now NATO's stance is defensive and that they have no intention of crossing the borders to engage Russia. They very sensibly do not want to escalate the conflict. My scenario is a response to certain gung Ho individuals that keep posting ridiculous comments about how NATO should be crossing the borders and engaging Russia and how most laughably that they will shoot down any Russian Nuclear ordinance with 1980's and 90's vintage anti-aircraft  shoulder launched missiles if Russia launched on Targets in Europe and the UK.

The fact is nobody wants escalation to nuclear conflict but if NATO took the sort of actions these idiots keep calling for then we are talking about Russians and if they feel they have no choice they will not hesitate. They are not Americans in furry hats, they don't care about international "outrage" over the civilian loss of life, that's why they don't hesitate to target civilian buildings when they are or suspected of being used by opposition forces. You don't think there is already "outrage" over artillery strikes on maternity hospitals? 

My point is that if Russia lost the majority of its conventional forces it would then be left with no choice but to use Nuclear options. After all a weak Russia is then left open to opportunistic land grabs from various directions from all around it, left with no other way to defend itself nuclear escalation against any aggressor would then become inevitable. 

Nobody is more disgusted by this conflict in the Ukraine than I am the whole situation is disgusting especially when it was created by NATO in the first place, after all if NATO had just continued the past policy of Publicly saying that Ukraine is not eligible for membership of NATO when the Ukrainian government asked then Putin would never have had any reason to take this step.

But given the situation that NATO has put us in, escalation or attempts to destroy the Russian military is the worst idea that anybody could suggest. 

Realistically this war in the Ukraine will probably be over in a month or two and then Putin will have to deal with the Ukranian insurgency backed by NATO for however many years until the Ukranians eventually regain their independence years from now probably after Putin is gone. Hopefully the world will be a better place by then and wiser heads will avoid any repeat of the current mistakes. 

[EdwardV]

29 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

My point is that if Russia lost the majority of its conventional forces it would then be left with no choice but to use Nuclear options. After all a weak Russia is then left open to opportunistic land grabs from various directions from all around it, left with no other way to defend itself nuclear escalation against any aggressor would then become inevitable.

I can see your point, but it only happens if NATO intervenes on the ground. That's not happening. Cutting off Russia's supplies immobilizes the army, forcing in effect a cease fire and settlement. An air war to destroy a army is very expensive in planes, pilots and has never worked in the history of warfare. All that does is exactly what you lay out and something NATO doesn't want. Still I don't even see that, unless Russia does something to escalate the war. Say using chemical or nuclear weapons. Otherwise it just continues to play out with the current cast of actors. 

34 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

Realistically this war in the Ukraine will probably be over in a month or two and then Putin will have to deal with the Ukranian insurgency backed by NATO for however many years until the Ukranians eventually regain their independence years from now probably after Putin is gone. Hopefully the world will be a better place by then and wiser heads will avoid any repeat of the current mistakes.

Agreed. Either Russia sacks Kyiv and moves west installing a puppet government and leading to a very long and bloody insurgency. Or Ukraine stops them and forces a settlement. I think Russia at this point doesn't have the available additional troops or supplies to go past two more months. They either take Kyiv by then, or they run out of steam.  

[Smithydog]

10 hours ago, KRLMRX said:

Is there any data not from Ukrainian newspapers affiliated with the current Euro-oriented regime, which publish clearly biased information? I

f I send you a link to the Crimean state newspaper, will you agree with the information in it?

I would read it, as I do all such items I come across.

Would I agree with it. Unlikely, considering what we have seen from Russian state controlled media, which is the case in the Crimea. It would be difficult to overcome a sense of the control of the media By Russia.

This has been evidenced by the recent closure of independent media outlets in Russia for fear of broadcasting and the arrest of ordinary people for protesting against the war. This was highlighted by the brave actions of an individual sending a message on Russian News, behind arguably Putin's favourite news reporter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/russian-tv-employee-interrupts-news-broadcast-marina-ovsyannikova

So, equally as you express your disbelief in Euro-orientated media, in which I note as a stark difference, there are often opposition voices to Government policies broadcast freely, I would find it hard to believe something from a such an obvious Government controlled media.

I am sure it will be as amusing as listening to the Russian Federation Ambassador to the UN speaking again last night

[Smithydog]

10 hours ago, KRLMRX said:

newspaper as a source of data is definitely cool.

the article of 1989, when the Soviet government allowed to print everything and about everything, this is the period of the collapse of the USSR, the degradation of public consciousness.

At that time, on state TV, prime-time showed crooks charging water and curing cancer with the power of thought.

You have no idea about the atmosphere of that time in the USSR, so your reference to this newspaper is ridiculous. 

By the way, the author of the article writes: Mr. Medvedev said he had no special access to official archives, but relied on his own compilations of material over the years and recent publications in the Soviet press. The dude just just made it up to be in the mainstream.

dude just made it up to be popular

At least at the time, someone was allowed to speak. Now anyone wanting to offer any form of alternative message has to show a sign behind a nightly news report!

Where is the independence of the media in Russia now - gone.

Where is any alternative voice - arrested, as have protestors in street protests

Sounds really like a free voice and media....NOT!

You have forfeited a right to discuss independent media with your support of a purely state controlled media format projecting just what the Leader says. Nothing else. With that media supporting a leader, who has taken this world again into a war seemingly to satisfy his ego and manufacture non-existent threats about neo-nazism. His rule today shows far more of the characteristics of that than anyone else.

If he is so keen to be the arbitrator of such, perhaps President Putin should invade himself to rid the world of his own version of neo-nazism leadership.

 

[Stardust]

7 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

I don't disagree that right now NATO's stance is defensive and that they have no intention of crossing the borders to engage Russia. They very sensibly do not want to escalate the conflict. My scenario is a response to certain gung Ho individuals that keep posting ridiculous comments about how NATO should be crossing the borders and engaging Russia and how most laughably that they will shoot down any Russian Nuclear ordinance with 1980's and 90's vintage anti-aircraft  shoulder launched missiles if Russia launched on Targets in Europe and the UK.

The fact is nobody wants escalation to nuclear conflict but if NATO took the sort of actions these idiots keep calling for then we are talking about Russians and if they feel they have no choice they will not hesitate. They are not Americans in furry hats, they don't care about international "outrage" over the civilian loss of life, that's why they don't hesitate to target civilian buildings when they are or suspected of being used by opposition forces. You don't think there is already "outrage" over artillery strikes on maternity hospitals? 

My point is that if Russia lost the majority of its conventional forces it would then be left with no choice but to use Nuclear options. After all a weak Russia is then left open to opportunistic land grabs from various directions from all around it, left with no other way to defend itself nuclear escalation against any aggressor would then become inevitable. 

Nobody is more disgusted by this conflict in the Ukraine than I am the whole situation is disgusting especially when it was created by NATO in the first place, after all if NATO had just continued the past policy of Publicly saying that Ukraine is not eligible for membership of NATO when the Ukrainian government asked then Putin would never have had any reason to take this step.

But given the situation that NATO has put us in, escalation or attempts to destroy the Russian military is the worst idea that anybody could suggest. 

Realistically this war in the Ukraine will probably be over in a month or two and then Putin will have to deal with the Ukranian insurgency backed by NATO for however many years until the Ukranians eventually regain their independence years from now probably after Putin is gone. Hopefully the world will be a better place by then and wiser heads will avoid any repeat of the current mistakes. 

As a Ukraine soldier said rightly we can be lucky they are that kind of stupid

 

Maybe you checking the capacities of Nato units in Europe compare to Russia

Maybe checking equipments and compare or checking best tanks, aircrafts etc always western countries in the top rankings and not any Russian military tech

Your knowledge level about military/ armies is zero especially about Nato. Nato/ european military is founded on defences on any nuclear threat.s and developped on that since the beginning. Shields are developped since then and now even doubled around the borders. It means a one way system all russian nukes will explode over Russia and their non existing shields will let through all answer to any Russian threats. And all who are involved are daily wondering what kind of amateurs they are, sure everybody knew already before Russias military and economy is in a very bad shape. But to see them in action and seeing they even cannot organize convoys leaving  ammuntion trucks between other trucks in unshield positions and many other failures shows their army are amateurs no combat experiences just can fight against unarmed civillians but not against any army. And as I see in your comments that you never served or have any knowledge about Nato or any military they can be lucky how stupid they are including all Putin supporters

By the way professionals are talking about logistics and moral of the troops.

By the way even private companies watching the reality over satellites 

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-15-22/index.html

Oh by the way 2 month left till 

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/russia-faces-it-crisis-with-just-two-months-of-data-storage-left/

 

[KRLMRX]

21 hours ago, EdwardV said:

Talk about revisionist history: 

Georgia: 

Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008. On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area.[32][33][34][35][36] Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetians broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement.[37][38][39][40] To put an end to these attacks, the Georgian army units were sent in to the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August.

From there Russia move in and kicked the heck out of the Georgian army. 

Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia

Crimea: "revolution'? Is that what we are now calling an invasion from Russia's little green men? That's too funny.

Kazakhstan: President Nazarbayev had lost control of the country, Putin simply replaced him with a more stable stooge. Not saying anything nefarious happen, Putin was just making sure control is in place. Kazakhstan doesn't need Russian troops, it just need to exist as a solid Russian vassal. It's size and sparseness will do the rest. 

Nagorno-Karabakh: "consent" is the term used by a Russian diplomat with armed soldiers behind him. 

you broadcast the mainstream from near-state media in Europe and the USA. I recommend that you use alternative sources of information.

Even EU wooden officials had to admit that Georgia started this war.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/20090930-georgia-war-russia-eu-south-ossetia-tskhinvali-putin-military

Crimea. First, there were mass protests against the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who seized power in Kyiv, and only then Russian troops entered.

https://youtu.be/cxoEq31RjLM

Kazakhstan: I repeat, instead of Nazarbayev, his prime minister, his colleague and friend, became president, he, like Nazarbayev, was an ally of Putin.

Nagorno-Karabakh: I repeat, both sides agreed to the presence of Russian peacekeepers there, Armenia and Azerbaijan (an ally of Turkey, not Russia).

[EdwardV]

7 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

you broadcast the mainstream from near-state media in Europe and the USA. I recommend that you use alternative sources of information.

From your source:

But the 19-member investigating team, commissioned last December to look into the causes of the five-day war, also found evidence that Russia had fomented tensions. "The Russian side, too, carries the blame for a substantial number of violations of international law," said Tagliavina. She said Moscow's actions included conferring Russian citizenship en masse to people living in South Ossetia and the other separatist region, Abhkazia. She said Russia had broken international law in that "the military action by the Russian Armed Forces on Georgian territory, (was) far beyond the needs of a proportionate defense of Russian Peace Keepers in Tskhinvali." Russia's later recognition of the independence of both rebel regions "must be considered as being not valid in the context of international law, and as violations of Georgia´s territorial integrity and sovereignty," she said. The investigators also found evidence that both sides had been involved in ethnic cleansing against Georgians and their villages and settlements in South Ossetia.

Isn't that my actual point? That Russia created a situation that allowed them the flimsy excuse to invade and occupy the area they wanted. I think you actually proved my point, thanks. 

10 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

Crimea. First, there were mass protests against the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who seized power in Kyiv, and only then Russian troops entered.

How does that change anything I wrote? Russia invaded Crimea period. The fact it broke the Budapest Memorandum is just icing on the cake. 

 

14 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

Kazakhstan: I repeat, instead of Nazarbayev, his prime minister, his colleague and friend, became president, he, like Nazarbayev, was an ally of Putin.

Nagorno-Karabakh: I repeat, both sides agreed to the presence of Russian peacekeepers there, Armenia and Azerbaijan (an ally of Turkey, not Russia).

Neither of those things change what I wrote. I highly doubt being Putin's friend holds much water when time comes for a change. Just as it makes all the difference in the world when it comes to picking a replacement. Again you are proving my point. As for the last, agree or disagree Russia didn't care as long as they got to place troops. 

I get why you want to argue about the side points, since they are easier than the actual topic of Ukraine. Interestingly it's being reported that Russia is calling up reinforcements from across the country. A sure sign of things going badly: 

 

Russia is gathering reinforcements from across the country as it is facing “personnel losses” in the Ukrainian war, UK defence ministry’s latest public intelligence assessment report said. The report, released on Tuesday, stated that Vladimir Putin is “increasingly seeking to generate additional troops to bolster and replace its personnel losses in Ukraine,” The UK ministry said Russia was redeploying forces from as far away as "its Eastern Military District, Pacific Fleet and Armenia" and was increasingly tapping other sources of fighters such as "private military companies, Syrians, and other mercenaries." “Russia is increasingly seeking to generate additional troops to bolster and replace its personnel losses. It is likely that Russia is struggling to conduct offensive operations in the face of sustained Ukrainian resistance,” the assessment said.

‘Struggling’ Russia deploying more reinforcements from across country into Ukraine: UK intel (msn.com)

 

 

 

[KRLMRX]

12 hours ago, Smithydog said:

I would read it, as I do all such items I come across.

Would I agree with it. Unlikely, considering what we have seen from Russian state controlled media, which is the case in the Crimea. It would be difficult to overcome a sense of the control of the media By Russia.

This has been evidenced by the recent closure of independent media outlets in Russia for fear of broadcasting and the arrest of ordinary people for protesting against the war. This was highlighted by the brave actions of an individual sending a message on Russian News, behind arguably Putin's favourite news reporter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/russian-tv-employee-interrupts-news-broadcast-marina-ovsyannikova

So, equally as you express your disbelief in Euro-orientated media, in which I note as a stark difference, there are often opposition voices to Government policies broadcast freely, I would find it hard to believe something from a such an obvious Government controlled media.

I am sure it will be as amusing as listening to the Russian Federation Ambassador to the UN speaking again last night

you are wrong, and that's okay.

almost all top media are biased, they broadcast the opinion of big business and its talking puppets in governments.

there is no difference between the NYT and the Independent, between the Republican and Labor parties. They can participate in a play called "political struggle" as long as you let them.