Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Is there any good reason that guy jumped into the lake? Just panic or is there any advantage to it in case of an explosion?
By the way, if you’ll ever be in such a situation, unless you’re literally jumping out of the way of falling debree, don’t. It may sound counter-intuitive but being in the water when a blast wave hits is way worse than when it happens on the ground as the displaced mass of water doesn’t really have anywhere to go rather then through you, fecking up your intestines, while on the ground the shockwave loses its power much quicker.

Slowpoke with an unnecessary advice out.
 

Germany asking Lithuania to compromise on our sovereignty. This weak muppet is getting seriously on my nerves.


Why is he spending so much time worrying about the nuances of sanction policy and its various effects on parts of Russia when Russia is flat out steeling and blockading Ukrainian grain?

Its madness.

Also, doesn't Boris say the same thing re-NI and the protocol. He isn't helping the EU stance with statements like this.
 
I don't think Russia nor the USSR have any history of a successful amphibious operation as their military successes are generally on land. No shame in saying that they suck at sea; even the mighty Spartans were known to suck at sea in ancient times.

Russia's biggest defensive strength is it's shear land size, every time someone invades from the West (Napoleon, Hitler) they just retreat and start a war of attrition making it logistically very difficult for any advancing army to maintain sufficient supply lines.
 
He hasn't even officially initiated a full scale invasion of the Donbas in Ukraine. He is being very cautious not to touch NATO countries so "ending the world" seems quite the stretch
First part is of course correct, I didn't say otherwise. I agree with the second part, but people are worried about standing up to him because of those nukes, I'm arguing that's not helpful. Without the nukes, there are soldiers from other countries in Ukraine to assist, surely.
 
I don't think Russia nor the USSR have any history of a successful amphibious operation as their military successes are generally on land. No shame in saying that they suck at sea; even the mighty Spartans were known to suck at sea in ancient times.

The Black Sea fleet is an immense source of pride to some Russians though, and it has been shown to be not that great at all.
 

Germany asking Lithuania to compromise on our sovereignty. This weak muppet is getting seriously on my nerves.


He is not asking you to compromise on your sovereignty, how does that claim make any sense?
 
By the way, if you’ll ever be in such a situation, unless you’re literally jumping out of the way of falling debree, don’t. It may sound counter-intuitive but being in the water when a blast wave hits is way worse than when it happens on the ground as the displaced mass of water doesn’t really have anywhere to go rather then through you, fecking up your intestines, while on the ground the shockwave loses its power much quicker.

Slowpoke with an unnecessary advice out.

Wouldn't it help with suspended shrapnel in the air? Wouldn't the water slow down the speed of it as well? I feel water pressing on you shockwave wouldn't be that much force in a large lake would it?

Also, it's crazy how your instincts kick in. I was once really close to a massive suicide explosion (less than a mile) and it's crazy how I just knew that was a bomb without even looking at it and automatically I went to the floor as fast as possible. I think it's a way for your body to "hide". Maybe that's what the water does too. Give you an illusion you are hiding.
 
Wouldn't it help with suspended shrapnel in the air? Wouldn't the water slow down the speed of it as well? I feel water pressing on you shockwave wouldn't be that much force in a large lake would it?

Also, it's crazy how your instincts kick in. I was once really close to a massive suicide explosion (less than a mile) and it's crazy how I just knew that was a bomb without even looking at it and automatically I went to the floor as fast as possible. I think it's a way for your body to "hide". Maybe that's what the water does too. Give you an illusion you are hiding.
It would help slow down debris if you managed to dive in deep enough, but you’d have to be quick. The water itself wouldn’t slow a shockwave down but the phase change between air/land and water would diffuse it, so the bit about your lungs exploding would mainly apply to an explosion that took place in the body of water where you were already submerged. The chances of seeing an impending explosion and jumping into water fast enough for the shockwave to destroy your organs are quite low.

Sorry if this is a derailment, but since it’s life or death advice and the thread isn’t moving so fast these days… :cool:
 
Country A telling Country B what to do within Country B’s own borders.

Where’s the compromise of sovereignty there? /sarcasm

He's not giving an order. He's not comprising their self-determination.
 
Country A telling Country B what to do within Country B’s own borders.

Where’s the compromise of sovereignty there? /sarcasm

It's a bit more complicated than this. If Lithuania was imposing their own sanctions on Russia/Kaliningrad it would be their own policies, and nobody can say anything about it. Here, they say it is about applying EU sanctions to Kaliningrad, which is a rather specific interpretation of these sanctions. And it is exposing all of the EU to some kind of retaliation from Russia. If Lithuania wants to impose a blockade on Kaliningrad on behalf of the EU, the rest of the EU has to agree on it first.
 
It's a bit more complicated than this. If Lithuania was imposing their own sanctions on Russia/Kaliningrad it would be their own policies, and nobody can say anything about it. Here, they say it is about applying EU sanctions to Kaliningrad, which is a rather specific interpretation of these sanctions. And it is exposing all of the EU to some kind of retaliation from Russia. If Lithuania wants to impose a blockade on Kaliningrad on behalf of the EU, the rest of the EU has to agree on it first.
Can the EU force them to open their borders to an unfriendly non-EU country?
 
Can the EU force them to open their borders to an unfriendly non-EU country?
Technically no, but still the external borders are EU borders and the sovereignty over these borders is de facto a collective one. Frontex runs on a €500 Million budget in order to help the member states manage their external borders.

Still, I think it is a smart move by Lithuania. It puts Kaliningrad on the agenda and forces EU states to take a position on it. Public opinion is not against putting more pressure on Russia.
 
Technically no, but still the external borders are EU borders and the sovereignty over these borders is de facto a collective one. Frontex runs on a €500 Million budget in order to help the member states manage their external borders.

Still, I think it is a smart move by Lithuania. It puts Kaliningrad on the agenda and forces EU states to take a position on it. Public opinion is not against putting more pressure on Russia.

They're not EU borders FFS, they're Lithuanian. If an individual nation wants to close their border to non-EU citizens or goods (believing they're complying with EC sanctions let's not forget) they are, and always have been, perfectly within their rights to do so.
 
They're not EU borders FFS, they're Lithuanian.
They are both (Schengen borders code).

If an individual nation wants to close their border to non-EU citizens or goods (believing they're complying with EC sanctions let's not forget) they are, and always have been, perfectly within their rights to do so.
That's probably true. I didn't dispute it, I'm saying what they believe isn't necessarily what other countries believe to be the correct interpretation of these sanctions.
 
More takes about sovereignty:

j8otzujrmm891.png
 
But does that apply to an EU / non-EU border?

It is a gray area. Technically Member states can do as they please with their borders (national security..), they can temporarily close internal borders in exceptional circumstances. But they are supposed to manage the external borders in compliance with the common rules. For example, since US citizens are entitled to visa-free entry to the EU, all countries should welcome them. Spain can't unilaterally ban visitors from the US or require a visa.

The EU agreements with non-EU states (including the EU-Russia Kaliningrad partnership) are binding for all countries, and they are supposed to facilitate them, not counteract them. Unless the sanctions, in this case, are suspending that agreement entirely, then Lithuania would be right...
 
It is a gray area. Technically Member states can do as they please with their borders (national security..), they can temporarily close internal borders in exceptional circumstances. But they are supposed to manage the external borders in compliance with the common rules. For example, since US citizens are entitled to visa-free entry to the EU, all countries should welcome them. Spain can't unilaterally ban visitors from the US or require a visa.

The EU agreements with non-EU states (including the EU-Russia Kaliningrad partnership) are binding for all countries, and they are supposed to facilitate them, not counteract them. Unless the sanctions, in this case, are suspending that agreement entirely, then Lithuania would be right...
Well, according to Josep Borrell, the EU high rep for foreign affairs, Lithuania is simply applying the EU sanctions to their border with Russia.
 
More takes about sovereignty:

j8otzujrmm891.png
My personal response to that two-faced degenerate and living shame to her uniform:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
 
It's a bit more complicated than this. If Lithuania was imposing their own sanctions on Russia/Kaliningrad it would be their own policies, and nobody can say anything about it. Here, they say it is about applying EU sanctions to Kaliningrad, which is a rather specific interpretation of these sanctions. And it is exposing all of the EU to some kind of retaliation from Russia. If Lithuania wants to impose a blockade on Kaliningrad on behalf of the EU, the rest of the EU has to agree on it first.
It’s not specific interpretation, it’s current version of sanctions and this decision was made in consultation with European Commission. What Germany now pushes is the change to the current legal wording of these sanctions. Either way the optics are very bad for the EU if they decide to go back on this and will only embolden Putin to make threats in the future. Also, there’s going to be no blockade of any kind as Russia can ship/fly in the goods it would be more expensive sure, but that’s the whole point to make the war very expensive for Russia?
 
Last edited:


Lysychansk unfortunately looks a lost cause now, as well.

The above update was an hour and a half ago. In the last 20 mins pro-Russian twitter accounts are reporting a full encirclement of the city with some videos of troops entering parts of the city from the west side.

 



This guy's Youtube channel is probably the most reliable commentary I've found on this war. He's so much more balanced than you get elsewhere (including this thread), and he doesn't seem to fall into usual the traps of sensationalism or propaganda. I think he specialism is actually military procurement/finances rather than actual combat. But he still knows his onions.

His video on Germany's military their involvement and what they can realistically do to help Ukraine. I'd recommend it if you have some free time (although it's probably best to watch it on 2x speed).
 
Last edited:

I mean, we've been hearing the 'limits' of Russian military power for a long time now. They'd be running out of missiles, manpower, you name it. How is that reflected on the battlefield?
 
I mean, we've been hearing the 'limits' of Russian military power for a long time now. They'd be running out of missiles, manpower, you name it. How is that reflected on the battlefield?

From what I know, a continual drawing down of reserves, and moving lost materiel from other combat units. The guy I quoted is Defence Correspondent for the Kyiv Independent and therefore his views should be treated with caution.

I follow Michael Kofman who is good on a strategic picture: https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael

He has a recent podcast here talking about the current war of attrition and how it may play out: https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/ukraine-and-russia-grapple-with-relentless-battle-and-attrition/
 
I mean, we've been hearing the 'limits' of Russian military power for a long time now. They'd be running out of missiles, manpower, you name it. How is that reflected on the battlefield?

We've also been hearing the Russian version and it is much further away from the truth. It is highly unlikely that Russia can sustain the ongoing war of attrition.
 
What's the indication that this has anything to do with Russia? Seems like they would do a bit more than advertise their NFTs.

Sorry that was meant as partly tongue in cheek. An investigation has started but if it isn't Russian state agents or sympathetic hackers, it is slightly concerning that anything related to the Army is that vulnerable.