Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

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


Grim Reaper 6
 Share

Recommended Posts

The failures continue to mount. Rusty rifles is one one thing but stealing your significant others' tampons???? Really Vladdy? This is how you expect to win?

" ‘Use tampons to staunch bullet wounds’, Russian army recruits told"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/use-tampons-to-staunch-bullet-wounds-russian-army-recruits-told/ar-AA12jBjN?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=14017cf7a7884aeaceaea35c1f8b6d74

"New recruits to the Russian army are being told to ask their wives and girlfriends for tampons to use as bandages in the event they get shot, as military supplies run out. In a video circulating on social media, a woman who has been identified as a military doctor can be seen giving what appears to be an introductory speech to new recruits. In it, she tells them the army is woefully short on military equipment and that only uniforms will be supplied. Listing all the necessities an army would ordinarily provide but in this instance cannot, she says recruits must provide basic medical equipment like first aid - or the closest thing possible. "

"Oh my god. This lady telling these new Russian soldiers that they need to bring all their own armor, sleeping bags and tourniquets. Except tourniquets are sold out in pharmacies. She says to ask their girlfriends or wives for tampons to use for bullet wounds….. https://t.co/xmE1o5xScq"

— Scott Carbone (@scarbone1) September 27, 2022

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

There is already the NATO organization. A world Organization should include all countries, not just pro-Western ones.

Oh you're right. Only your membership or vote can be revoked if you violate the Organization's charter and regulations.

You know like illegally invading a country and then torturing and murdering the civilian population.:tu:

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

There is already the NATO organization. But a proper world Organization should include all countries, not just pro-Western ones.

He who controls energy controls the world.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Oh you're right. Only your membership or vote can be revoked if you violate the Organization's charter and regulations.

You now like illegally invading a country and then torturing and murdering the civilian population.:tu:

I agree. The invasion, occupation, torturing and murdering of the civilian population should have been the end of American membership.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Oh you're right. Only your membership or vote can be revoked if you violate the Organization's charter and regulations.

Right. That means no more U.S., China and Russia on the U.N Security Council™.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, acidhead said:

I agree. The invasion, occupation, torturing and murdering of the civilian population should have been the end of American membership.

When did all of this occur. Factually speaking of course, not your seagull posting rhetoric.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

So that means the U.S. membership should have been revoked long ago.

Oh a parrot for a seagull poster!!! How very adorable. These redirections from the OP simply tell me how embarrassed and frustrated you both are about the mounting losses and fumbles by Vladdy and his boys.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway enough of you two. keep punching at air fellas. :lol:

Back on topic.

"Putin's own propagandists turn on draft sending 'hairdressers and teachers' to Ukrainian front"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-s-own-propagandists-turn-on-draft-sending-hairdressers-and-teachers-to-ukrainian-front/ar-AA12iQcD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=14017cf7a7884aeaceaea35c1f8b6d74

"A partial mobilisation declared by Vladimir Putin last Tuesday has caused chaotic scenes with several hundred thousand men rushing to the country’s land border to avoid being sent to Ukraine."

"Now some of Russia’s most prominent propaganda mouthpieces have started to criticise overzealous recruitment officers who have attempted to draft men who are ineligible under Mr Putin’s decree that was supposed to target only younger men with combat experience."

"Margarita Simonyan, known as one of Russia’s most notorious warmongers, has expressed outrage at the sweeping mobilisation, blaming the recruitment officers for misinterpreting the Russian president’s order: “Do you really think that if (Putin) did not even want to send conscripts to Ukraine, he meant to send there hairdressers, female cardiologists, people with broken spines, the teacher of the year from Pskovk, an orchestra musician or a theatre director?” she said on state TV."

 

I wonder if they realize yet that they are irrelevant pawns to Putin? He will use them and discard them the same as he is doing with the average Russian male. Tools to be used and discarded at his whim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Oh a parrot for a seagull poster!!! How very adorable. These redirections from the OP simply tell me how embarrassed and frustrated you both are about the mounting losses and fumbles by Vladdy and his boys.

Both the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the American invasion of Iraq were illegal.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, acidhead said:

Both the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the American invasion of Iraq were illegal.  

 

That is incorrect.  It wasn't sanctioned but not illegal. You've tried this bit already. Obviously you didn't bother to read the UN resolution that made it legal.

Swing and a miss.... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Trelane said:

That is incorrect.  It wasn't sanctioned but not illegal. You've tried this bit already. Obviously you didn't bother to read the UN resolution that made it legal.

Swing and a miss.... 

It was an illegal invasion in Iraq. 

The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in September 2004 that: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal".[1][2]

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

It's time for Russia to be kicked out of it's Permanent Member status at the UN, which gives it's privilege of vetoing General Assembly Resolutions and subsequently enforce worldwide sanctions on them.

It doesn`t work like that though.

There is no legal approach to remove a permanent member, and to create the framework for doing so requires Russia not to veto it.

What would be the purpose of removing them anyway? To impose sanctions? Nations impose sanctions anyway.

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, acidhead said:

It was an illegal invasion in Iraq. 

The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in September 2004 that: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal".[1][2]

*sighs* Again with the Kofi quote You are as General Honore would say "stuck on stupid".

For years it has been noted that the former Secretary general (quite possibly the most incompetent one they've had) was incorrect in that statement. While you may have a differing opinion, that doesn't make it correct. So once again I'll indulge you this bit. However, this is only one of dozens of pieces that plainly and clearly explain that it wasn't an illegal invasion.

"Why the War Wasn’t Illegal"

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-the-war-wasnt-illegal/

"United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was wrong in recently terming the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq “illegal.” "

"But it was not illegal. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed by unanimous vote in November 2002, made it clear the then status quo in Iraq was what was illegal. Saddam had already violated some 17 previous resolutions demanding his verifiable disarmament. He was put on notice by Resolution 1441 that continuing this was emphatically unacceptable."

"Resolution 1441 did not allow Saddam several more chances and several more bouts of imperfect compliance with U.N. demands. Once he again obstructed and obfuscated, it became clear he was not voluntarily and verifiably disarming—and 1441’s clear implication was that this was unacceptable. Whether it automatically justified war was of course debatable, and was hotly debated at the time. But a legal case certainly could be made for that justification."

"To be sure, when Washington tried to secure formal approval for war, the United States and its partners failed to gain their desired second U.N. resolution in early 2003. That is why, practically and legally, the war was not explicitly or unambiguously legal. It was in a grey area. But again, being in a grey area is not the same as being illegal."

Now back on topic:tu:

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Wars are no longer fought conventionally so that's irrelevant.

Lol, wrong again, Comrade. Pudding throwing cannon fodder conscripts at the Ukraine meat grinder is a tactic old as time. It's to try and get your enemy to use up all the ammo. Tactically it might of worked if orcs hadn't been leaving thousands of tons of equipment, and ammo behind as they ran away in wholesale panic. 

 You're really not very good at this, are you?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's alarming if these are accurate. That bascially means new conscripts are getting slaughtered already.

"Ukraine puts number of Russian servicemen killed in action over the past day at 550"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-puts-number-of-russian-servicemen-killed-in-action-over-the-past-day-at-550/ar-AA12hWnC?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=8a01974ec2794815ba02d1f1de86a530


"The Ukrainian Armed Forces said Tuesday that 550 Russian servicemen have been killed during the last 24 hours of fighting, bringing the total number of casualties since the start of the invasion on February 24 to nearly 58,000."

"The Ukrainian Army General Staff has said in a message on its official account on the social network Facebook that so far "about 57,750" Russian servicemen have died in the framework of the war, a figure that contrasts with the less than 6,000 dead recognized last week by the Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu."


"The Ukrainian Armed Forces said Tuesday that 550 Russian servicemen have been killed during the last 24 hours of fighting, bringing the total number of casualties since the start of the invasion on February 24 to nearly 58,000. He has also said that 2,306 battle tanks, 1,378 artillery systems, 175 anti-aircraft defense systems, 331 self-propelled and armored multiple rocket launchers, 261 aircraft, 224 helicopters, 977 drones, 15 vessels, 3,730 vehicles and fuel tanks and 131 pieces of special equipment have been destroyed."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Knob Oddy said:

China would veto it no doubt

So would the US. It would set a bad precedent for the most powerful nations.

 

6 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Ukraine no longer has the means to fight this war. They are completely, utterly dependent on the U.S./NATO.

Without the military capabilities as provided by the U.S./NATO to defend against Russia, they would have capitulated in the first few weeks of the war.

 

''A proxy war occurs when a major power instigates or plays a major role in supporting and directing a party to a conflict but does only a small portion of the actual fighting itself.''

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/21/why-engage-in-proxy-war-a-states-perspective/

 

''In a proxy war, a country would be involved in the conflict by providing military support, but not actively participating, in combat.''

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/proxy-war-what-meaning-explained-russia-nato-supplying-ukraine-weapons-1595004

Sounds like this really p***es you off. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Considering that Ukraine has attacked Russian military targets inside of Russia and that Russia hasnt done anything does suggest that the rules havent really changed.  Then again if Ukraine is going to be invading Russian land they might as well enter actual Russian territory now, I'm sure Ukraine capturing Belgorod will look great on Russian media.

The Russian government can claim whatever land they want is Russian territory but the reality is the vast majority of the world does not recognize the land as Russian land and the Russian military doesnt currently have the ability to hold it.  Given how there is a mass exodus of draft age males fleeing Russia it seems the population doesnt really believe its Russian land either.  Should be pointed out when Russia invaded a lot of Ukranian males returned to Ukraine to fight.

Ukranian needing or not needing American or NATO assistance doesnt change the reality of the Russian military being destroyed and pushed out of Ukraine.  It is interesting you say that as its extremely close to the racist, which is odd as both are slavic nations, propaganda from Russia about how Ukranians are inherently inferior to Russians and cant defeat Russia.  Given that you constantly push Russian propaganda and misinformation its really not that surprising you push that Russian propaganda also.

Putin can threaten whatever he wants but the west cant back down now.  Doing so will show that land grabs can be done if one screams loud enough about using nuclear weapons and given Russian propaganda they arent going to stop at Ukraine with their expansion so might as well fight Russia now.  If the west doesn't fight Russia now we will just end up fighting them in a few years to a decade when Russia tries for another and grab, if the world is going to end in nuclear fire might as well have it happen now instead of later.

Well stated! Better to face the dread now, than facing it for years on end.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Here's how the war could be ended tomorrow:

  • Removal of NATO accession aspiration from the constitution of Ukraine and replacement with an article, promising the country’s permanent neutrality according to the Swiss or Austrian models. This includes the promise to never station foreign troops on Ukrainian soil—neither NATO nor Russian.
  • Survival of the current political leadership of Ukraine and uninfluenced political elections in the future.
  • Access to foreign (western) weapon systems, albeit only of defensive nature, a.k.a. no stationing of offensive military equipment.
  • Removal of the Azov battalion from Ukraine’s national guard and maybe a cap on the size of the Ukrainian army, like the cap imposed on Germany during the reunification process.
  • A roadmap for the reintegration of the Donbas regions into the body politic of Ukraine in conjunction with a strong federalization of the state (a revived Minsk agreement).
  • The recognition of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation.

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/03/25/what-a-neutralization-of-ukraine-actually-means/

 

Both sides will need to make compromises.

No! No compromises. Putin would break them before the ink dried, and you know it. Crimea belongs to Ukraine, and will be returned to her very soon. russia is collapsing faster than anyone thought possible, so why would Ukraine bargain from a superior position with a proven liar that has no clothes?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Occult1 said:

There is already the NATO organization. But a proper world Organization should include all countries, not just pro-Western ones.

Again, no. Unless they go through a 10 year probationary period with no hanky lanky. If there's hanky panky, add another 10 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Zelenskyy calls for funding, security guarantees after Russia's "sham" referenda

''United Nations — Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke live by video conference on Tuesday to world powers at the U.N. Security Council, slamming the illegitimate votes that Russia is forcing on citizens in occupied Ukraine. His speech came as Moscow-backed officials declared that all four regions voted in favor of joining Russia.

[...]

In response to Russia's actions, Zelenskyy called on nations to completely isolate Russia by removing it as a permanent member of the Security Council — with the right of veto — and excluding it from all international organizations; impose stronger sanctions against Russia; send Ukraine necessary defense and financial support; and give Ukraine "clear and legally-binding guarantees of collective security."

https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-calls-funding-security-guarantees-002800731.html

 

Funding, security guarantees, weapons, ammunitions... Should West just accept that Ukraine can no longer fight this war?

Bingo.  Zelensky must be reading my posts. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Occult1 said:

There is already the NATO organization. But a proper world Organization should include all countries, not just pro-Western ones.

NATO organisation has nothing to do with the UN and (the UN) is not pro-Western.  The UN , supposedly, should enforce international law, which Russia has breached over and over again and it's even worse they're doing so, protected by their Permanent Membership role.  What part of this don't you seem to understand?

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Occult1 said:

What would prevent China from using it's right to veto? Or should we kick out any country that does not agree with U.S.-led imperialism?

Chinese envoy says isolation and sanctions will lead to 'dead end' in meeting over Russia's referendums

https://www.reuters.com/world/chinese-envoy-says-isolation-sanctions-will-lead-dead-end-meeting-over-russias-2022-09-27/

China might have just opened the door to a full actual recognised independent state if it even hints at recognition of the "referedum" results.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • acidhead