Ukraine Conflict - continuing

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/07/donald-trump-ukraine-peace-plan-british-troops-buffer-zone/

Plausible, or?

At this point, I don't really care what a US President does as long as they don't start or facilitate WW3.  Deport illegals, remove transgender bathrooms for all I care, just do not corroborate a situation that will result in millions of dead people.

Comrade !!!! Long time no hear from

 

Where you been, I was worried you had enlisted to fight for Russia and Communism  and you had ended up in the meatgrinder 

[BruceVC]

13 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Not plausible, at all, as the contact line (including Belarus and Transnistria) is approximately more than 1800kms (1100 miles). If the buffer zone would look be anything like buffer zone between DPRK and RoK, it would require more European soldiers, than all european countries currently have combined. And it would cost EU more, than they are currently providing as weapons and humanitarian assistance. If by any miracle, they would be able to accumulate Million EU troops on ground in UA, just in salaries it would be costing EU 5 billion EUR a month. Minimum. Without the cost of equipment, food and lodging.

But the idea of EU troops being deployed to enforce a border within Ukraine and the new regions  has been raised before. 

Trumps view is it shouldnt be US troops that do this peacekeeping role. Is it such a bad idea to have EU forces that maintain the agreed on peace deal?

Its not confirmed thats what Trump thinks but its been speculated? It could also be a UNSC military mission and then any country could contribute troops 

[Mamoulian War]

14 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Today in Kyiv 24 TV has been broadcasted, that Biden has told Trump during their latest meeting, that he will approve ATACMS strike deep in Russia. Trump has not protested against this idea.

I have found a video, which is linking to the source of this information. According to the info, a member of Republican party, had an interview in Kyiv 24, and he explained, that Trump has backed Biden’s decision to allow ATACMS strikes in Russia, as he believes in projecting peace through power.

 

[Mamoulian War]

5 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But the idea of EU troops being deployed to enforce a border within Ukraine and the new regions  has been raised before. 

Trumps view is it shouldnt be US troops that do this peacekeeping role. Is it such a bad idea to have EU forces that maintain the agreed on peace deal?

Its not confirmed thats what Trump thinks but its been speculated? It could also be a UNSC military mission and then any country could contribute troops 

Yes, it has been proposed many times before, because there are still a lot of people at high state positions in various countries, who can’t do basic math properly

 

Edit: and if by any chance, Trump is one of the people, or has around him some people, who can do the simple math properly, he will throw Putin under a bus sooner, than he blinks with an eye. Explanation in the video above as well. Hint: it was part of the peace plan, which Zelenskyi proposed to Trump himself.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Mamoulian War said:

Yes, it has been proposed many times before, because there are still a lot of people at high state positions in various countries, who can’t do math properly

Yes but you have lots of examples of UNSC military missions that get involved in  peace keeping roles in massive countries and they have had mixed success like in Africa examples like the DRC 

Because it depends on the factions involved but if both Ukraine and Russia agree to the peace deal then its more likely to succeed 

Here is a list of the 62 UNSC peacekeeping missions that have implemented and some have succeeded and some have failed. They dont need troops in every geographical part of the country or border 

 

https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/repertoire/peacekeeping-missions

" Peacekeeping operations have had mandates ranging from traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully under Chapter VI, such as promoting reconciliation, assisting with the implementation of a peace agreement, or performing mediation and good offices, and more forceful action as authorized under Chapter VII which can authorize a range of measures including the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. Below is a list of all sixty-two peacekeeping operations as well as three advance or observer missions established by the Security Council, with a short description on the basis of the content of the Repertoire as well as links to the sections covering them in the Repertoire. They are organized by region, and then under relevant areas or subregions, placed chronologically starting with those established most recently " 

[Lexx]

34 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Not plausible, at all, as the contact line (including Belarus and Transnistria) is approximately more than 1800kms (1100 miles). If the buffer zone would look be anything like buffer zone between DPRK and RoK, it would require more European soldiers, than all european countries currently have combined. And it would cost EU more, than they are currently providing as weapons and humanitarian assistance. If by any miracle, they would be able to accumulate Million EU troops on ground in UA, just in salaries it would be costing EU 5 billion EUR a month. Minimum. Without the cost of equipment, food and lodging.

tbh, sounds like something russia would want-- just anything that bleeds the EU and forces them to buy russian gas and stuff again.

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, Lexx said:

tbh, sounds like something russia would want-- just anything that bleeds the EU and forces them to buy russian gas and stuff again.

Why would an EU troop deployment force the EU to buy Russian gas and stuff again?

Im not getting the connection but as I mentioned it should be UNSC deployment and not a EU specific deployment because then its funded by the UN budget

But why would either mission mean you have to buy anything from Russia?

 

[Mamoulian War]

24 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes but you have lots of examples of UNSC military missions that get involved in  peace keeping roles in massive countries and they have had mixed success like in Africa examples like the DRC 

Because it depends on the factions involved but if both Ukraine and Russia agree to the peace deal then its more likely to succeed 

Here is a list of the 62 UNSC peacekeeping missions that have implemented and some have succeeded and some have failed. They dont need troops in every geographical part of the country or border 

 

https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/repertoire/peacekeeping-missions

" Peacekeeping operations have had mandates ranging from traditional methods of resolving disputes peacefully under Chapter VI, such as promoting reconciliation, assisting with the implementation of a peace agreement, or performing mediation and good offices, and more forceful action as authorized under Chapter VII which can authorize a range of measures including the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. Below is a list of all sixty-two peacekeeping operations as well as three advance or observer missions established by the Security Council, with a short description on the basis of the content of the Repertoire as well as links to the sections covering them in the Repertoire. They are organized by region, and then under relevant areas or subregions, placed chronologically starting with those established most recently " 

An answer to a simple question will tell you why this will never work.

How the UN mission in large country like DR Congo helped with establishing peace there? and you want the same deal at the zero line with nuclear armed paranoid madman

[Elerond]

47 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Not plausible, at all, as the contact line (including Belarus and Transnistria) is approximately more than 1800kms (1100 miles). If the buffer zone would look be anything like buffer zone between DPRK and RoK, it would require more European soldiers, than all european countries currently have combined. And it would cost EU more, than they are currently providing as weapons and humanitarian assistance. If by any miracle, they would be able to accumulate Million EU troops on ground in UA, just in salaries it would be costing EU 5 billion EUR a month. Minimum. Without the cost of equipment, food and lodging.

I am not sure of other EU countries but salaries for 1 million troops on foreign operation would cost in salaries for Finland over 10 billion euros in month. Total cost with all expenses would be over 50 billion euros per month, with assumption that there is no fighting

Cost are based on how much our UN peace keeping operations cost in past.

Although here is picture form highly secure border between Finland and Russia - blue white pole tells where Finland starts and red green tells where Russia starts. 

[Elerond]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Why would an EU troop deployment force the EU to buy Russian gas and stuff again?

Im not getting the connection but as I mentioned it should be UNSC deployment and not a EU specific deployment because then its funded by the UN budget

But why would either mission mean you have to buy anything from Russia?

 

If EU countries needs to increase their military spending with billions, they would like to cut cost elsewhere and Russian gas has been cheap, which is why many EU members states relied on it so heavily before 2022.

Where UN budget comes? Especially if USA will cut its payments

The approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year 1 July 2021 - 30 June 2022 is $6.38 billion.

The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations for 2020-2021 are:

    United States (27.89%)
    China (15.21%)
    Japan (8.56%)
    Germany (6.09%)
    United Kingdom (5.79%)
    France (5.61%)
    Italy (3.30%)
    Russian Federation (3.04%)
    Canada (2.73%)
    Republic of Korea (2.26%)

[Zoraptor]

The UN won't fund it anyway. It'd be a ~KFOR like arrangement, where the UN provides legitimacy (or not) for a mission but they aren't UN peacekeepers.

And yeah the UN budget for peacekeeping would be a lot higher if rich countries were the top contributors of troops. UN peacekeeping is 'cheap' because while it's largely funded by richer countries it's largely performed by soldiers from poorer ones. As it is only 2 of the top twenty troop contributors are on the top 10 budget contributors list- and one is China. The only high wage top 20 troop contributor is Italy. A soldier from the #1 contributor of troops Nepal simply costs a lot less than one from #40 contributor Britain. Use EU troops and you'd need 5x the budget, at absolute minimum.

 

In other news, looks plausible that Russia fired a bunch of ICBM at Ukraine. No nuclear warheads, obviously. Probably used only as kinetic impactors. Would explain all those embassies that were ordered closed, the launches would have been disclosed ahead of time.

Only thing left is a nuclear test to show the warhead work too.

[Malcador]

I was wondering why they tested the emergency alert system in Canada yesterday...

[Mamoulian War]

Of course the polls are now that way. Even Zelenskyi said in September, he wants to end the war as soon as possible. (note, neither him, nor the polls have explicitly specified what date they are talking about, when using term as soon as possible)
 

Few days ago he even said, that he wants to end it in 2025. No surprise there at all. Still 38% of UA want to fight till the victory.  And I guarantee you, that ending war as soon as possible even in the eyes of these 52% of Ukrainians does not mean to surrender to Russia, just to have peace, but “enjoy” the ethnic cleansings, like before, when Stalin was still around…

[Sarex]

5 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

In other news, looks plausible that Russia fired a bunch of ICBM at Ukraine. No nuclear warheads, obviously. Probably used only as kinetic impactors. Would explain all those embassies that were ordered closed, the launches would have been disclosed ahead of time.

That is not a good turn of events... Even if it's just to make a point.

Edited Thursday at 05:17 PM by Sarex

[Malcador]

Pretty at least. 

CNN reporting it was an experimental MRBM. Although I guess isn't that great a distinction between classes when the concern is a nuclear warhead

 

Edited Thursday at 05:36 PM by Malcador

[Mamoulian War]

With which, if it is true, they have broken another treaty and some people still want to negotiate with them

 

Back to Kursk. It is said, Lieutenant General Solodkov was on site, welcoming the 12 Storm Shadow arrivals. His fate for now is unknown.

[Zoraptor]

Eh, which treaty did they break?

(IRBM aren't banned any more. INF was 2 party, with the US withdrawing in 2019. It's defunct. Much like all the other agreements Trump or Bush broke Biden had 4 years to reinstate it or renegotiate it if he wanted, but didn't.

The US had also systematically and provably abrogated it for years previous via Aegis Ashore, which uses ground based tomahawk launchers. Russia may have as well but that was never proven- indeed, the only accusations of them using weapons that would have been banned under it, in the Ukraine War, are within the last year. This would be the first Russian system used too, since the other accusation (not proven) was a DPRK system)

Anyway, looks like it was definitely an IRBM ('Oreshnik') since Putin has announced it as such.

[HoonDing]

<- nuclear apocalypse

-> slow societal collapse

[Mamoulian War]

On 11/21/2024 at 8:40 PM, Zoraptor said:

Eh, which treaty did they break?

(IRBM aren't banned any more. INF was 2 party, with the US withdrawing in 2019. It's defunct. Much like all the other agreements Trump or Bush broke Biden had 4 years to reinstate it or renegotiate it if he wanted, but didn't.

The US had also systematically and provably abrogated it for years previous via Aegis Ashore, which uses ground based tomahawk launchers. Russia may have as well but that was never proven- indeed, the only accusations of them using weapons that would have been banned under it, in the Ukraine War, are within the last year. This would be the first Russian system used too, since the other accusation (not proven) was a DPRK system)

Anyway, looks like it was definitely an IRBM ('Oreshnik') since Putin has announced it as such.

People here on boards were talking about ICBMs. Media as well... And taking anything that Putin says at face value in current day and time? Seriously?

But yeah, if it was IRBM, as currently reported by "untrustworthy western media", they did not break any treaty

[Zoraptor]

They also didn't break a treaty if it was an ICBM. Using an ICBM with a conventional warhead or as an impactor isn't banned and never has been, and the US says they got advance notice.

Both the US and Russia say it was an IRBM though, and with a launch site near Astrakhan it seems more than likely it was. ICBM was the initial claim from Ukraine.