Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?

[Duke Wellington]

51 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

If the US/NATO had seriously considered Russia's security concerns, there would have been no war. Seems hard for a lot of people to get that.

A diplomatic treaty to the nature of what is currently negotiated could have been signed prior to a significant conflict escalation.

As we can see, Ukraine will have to concede to a large degree to Russia's terms anyway.

It started with the far-right pro-EU coup.

Bearing in mind Crimea is home to Russia`s only naval base in the region of course they were going to grab the area before the EU did. NATO has creeped over the decades right up the Russia`s border giving them cause for alarm, and the neo-Nazis are at it in Azov.

Solutions are simple but no side was prepared to compromise before the current conflict:

1. NATO and Russia both provide the security for Eastern Europe, or they both stay out of it.

2. Disband Neo-Nazi Azov and make it illegal for them to operate on Ukrainian territory.

3. Maybe offer EU and NATO membership to Russia.

The miscalculations over Crimea were spectacular. We believed we could push Russia around, and it demonstrated that it was strong. Yet we have done the same mistake again. We have pushed their backs to the wall with no wriggle room for a way out satisfactory for both sides. Leaving the only option of invading Ukraine open to them. 

The propaganda is ridiculous and its not one side but both at it. I mean look at ours, come on. You have seen all the devastation yet its telling us Ukrainians are super human who have suffered virtually no causalities. Give over, its a blood bath, look at all the destroyed buildings.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Cookie Monster

[Occult1]

1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

You can spin it as much as you want but the reality is this is essentially the exact same as Ukraine being in NATO.  

Only if you want to include Russia and China in NATO, which of course will never happen.

Though I agree that Ukraine seeks similar security guarantees as Article 5 from NATO as a neutral country.

 

“We want an international mechanism of security guarantees where guarantor countries will act in a similar way to NATO’s article number five – and even more firmly,” David Arakhamia, a Ukrainian negotiator, told reporters.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/29/no-handshake-as-ukraine-russia-envoys-meet-for-peace-talks

[Guest Br Cornelius]

9 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

It's not the same as NATO if Russia and China are involved.

It would violate the principles of permanent neutrality if only NATO countries are charged to come to Ukraine's aid.

Security guarantors will likely be legally bound to provide security to Ukraine by an international agreement.

I repeat what ****ing use are guarantees from a criminal state ???

 

Br Cornelius

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, Occult1 said:

Only if you want to include Russia and China in NATO, which of course will never happen.

Though I agree that Ukraine seeks similar security guarantees as Article 5 from NATO as a neutral country.

 

“We want an international mechanism of security guarantees where guarantor countries will act in a similar way to NATO’s article number five – and even more firmly,” David Arakhamia, a Ukrainian negotiator, told reporters.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/29/no-handshake-as-ukraine-russia-envoys-meet-for-peace-talks

Ultimately this undermines Russia's concern of Ukraine being in NATO showing that it was never a true Russian security concern.  It does suggest though that Russia is getting more desperate and willing to give up on its demands.

[DarkHunter]

Picture from Kherson seems to show the Russian military mining a bridge across the Dnieper river, presumably to blow the bridge to prevent the Ukranian military from crossing the river.

Explosion and gun shots are being heard more frequently and closer to Kherson.  Heard reports that air raid sirens were going off in Kherson for the past two nights but that hasnt been confirmed.

Edited March 29, 2022 by DarkHunter

[Occult1]

10 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Ultimately this undermines Russia's concern of Ukraine being in NATO showing that it was never a true Russian security concern.

How so?

Permanent Neutrality eliminates the NATO threat in Ukraine.

 

1. Ukraine will be a non-bloc, non nuclear-state.

2. Ukraine will not host foreign military bases on their territory.

3. Ukraine will not deploy foreign military contingents on their territory.

4. Ukraine will not enter into military-politico alliances.

5. Military exercises on Ukraine's territory will only take place with the consent of the guarantor countries.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Occult1

[DarkHunter]

10 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

How so?

Permanent Neutrality eliminates the NATO threat.

 

1. Ukraine will be a non-bloc, non nuclear-state.

2. Ukraine will not host foreign military bases on their territory.

3. Ukraine will not deploy foreign military contingents on their territory.

4. Ukraine will not enter into military-politico alliances.

5. military exercises on Ukraine's territory will only take place with the consent of the guarantor countries.

1. Most NATO countries are non nuclear anyway.  Being a part of a bloc or not is essentially meaningless.

2. Doesnt prevent foreign trainers to be stationed in Ukraine.

3. Most NATO countries dont have a foreign military base on their country and frequently dont have NATO troops stationed in their country anyway so another moot point.

4. The security guarantees are a defacto military alliance essentially identical to NATO.

5. Doesnt stop Ukraine from doing military exercises with NATO countries in their countries.  The location of military exercises is essentially meaningless its who the military exercises are done with that matters and not where they are done.

Edited March 29, 2022 by DarkHunter

[Occult1]

36 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

I repeat what ****ing use are guarantees from a criminal state ???

 

Br Cornelius

Russia is certainly not the only member at the U.N. Security Council with a history of war crimes.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Occult1

[DarkHunter]

Russian ammo depot in Belgorod near the Ukranian border blew up.  Not clear if it was a Ukranian ballistic missile strike, a drone strike, special forces, or lax safety standards that caused the explosion.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

12 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Russian ammo depot in Belgorod near the Ukranian border blew up.  Not clear if it was a Ukranian ballistic missile strike, a drone strike, special forces, or lax safety standards that caused the explosion.

Every single one of those will be identified by NATO satellites. Expect more especially as peace talks progress.

 

Br Cornelius

[Helen of Annoy]

22 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Russian ammo depot in Belgorod near the Ukranian border blew up.  Not clear if it was a Ukranian ballistic missile strike, a drone strike, special forces, or lax safety standards that caused the explosion.

Russians say it was due to "human factor", which means it definitely wasn't due to human factor

Ukrainians say it's a special pyrotechnic operation.  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Not at all. It would be more like the U.N. Security Council in charge of Ukraine's security. Russia and China would most likely be involved as guarantor countries.

 

"If we manage to consolidate these key provisions, and for us this is the most fundamental, then Ukraine will be in a position to actually fix its current status as a non-bloc and non-nuclear state in the form of permanent neutrality," said negotiator Oleksander Chaly.

"We will not host foreign military bases on our territory, as well as deploy military contingents on our territory, and we will not enter into military-political alliances," he said, in comments broadcast on Ukrainian national television.

"Military exercises on our territory will take place with the consent of the guarantor countries."

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-03-29/ukraine-offers-neutrality-in-exchange-for-nato-style-security-guarantees-at-russia-talks

Ahh yes. The terribly effective UN Security Council. I can see it now… 2032, Russia decides it wants all the cake, not just half, and invades. The UN Security Council votes on whether or not to send troops and Russia votes no. The security council therefore does not send troops. 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Occult1 said:

It's not the same as NATO if Russia and China are involved.

It would violate the principles of permanent neutrality if only NATO countries are charged to come to Ukraine's aid.

Security guarantors will likely be legally bound to provide security to Ukraine by an international agreement.

Because we all know how much stock Russia places on international agreements...

So just to get this straight, Russia started an illegal war, got itself sanctioned into the ground, got 10000+ of its soldiers killed and another 30-40000 injured just so that Ukraine would... be just as neutral as it was pre-war but better protected from a subsequent war of aggression by Russia?

Genius move there Vlad.

1 hour ago, Occult1 said:

Russia is certainly not the only member at the U.N. Security Council with a history of war crimes.

It is however, the only one currently perpetrating them as we speak...

[Occult1]

Convoy with 'Z' markings seen heading to Mariupol

Military convoys with ‘Z’ markings were seen on Monday on a road leading to Ukraine’s besieged southern port city of Mariupol.''

Video: https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idOV822329032022RP1

 

Mariupol is 'in the hands' of Russia, mayor says

''Russian forces now control the majority of the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol, CNN reported Monday.

"[W]e are in the hands of the occupiers today," said Mariupol Mayor Vadym Boichenko in a televised interview on Monday. According to Reuters, Boichenko, who is no longer in the city, also said that Russia's siege of Mariupol has killed nearly 5,000 people and that 160,000 people remain trapped in the city without clean water or electricity. Mariupol had a pre-invasion population of over 400,000.''

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mariupol-hands-russia-mayor-says-213227426.html

 

Looks like Maripuol has been taken by Russian forces. Waiting for official confirmation.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Occult1

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Putin in hiding because he's afraid someone is coming to get him, he's damn right to be afraid because the Russians are coming to get him.

Its that bunker moment been replayed all over again.

Br Cornelius

[Occult1]

Ukraine To Investigate Reports Of War Crimes Against Russian Troops

Ukraine says it will investigate unverified reports that its soldiers tortured Russian troops captured in the fighting as a result of Moscow's invasion.

"We take such cases extremely seriously.... There will be an investigation.... We do not torture POWs," Oleksiy Arestovych, an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said in a post on Telegram on March 28.

[...]

In the video, at least three Russian soldiers appear to have been shot in the legs after being detained, while some have white bags on their heads.''

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-investigating-torture-video/31774747.html

Russia claims it's Special Forces have captured the 'nationalists' who tortured Russian soldiers.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Occult1

[+Razman]

3 hours ago, Occult1 said:

How so?

Permanent Neutrality eliminates the NATO threat in Ukraine.

 

1. Ukraine will be a non-bloc, non nuclear-state.

2. Ukraine will not host foreign military bases on their territory.

3. Ukraine will not deploy foreign military contingents on their territory.

4. Ukraine will not enter into military-politico alliances.

5. Military exercises on Ukraine's territory will only take place with the consent of the guarantor countries.

Is all that happening while Russia deploys nuclear weapons in Belarus?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

4 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Bearing in mind Crimea is home to Russia`s only naval base in the region of course they were going to grab the area before the EU did.

 

Despite you clearly having read both of these posts, where I show that Russia have several Black Sea ports, why do you continue to push the idea that Crimea have the only Russian naval base in the region ?

I also showed that Russain have an agreement with Ukraine that allowed them to use the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea.

Is your pro Russian narrative more important than factual information ?

Edited March 29, 2022 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

There was a F-15 this morning over Rzesvow Poland flying cap

THANKS!  I knew of this site but didn't realize it covered military movements as well.  I think we are at the edge of a very dangerous situation here.  Russians and Chinese both love to be overly aggressive to make their presence known when the U.S. is near their territory, or where they deem their territory to be.  ACCIDENTS HAPPEN and when there is this much activity in such close quarters, it becomes more likely.  Just imagine a NATO or Russian aircraft being downed.  Even if it WAS accidental, this whole thing would take on a perilous dynamic INSTANTLY.

Putin (and Xi) are murderous, anti-civilization thugs but backing either of them into a corner where they'd look like Chris Rock at the Oscars, THAT is asking for terrible possible outcomes.  The longer this goes on the more dangerous it becomes and I cannot escape the thought that it looks more and more like a plan coming together  

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, Occult1 said:

It would violate the principles of permanent neutrality if only NATO countries are charged to come to Ukraine's aid.

Hmmm... so let me see if I understand.  IF Russia uses "little green men" again to wage a territorial dispute and Russia disagrees with the findings then they can refuse to activate the agreement and if the rest of the parties choose to move to protect Ukraine, Ukraine has violated the agreement?  Is that about right?

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

 

Despite you clearly having read both of these posts, where I show that Russia have several Black Sea ports, why do you continue to push the idea that Crimea have the only Russian naval base in the region ?

I also showed that Russain have an agreement with Ukraine that allowed them to use the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea.

Is your pro Russian narrative more important than factual information ?

You know why, ports are not naval ports, and a Ukraine potentially joining the EU following its pro-EU coup means Russia losing access to its Crimean naval base. Hence, they grabbed it.

I have seen many of your other responses to other posters, if you expect to be taken seriously enough to warrant replies from me you will need to do better.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Cookie Monster

[DarkHunter]

25 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

You know why, ports are not naval ports, and a Ukraine potentially joining the EU following its pro-EU coup means Russia losing access to its Crimean naval base. Hence, they grabbed it.

I have seen many of your other responses to other posters, if you expect to be taken seriously enough to warrant replies from me you will need to do better.

But you are wrong.  Russia has naval facilities and thus a naval base for the Black Sea fleet at Novorozziysk, Tuapse, Temryuk, and Taganrog.  Technically Temryuk and Taganrog are on the Sea of Azov.  

Novorossiysk is the third largest port on the Black sea with only port of Constanta (in Romania) and the port at Odessa being larger.  Sevastopol isnt even really considered a major port on the Black sea, it just happens to be the HQ of the Black sea fleet.

Interested in how you differentiate between ports and naval ports though, difference seems like it would be an arbitrary construct you have made to argue a point.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

4 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

You know why, ports are not naval ports,

Novorussiysk is both a major naval port and a major commercial port. 

Is Portsmourth only a port or only a  naval base ?  Or is it both ? 

Your destinction between port and baval base is arbitrary. 

4 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

and a Ukraine potentially joining the EU following its pro-EU coup means Russia losing access to its Crimean naval base. Hence, they grabbed it.

As Ukraine never denied Russia access to Sevastopol and Ukraine isn't a member of the EU, your scenario is entirely hypothetical. 

Do you honestly believe it't okay to start a war based on a hypothetical scenario and an abitrary destinction ?

4 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I have seen many of your other responses to other posters, if you expect to be taken seriously enough to warrant replies from me you will need to do better.

I gave you factual information, not hypothetical scenarios and arbitrary destinctions. Could you point out where I have been factually wrong ?

[Duke Wellington]

24 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Novorussiysk is both a major naval port and a major commercial port. 

Is Portsmourth only a port or only a  naval base ?  Or is it both ? 

Your destinction between port and baval base is arbitrary. 

As Ukraine never denied Russia access to Sevastopol and Ukraine isn't a member of the EU, your scenario is entirely hypothetical. 

Do you honestly believe it't okay to start a war based on a hypothetical scenario and an abitrary destinction ?

I gave you factual information, not hypothetical scenarios and arbitrary destinctions. Could you point out where I have been factually wrong ?

Port of Novorossiysk - Wikipedia

I quote `In the years of the World War II Novorossiysk served as a stronghold for the occupied Sevastopol and Odessa, its marines took part in the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula and ensured the evacuation. After the war Sevastopol became the main base for the Soviet Navy's Black Sea Fleet and Novorossiysk military base was discontinued. The bay was reassigned as an administrative naval area`. Obviously the first part of the wiki page tells you the rest is a commercial port these days.

Russia seizing Crimea was to secure their naval base there after their pro-EU anti-Russia coup. Their government at the time was very anti-Russian. They made it illegal to own duel citizenship and to speak Russian, and that is what triggered them to go into Donbas. This is all public knowledge, they were quite vocal about it at the time. Another reason why the base was under threat was the Syrian war which the west kept trying to out manoeuvre Russia on, and Russia was about to maintain a presence in due to that naval base.

You are factually incorrect.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

11 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Port of Novorossiysk - Wikipedia

I quote `In the years of the World War II Novorossiysk served as a stronghold for the occupied Sevastopol and Odessa, its marines took part in the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula and ensured the evacuation. After the war Sevastopol became the main base for the Soviet Navy's Black Sea Fleet and Novorossiysk military base was discontinued. The bay was reassigned as an administrative naval area`. Obviously the first part of the wiki page tells you the rest is a commercial port these days.

Russia seizing Crimea was to secure their naval base there after their pro-EU anti-Russia coup. Their government at the time was very anti-Russian. They made it illegal to own duel citizenship and to speak Russian, and that is what triggered them to go into Donbas. This is all public knowledge, they were quite vocal about it at the time. Another reason why the base was under threat was the Syrian war which the west kept trying to out manoeuvre Russia on, and Russia was about to maintain a presence in due to that naval base.

You are factually incorrect.

When you quoted the Wikipedia article you somehow cut of before this:

The dissolution of the Soviet Union brought up a question of headquarters relocation to Novorossiysk. In September 1994 Novorossiysk Naval area was reestablished, three years later it was officially reorganised into Novorossiysk Naval Base.^[62] To ensure its modernisation and development the government initiated special federal programme 'On Black Sea Navy Fleet Base at the Territory of Russian Federation in 2005—2020'. The Federal Special Construction Agency conducted the construction of new facilities, including a breakwater to protect the inner harbour from storms (West side 850 m long/1450 East). It can stand estimated wave load of 5 m and earthquakes up to M 9. The naval base is equipped with 5 berths (including floating dock) capable to receive up to 100 vessels from 1500 to 30,000 DWT. The submarine base shelters all 7 diesel-powered submarines of Russian Black Sea Navy.

Don't you think thats a very important part of the article ? 

I even showed you a picture of the base. Here is another:

Yet apparently I'm the one who is factually incorrect. 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy