Rat u Ukrajini

Ferenc Puskás wrote:Rumbeando jel moguće onaj kamion s nasilno mobiliziranim Donbasovcima u onom nizu što si postavio? Da nije to neki fejk? Jedna od jezivijih slika iz ovog rata.

Watch these mobilised Ukrainian nationals from the Donbass who are being press-ganged into the army by Russians and sent into the frontal assaults as the cannon fodder. This gives some context to how the male population of Donbass is being "recycled" (утилизировать) in Z-war pic.twitter.com/eS9gySb0cx

— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) May 5, 2022

Source: https://t.co/3uwIgaMVvt

— Nikolaus von Twickel (@niktwick) March 28, 2022

Mór Thököly wrote:Novokomponovani religiozni zeloti sa bezbednosnim strukturama SSSR. Sta bi uopste moglo da podje po zlu...

Mór Thököly wrote:Novokomponovani religiozni zeloti sa bezbednosnim strukturama SSSR. Sta bi uopste moglo da podje po zlu...

Mór Thököly wrote:Stephen Walt

Unfortunately, trying to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia creates precisely the circumstances that would encourage a rational leader to contemplate other options, such as a demonstration strike with a small nuclear weapon. The purpose of such an action would be what the late theorist Thomas Schelling called a “competition in risk-taking”: one side takes an obviously dangerous action in order to demonstrate how much it cares about the issue at hand, and to persuade its opponent(s) to back off.

If Putin thinks he is facing total defeat, a military collapse, or even being removed from power, why wouldn’t he consider raising the stakes? It would be a gamble for sure, but he’s gambled before. And he probably cares more about avoiding those outcomes than the opposing coalition cares about inflicting them on him. He won’t order a large-scale nuclear attack, because that would be suicidal, but a demonstration strike against a non-nuclear adversary, though not without serious risks, is another matter.

To be sure, the use of even a single nuclear weapon could prove just as harmful to Russia as its invasion has been. Violating the nuclear taboo would guarantee that Russia remained a pariah for many years (though that may occur regardless). It could also galvanize additional support for Ukraine and convince China to distance itself from Russia. But it might just as easily spook any number of Western governments and catalyze a rapid end to the conflict. Either way, it would set a very worrisome precedent, and no one can be certain that even very limited use would stay that way.

Washington has every reason, therefore, to avoid this alarming scenario. No matter how much one might want to see Russia decisively defeated, there are limits to how far one can safely push a nuclear-armed adversary. As the security expert Sam Roggeveen made clear in an essay in March, “If Russia is hurtling towards economic and military collapse, Western leaders ought to be thinking about how to ratchet down the pressure.” And they can do so with a certain confidence, because the war has in fact been a catastrophe for Russia and will hasten its decline no matter what the West does now.

The war in Ukraine is a tragedy, for the citizens of Ukraine most of all. It will be even more tragic if Russia tries to salvage its waning fortunes by moving up the escalation ladder. I still think this possibility is unlikely, and I hope those who think Putin is more likely to declare victory and try to de-escalate are correct. But I’d be a lot more comfortable if Western leaders took the possibility of nuclear use more seriously, ended their loose talk about war aims, and focused more attention on ending the war than on achieving an ill-defined but supposedly decisive victory.

As I’ve noted before, ending this war requires all parties to settle for less than they originally wanted, and that includes the United States.

još
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/05/why-washington-should-take-russian-nuclear-threats-seriously/?utm_source=PostUp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editors%20Picks%20OC&utm_term=42071&tpcc=Editors%20Picks%20OC

Remember the father of the "missing at sea" soldier? He got this response from RU's military prosecution, claiming his son simply failed to report for duty without notice after "extraordinary circumstances brought the demise" of the ship "not involved in the special military op" https://t.co/ocBRVlrUsX pic.twitter.com/kraUeeS714

— Christo Grozev (@christogrozev) May 6, 2022

Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation
Military Prosecutor's Office of the Black Sea Fleet

Your appeal of 23.04.2022 and its duplicate concerning the determination of the whereabouts of your son, conscript of military unit 84201 Yegor Dmitrievich Shkrebets (born 21.03.2002), were filed with the military prosecutor's office of the Navy and are considered within its jurisdiction.
The inspection revealed that the ship on which Y. D. Shkrebets served was not in Ukrainian territorial waters, and was not included in the list of formations and military units involved in a special military operation. On 13.04.2022, during the accident which resulted in the shipwreck, the latter went missing. Searching activities have not yielded positive results, the location of your son is currently not established. The commander of military unit 84201 issued an order #7' dated 20.04.2022, declaring Shkrebets Y. D. missing in the military unit. You have been informed about the above by the deputy commander of the 42948 military unit for military and political work, as well as through the military commissariat of the city of Yalta of the Republic of Crimea.
Due to the lack of grounds for the prosecutorial response measures were not implemented.

Head of the supervision department (over the execution of laws by military administrative bodies and military officers) of the military prosecutor's office of the fleet  
V. L. Mikhailov

boomer crook wrote:jednostavno oznaka na vojnim vozilima na delu fronta koji se valjda kretao ka kijevu i onda je postalo viralno posto ludaci samo cekaju znak