quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Tell me again why this benefits Russia.


Russian troops ‘swept away’ by flooding from Ukraine dam collapse

There's also some reports out there that Russia DID inform their armored units to clear out of the area. What isn't clear is how early a warning they got or was it the front line soldiers screaming about the dam.

Russian milbloggers noted this as a typical problem of post-Soviet armies: lack of initiative by junior leaders who were waiting for orders from above to pull their troops back rather than just doing it. Earlier in the war, the Russians had to push field-grade officers way down the chain of command to make anything happen. They lost several generals doing the work of lieutenant colonels at the front, too.

It's unclear how many of their troops went missing in the flood. They'll just talk of "several", but the Ukrainian claims of "entire regiments" are obviously way exaggerated.

White House Set To Approve Depleted Uranium Munitions For Ukraine

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...um-munitions-ukraine

The Biden administration is set to transfer depleted uranium shells to Ukraine for the first time since the Russian invasion began The Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday.

Internal administration debate over the controversial munitions has been ongoing for several months, but an admin official quoted in WSJ says at this point there are "no major obstacles" to sending it, which will be used to equip M1 Abrams tanks provided by Washington.

This came at the request of the Ukrainians themselves: "The Pentagon has urged that the Abrams tanks the U.S. is providing Ukraine be armed with depleted-uranium rounds, which are regularly used by the U.S. Army and are highly effective against Russian tanks," WSJ writes.

Already the UK has been providing armor piercing rounds which contain depleted uranium for its Challenger 2 main battle tanks. This was first announced by Britain's defense ministry in late March.

The condemnation from the Kremlin in response to London was swift, with a Russian foreign ministry statement at the time saying it was tantamount to using a "dirty bomb" - given the highly dangerous remnant health effects on the battlefield.

While the UK defense ministry asserted that "Such rounds are highly effective in defeating modern tanks and armored vehicles," Moscow responded "These shells not only kill, but infect the environment and cause oncology in people living on these lands."

There have been ongoing attempts over the years of international watchdogs to get depleted uranium shells banned by international treaty. EU parliament, for example, has long pushed for a ban.

A defense analyst cited in the fresh WSJ report describes why they are so sought after by Ukrainian forces:

"The projectile hits like a freight train," said Scott Boston, a defense analyst at the Rand Corporation and former Army artillery officer. "It is very long and very dense. So it puts a great deal of kinetic energy on a specific point on an enemy armor array."

But, as the report also notes, "The proposal has been debated at the White House, where some officials have expressed concern that sending the rounds might open Washington to criticism that it was providing a weapon that may carry health and environmental risks."

It is the "chemical toxicity" of the metals used which poses the biggest danger, also as upon explosion it is turned into toxic dust which is dispersed on the battlefield and can have a permanent presence.

According to a summary of the hazardous weapons technology in the journal Scientific American:

Used as ammunition, it penetrates the thick steel encasing enemy tanks; used as armor, it protects troops against attack. And when it was used in the Gulf War and later during the Allied bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo, depleted uranium (DU) was hailed as the new silver bullet that would solve most of the military's problems.

After the end of Operation Allied Force, however, several Italian soldiers were diagnosed with leukemia. Politicians and the media soon forged a link between the disease and depleted uranium use. They further drew a parallel with Gulf War Syndrome, and in no time, depleted uranium became the Agent Orange of the Balkan conflict.

Russia will likely pursue its own form of escalation in response to the US decision. When the UK previously announced its authorization for depleted uranium, President Putin said he would station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Putin had justified the move toward nuclear escalation very specifically in response to London's decision at the time. But Washington has of course downplayed and rejected the association of depleted uranium shells with 'nuclear weapons'.

I have to wonder if this is overkill (if true). The Ukrainians don't seem to have had too much trouble destroying Russian tanks without them, as far as I can tell.

Escalation for the sake of escalation

Lukashenko's Latest Nuclear Bluster Comes Same Day US Signals Depleted Uranium Approved For Kiev

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...ted-uranium-approved

President Alexander Lukashenko said Tuesday he won't hesitate to use Russian tactical nuclear weapons which are soon to be stationed on Belarusian soil if his country faces "an aggression".

"God forbid I have to make a decision to use those weapons today, but there would be no hesitation if we face an aggression," he said.

Just last week, Russia's President Putin told his Belarusian counterpart at a meeting Sochi that tactical nuclear weapons will be deployed in Belarus after hosting facilities are ready on July 7-8. Putin had unveiled plans to send nukes there in March. The weapons will be under Russian military control but hosted at Belarusian bases.

While Lukashenko is known for this kind of maximalist and jingoistic rhetoric, often in reaction to developments out of NATO concerning new weapons systems to Ukraine, the timing of these new willingness to "make a decision" remarks is notable.

The threat comes the same day The Wall Street Journal reported the White House is set to transfer depleted uranium shells to Ukraine for the first time since the Russian invasion began.

Internal administration debate over the controversial munitions has been ongoing for several months, but an admin official quoted in WSJ says at this point there are "no major obstacles" to sending it, which will be used to equip M1 Abrams tanks provided by Washington.

As we recounted earlier, when the UK previously announced its authorization for depleted uranium for Challenger 2 main battle tanks, that's when President Putin first said he would station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Putin had justified the move toward nuclear escalation very specifically in response to London's decision at the time. But Washington has of course downplayed and rejected the association of depleted uranium shells with 'nuclear weapons'.

The idiots residing at the White House want to get boots on the ground there. A wartime president is historically easy to re-elect, though it won’t work out as the morons hope in Biden’s case. All it’ll do, is draw us into a shithole that isn’t our problem!

The whole DU ammunition issue is largely a ghost debate since both sides already have it. The USSR introduced the 3BM-32 as its first tank round of that type in 1985, and along with the non-DU 3BM-42 fielded a year later it was the most common round in post-Soviet inventories. Reports on combat use differ; some sources say it was used heavily by Russia in Chechniya and Georgia, and by both sides during the 2014 Donbas secession war, to the point were Russian stocks are significantly, and Ukrainian possibly completely, depleted. If that's correct, delivery of Western ammunition doesn't change the equation, since Russia has later types like 3BM-48 and -59.

Others report that Russian DU rounds have been seen in Ukraine, but are unspecific about actual combat use, while yet others say no use has been recorded at all. Which would make sense if you're concerned about possible health effects on the land you consider your own, and expect your people to live on. Plus, there have been few real tank-on-tank fights, rather than armored infantry support with mostly high explosive ammunition. If that's correct, nothing changes either. The one possible doubt might be the British-delivered Challenger tanks, which use non-NATO standard 120 mm ammunition, of which DU is pretty much the only anti-tank type. Those haven't appeared in combat yet though.

Meanwhile the slugfest continues. Movement in the Zaporizhia region, where the Russians happily broadcast images of destroyed and abandoned Bradleys and Leopards, seem currently additionally hampered by rain and mud. The Ukrainians have made some gains into the "Vremyevsky salient" further east, where both sides report heavy fighting; one village is claimed to have changed hands at least three times so far. However, this salient is ahead of the Russian main defensive line, and the Ukrainians have made their best progress where enemy positions haven't been built up, like at the city of Bakhmut which the Russians took only recently themselves. Then again, the Ukrainians still haven't committed the bulk of their new assault forces, so they are probably still trying to decide which axis is the most promising to support.

Biden Called on to Give Nuclear Weapons to Ukraine

https://slaynews.com/news/bide...?utm_source=mailpoet

An influential Washington, D.C. think tank is calling on Democrat President Joe Biden to provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

The call is being led by Michael Rubin, a senior official within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

AEI is one of the most influential D.C. policy shops.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/can...aine-tactical-nukes/

Rubin is calling on the Biden administration to deliver nuclear weapons to Ukraine to help the war-torn nation defend itself amid Russia’s invasion.

In a piece penned by Rubin, a senior fellow with AEI, the “foreign policy expert” makes the case for arming Ukraine with nukes.

He insists that the Ukrainian government has a right to possess nuclear weapons as they would act as a means to prevent Russia from using nukes on Ukraine.

“The non-proliferation mafia might howl with outrage,” Rubin declares, in mocking the idea that there is any downside risk to arming Volodymyr Zelensky’s regime.

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
Escalation for the sake of escalation

How so?
This is DU ammo, not nuclear weapons. Ever since Desert Storm, the news media has tried to tilt any talk regarding tank ammunition, particularly anti-armor ammunition which DU is one, as something similar to possessing nuclear weapons. Part of it is zero understanding of weapons the other half is framing any 'exotic' weapon as something wrapped around an ethical debate; don't help the media by taking up their argument mantle.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Biden Called on to Give Nuclear Weapons to Ukraine

https://slaynews.com/news/bide...?utm_source=mailpoet

An influential Washington, D.C. think tank is calling on Democrat President Joe Biden to provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

The call is being led by Michael Rubin, a senior official within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Idiot

the swamp sure doesn't want to let go of this one

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Biden Called on to Give Nuclear Weapons to Ukraine

https://slaynews.com/news/bide...?utm_source=mailpoet

An influential Washington, D.C. think tank is calling on Democrat President Joe Biden to provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

The call is being led by Michael Rubin, a senior official within the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

AEI is one of the most influential D.C. policy shops.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/can...aine-tactical-nukes/

Rubin is calling on the Biden administration to deliver nuclear weapons to Ukraine to help the war-torn nation defend itself amid Russia’s invasion.

In a piece penned by Rubin, a senior fellow with AEI, the “foreign policy expert” makes the case for arming Ukraine with nukes.

He insists that the Ukrainian government has a right to possess nuclear weapons as they would act as a means to prevent Russia from using nukes on Ukraine.

“The non-proliferation mafia might howl with outrage,” Rubin declares, in mocking the idea that there is any downside risk to arming Volodymyr Zelensky’s regime.

From my read of the article, the author is advocating IF Russia uses a nuclear weapon of any size then the US should provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons to use as they see fit. The neocons have now opened the door; insanity.

It might be of interest to know that the CEO of the American Enterprise Institute (the publisher of this article) is the brother-in-law of Victoria Nuland.

The swap is deep.

Silent

^^^I read that as a deterrent, NOT a response to Russia's use of nuclear weapons!

And, question anyone, anything, or any action even remotely related to Victoria Nuland...Peace, stability, and possibly the future of human civilization may depend on it!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^I read that as a deterrent, NOT a response to Russia's use of nuclear weapons!

It may be a deterrent but damn, are we ready to up the ante to nukes over those two shit holes fighting the war. Seems as though Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute assumes Russia would only use nukes against Ukraine. That assumption is very dangerous if we go through with his plan. If Ukraine get nukes from NATO why wouldn't Russia nuke a major NATO city? This is NATO's proxy war. Seems like any country in NATO is a potential target. Probably won't happen but I'm damn sure Sleepy Joe and his NATO cronies would not have a clue on how to respond to a nuclear attack.

I'm having a hard time with the fact that we're ratcheting up this conflict when Ukraine and NATO can barely defend themselves. Actually they can't defend themselves as has been proven many times.

^^^Trust me, I do NOT think it's a good idea, or even a SANE idea...It's possibly THE FURTHEST THING from anything resembling wise, and absolutely irresponsible to even consider it!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Trust me, I do NOT think it's a good idea, or even a SANE idea...It's possibly THE FURTHEST THING from anything resembling wise, and absolutely irresponsible to even consider it!

We're on the same page for sure I obviously read way more into your previous post than you intended. Sorry 'bout that.

Seems like things are getting a little more interesting as far as using nukes, NATO, and US weapons involved in Ukraine.

Link


Putin Warns NATO, Ukraine: Russia Has More Nukes

In a speech Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned there is a "serious danger" of NATO countries continuing to supply arms to Ukraine, according to CNN.

"NATO, of course, is being drawn into the war in Ukraine; what are we talking here?" Putin asked while addressing a crowd of foreign dignitaries at the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg, Russia. "The supplies of heavy military weaponry to Ukraine are ongoing; they are now looking into giving Ukraine the jets."

If Kyiv receives F-16s — on which Ukrainian pilots are reportedly already being trained — and stations them at bases outside Ukraine, Putin added, "we will need to look at how and where we can hit those assets used in combat operations against us. This is a serious danger of further dragging NATO into this armed conflict."

When asked during the forum what his stance was on the deployment of nuclear weapons, Putin said, "We have the opportunity. Everyone expects us to start pushing this [nuclear] button. But we have no need to. That is reason number one; we have no reason to act like this. Because our adversary is failing at the frontlines and understanding that they have a low chance of succeeding, they provoke us to retaliate — in the hope that they can point a finger at us and then say, 'Look at how evil they are.'"

The Russian president added that Moscow would not engage in any nuclear disarmament discussions with the collective West, given that reducing the country's nuclear stockpile would leave it vulnerable.

"Nuclear weapons are created to ensure our security in its most broad sense and the very existence of the Russian state. But we, firstly, do not have such a need, and secondly, the very fact of discussing this topic already lowers the threshold for the use of [nuclear] weaponry," he said.

"Also, we have more weapons like this than the NATO countries. They know it and they keep driving towards negotiation on reduction."

On Saturday, CNN reported that a source close to the Biden administration told the cable news outlet that President Joe Biden would be willing to drop the Membership Action Plan for Ukraine, which was described in a 2008 agreement as "the next step for Ukraine ... on their direct way to [NATO] membership."

In 2008, Biden's CIA director, William J. Burns, then the American envoy to Moscow, warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a letter that "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests."

The major corporate media headlines about the Proxy War this morning focused on last night’s mostly-repelled Russian drone attacks against the Ukrainian capitol, Kiev, and against Lviv, a city in Western Ukraine near the Polish border.

There was nothing about the Spring CounterOffensive™. And if Russia is out attacking Kiev again, instead of focusing on defending its captured territories, it strongly suggests the counteroffensive is over. Or at least paused to regroup or something.

If it is in fact over, it would not be too surprising. Over the last weeks, we’ve seen very few claims of Ukrainian victories by U.S. corporate media propagandists, who surely would have inflated the tiniest scrap of victory into a spectacular patriotic musical. Instead, over the last two weeks we’ve had constant reports from Russian military and warbloggers citing devastating losses for Ukraine, culminating in reports of a massive weekend assault in the Zaporizhzhia region that the Russians described as a “slaughter,” with claimed Ukrainian losses up to a staggering 50%.

Scattered through the last week there were also regular reports of Ukrainians surrendering, often in groups, sometimes in large groups and bringing heavy equipment with them. On the other hand, there were no credible reports of Russians surrendering.

The Russians were also scoring victories on the political front. News emerged over the weekend that, after the Russians had nearly captured Kiev in 2022, the Ukrainians had agreed to a peace deal that would have kept their territory intact, but precluded NATO membership. A draft treaty had even been circulated.

But, according to newly-released documents, the Biden Administration interfered, and the Ukrainians were committed to endless war.

Many Russia hawks confirm that Ukraine is struggling; it is difficult to find any claims of Ukrainian advantage except for small incursions into various townships that nobody ever heard of. Here’s an example of what could be called the current “consensus:”



The reason the counteroffensive is failing is unexpected. It’s not weapons. Reports suggest Ukraine is overflowing with high-tech weaponry and heavy armor. Instead, Ukraine is running out of experienced military commanders. Russia is said to have done a very good job of targeting battlefield leaders and taking them out one by one.

Now that we can look at it over the course of the last year, Ukraine’s war strategy appears to have been a test of the United States’ modern military theory. Our generals have bet on technology. They just love it. Contemporary American military strategy depends on an integrated, wirelessly connected, computerized battlefield designed to wipe enemies out long before they can gain any ground.

So, we sent Ukraine lots of high-tech toys, starting with our HIMARS missile systems, and initially it appears to have worked. In 2022, the Ukrainians halted Russian gains and caged the Russian bear in the East. But the Russians have adapted, they are learning countermeasures, like jamming U.S. communications signals and GPS locators.

The truth is the fighting has devolved into murky, smoke-fogged trench warfare, with brutal hand-to-hand combat, with artillery blasts landing overhead. It seems European warfare has not, in fact, evolved much since the last two World Wars.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...ack&utm_medium=email

quote:

The Russians were also scoring victories on the political front. News emerged over the weekend that, after the Russians had nearly captured Kiev in 2022, the Ukrainians had agreed to a peace deal that would have kept their territory intact, but precluded NATO membership. A draft treaty had even been circulated.

But, according to newly-released documents, the Biden Administration interfered, and the Ukrainians were committed to endless war.

The Biden Administration fully intends to fight this 'Proxy War' to the last Ukrainian!

German Ammo Now Below NATO Required Levels.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2...ato-required-levels/

Germany has seen its store of artillery shells dwindle to just 20,000 as it attempts to meet the Ukrainian military’s hunger for munitions.

Despite its status as the economic and industrial powerhouse of the European Union, Germany has not been able to ramp up production enough to supply Ukraine with shells while holding on to enough to meet its own defense needs.

Russian forces were lobbing 20,000 shells a day in late November, and Ukrainian forces between 4,000 and 7,000 – figures which have likely risen amid a faltering Ukrainian counter-offensive.

Germany is required to obtain a stockpile of some 230,000 shells, sufficient to support 30 days of intense combat, by 2031, in order to meet its obligations as a NATO member.

During his time in office, President Donald Trump was highly critical of Germany for being consistently “delinquent” on its NATO spending commitments, leaving it ill-prepared to play its part in a crisis like the Ukraine war.