Home
by Filipenko Wed Nov 02, 2022 8:34 pmMór Thököly wrote:I guess all those non Slavs in The Russian army can go home now?
— Michael H DiGenova (@digenova_h) November 2, 2022
Kako ide njegovim Jermenima, hoce li se i oni ulivati ili ce da nastavljaju sami protiv Turske i Azerbejdzana?
Rat u Ukrajini
- Posts : 22555
Join date : 2014-12-01
Kako ide njegovim Jermenima, hoce li se i oni ulivati ili ce da nastavljaju sami protiv Turske i Azerbejdzana?
Nektivni Ugnelj
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Kako im je krenulo, oni mogu jedino bukvalno da se uliju u reku
- Posts : 7229
Join date : 2019-11-04
Ukraine risks being locked into endless war in bid for perfect peace
Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations
Gerard Toal
Thu Nov 3 2022 - 05:00
Talking peace is not popular in Ukraine right now. Given the context this is understandable. Russia is terrorising Ukrainians in their homes with missiles and drones. Its attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure – its electricity grid, water and heat systems – threaten millions with a cold, dark winter. This follows the brazen annexation of four Ukrainian regions. No one forgets the Russian military’s war crimes against civilians. Russian officials talk peace because they want to consolidate their territorial gains. Ukraine scorns peace now because it has momentum on the battlefield. It wants the peace of the victorious.
It has always been the case that the more Ukraine wins on the battlefield, the more dangerous this geopolitical crisis becomes. Russian president Vladimir Putin cannot countenance losing and has made nuclear threats that US president Joe Biden, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and French president Emmanuel Macron acknowledged are serious. Biden was blunt about the danger: “I don’t think there is any such a thing as the ability to easily use a tactical weapon and not end up with Armageddon.” Yet, as we approach this frightening prospect, talking peace has become taboo.
Last March, Zelenskiy offered to talk directly with Putin. Now, in the wake of Putin’s annexation of yet more Ukrainian territory, Zelenskiy signed a decree banning direct talks with Russia until it has a new leader. Regime change in Russia, it seems, is now a precondition for Ukraine coming to the negotiating table.
Zelenskiy’s stance may be morally justified but it locks Ukraine, and its supporters, into what looks like endless war for perfect peace. Officially the United States, Kyiv’s biggest backer, is content to let the Ukrainians decide if and when negotiations should occur. A senior state department official told the Washington Post recently: “Our job now is to help them be in absolutely the best position militarily on the battlefield . . . for that day when they do choose to go to the diplomatic table.”
The White House reiterated this stance in response to a letter last week by 30 progressive politicians in the US House of Representatives calling on Biden to “seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire”. That letter caught considerable flak from the impassioned Ukraine lobby, and in a highly unusual move, it was retracted and disavowed.
That such a bland letter became controversial indicates how much Ukraine has become a sacred cause in the US and elsewhere. Remember, the Democrats who wrote the letter fully support Biden’s policy of arming Ukraine to defend itself. They simply noted that the catastrophic possibilities of nuclear escalation and miscalculation only increase the longer the war continues. This led them to request “a proactive diplomatic push” alongside financial and military support to Ukraine to seek a ceasefire.
That was too much for Ukraine’s supporters. War is the only acceptable policy in the face of Putin’s evil, and if nuclear war is a risk, then so be it. Giving in to “nuclear blackmail” sets a terrible precedent. Putin is a war criminal who can never be trusted. Negotiations with him are impossible. The path to peace is through battlefield victories and the liberation of all Ukrainian lands. These convictions are declared with fierce fervour. All those who question the costs of moral absolutism, who speak of a ceasefire and peace, are cast as appeasers in league with a diabolical Putin.
Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations. My Ukrainian colleague Karina Korostelina and I surveyed the attitudes of both residents and displaced persons in three Ukrainian cities close to the southeast battlefields this summer. Almost half agreed it was imperative to seek a ceasefire to stop Russians killing Ukraine’s young men. Slightly more supported negotiations with Russia on a complete ceasefire, with a quarter totally against and a fifth declaring themselves neutral. Respondents were torn when considering whether saving lives or territorial unity were more important to them. Those most touched by the war, namely the internally displaced, were more likely to prioritise saving lives. Other research reveals that those farthest from the battlefields have the most hawkish attitudes.
The White House seems content to prioritise war over peace. Indeed, the seeming subordination of US foreign policy interests to Ukraine’s wartime needs is remarkable. Historically, Ukraine was never a vital US strategic interest. But today the US and its Nato allies are irredeemably entangled in its war. If Ukraine escalates, the US and its allies are pulled along. Crimea remains the most dangerous place. Last week Zelenskiy told an international audience “we will definitely liberate Crimea”. In contrast to Kherson, such a possible liberation would be more about land than people as most Crimeans see themselves as Russians. Currently, western support enables Ukrainian leaders to hold such maximalist war aims. While support is justifiable, it prioritises war over diplomacy, locking Ukraine and Russia into a zero-sum struggle that could go nuclear.
The parties to the Ukraine war are not sleepwalking to Armageddon but marching there with righteous fervour. In the absence of diplomacy, deepening horrors within Ukraine and beyond are likely, including famine in east Africa given the recent disruption of the grain export agreement. Ukraine will continue to fight for territorial liberation, while Russia will turn to ever more radical measures. The progressive Democrats were right to call for greater diplomatic work alongside military support. Searching for peace should never be taboo.
Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations
Gerard Toal
Thu Nov 3 2022 - 05:00
Talking peace is not popular in Ukraine right now. Given the context this is understandable. Russia is terrorising Ukrainians in their homes with missiles and drones. Its attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure – its electricity grid, water and heat systems – threaten millions with a cold, dark winter. This follows the brazen annexation of four Ukrainian regions. No one forgets the Russian military’s war crimes against civilians. Russian officials talk peace because they want to consolidate their territorial gains. Ukraine scorns peace now because it has momentum on the battlefield. It wants the peace of the victorious.
It has always been the case that the more Ukraine wins on the battlefield, the more dangerous this geopolitical crisis becomes. Russian president Vladimir Putin cannot countenance losing and has made nuclear threats that US president Joe Biden, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy and French president Emmanuel Macron acknowledged are serious. Biden was blunt about the danger: “I don’t think there is any such a thing as the ability to easily use a tactical weapon and not end up with Armageddon.” Yet, as we approach this frightening prospect, talking peace has become taboo.
Last March, Zelenskiy offered to talk directly with Putin. Now, in the wake of Putin’s annexation of yet more Ukrainian territory, Zelenskiy signed a decree banning direct talks with Russia until it has a new leader. Regime change in Russia, it seems, is now a precondition for Ukraine coming to the negotiating table.
Zelenskiy’s stance may be morally justified but it locks Ukraine, and its supporters, into what looks like endless war for perfect peace. Officially the United States, Kyiv’s biggest backer, is content to let the Ukrainians decide if and when negotiations should occur. A senior state department official told the Washington Post recently: “Our job now is to help them be in absolutely the best position militarily on the battlefield . . . for that day when they do choose to go to the diplomatic table.”
The White House reiterated this stance in response to a letter last week by 30 progressive politicians in the US House of Representatives calling on Biden to “seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire”. That letter caught considerable flak from the impassioned Ukraine lobby, and in a highly unusual move, it was retracted and disavowed.
That such a bland letter became controversial indicates how much Ukraine has become a sacred cause in the US and elsewhere. Remember, the Democrats who wrote the letter fully support Biden’s policy of arming Ukraine to defend itself. They simply noted that the catastrophic possibilities of nuclear escalation and miscalculation only increase the longer the war continues. This led them to request “a proactive diplomatic push” alongside financial and military support to Ukraine to seek a ceasefire.
That was too much for Ukraine’s supporters. War is the only acceptable policy in the face of Putin’s evil, and if nuclear war is a risk, then so be it. Giving in to “nuclear blackmail” sets a terrible precedent. Putin is a war criminal who can never be trusted. Negotiations with him are impossible. The path to peace is through battlefield victories and the liberation of all Ukrainian lands. These convictions are declared with fierce fervour. All those who question the costs of moral absolutism, who speak of a ceasefire and peace, are cast as appeasers in league with a diabolical Putin.
Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations. My Ukrainian colleague Karina Korostelina and I surveyed the attitudes of both residents and displaced persons in three Ukrainian cities close to the southeast battlefields this summer. Almost half agreed it was imperative to seek a ceasefire to stop Russians killing Ukraine’s young men. Slightly more supported negotiations with Russia on a complete ceasefire, with a quarter totally against and a fifth declaring themselves neutral. Respondents were torn when considering whether saving lives or territorial unity were more important to them. Those most touched by the war, namely the internally displaced, were more likely to prioritise saving lives. Other research reveals that those farthest from the battlefields have the most hawkish attitudes.
The White House seems content to prioritise war over peace. Indeed, the seeming subordination of US foreign policy interests to Ukraine’s wartime needs is remarkable. Historically, Ukraine was never a vital US strategic interest. But today the US and its Nato allies are irredeemably entangled in its war. If Ukraine escalates, the US and its allies are pulled along. Crimea remains the most dangerous place. Last week Zelenskiy told an international audience “we will definitely liberate Crimea”. In contrast to Kherson, such a possible liberation would be more about land than people as most Crimeans see themselves as Russians. Currently, western support enables Ukrainian leaders to hold such maximalist war aims. While support is justifiable, it prioritises war over diplomacy, locking Ukraine and Russia into a zero-sum struggle that could go nuclear.
The parties to the Ukraine war are not sleepwalking to Armageddon but marching there with righteous fervour. In the absence of diplomacy, deepening horrors within Ukraine and beyond are likely, including famine in east Africa given the recent disruption of the grain export agreement. Ukraine will continue to fight for territorial liberation, while Russia will turn to ever more radical measures. The progressive Democrats were right to call for greater diplomatic work alongside military support. Searching for peace should never be taboo.
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Historically, Ukraine was never a vital US strategic interest.
Ne secam se da je ovim recnikom pricao o Bosni
- Posts : 7229
Join date : 2019-11-04
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/05/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations/
U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
The encouragement is aimed not at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, but ensuring it maintains a moral high ground in the eyes of its international backers
By Missy Ryan, John Hudson and Paul Sonne
November 5, 2022 at 6:29 p.m. EDT
The Biden administration is privately encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.
While U.S. officials share their Ukrainian counterparts’ assessment that Putin, for now, isn’t serious about negotiations, they acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with him has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” said one U.S. official who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations between Washington and Kyiv.
Serhiy Nikiforov, a spokesman for Zelensky, did not respond to a request for comment.
In the United States, polls show eroding support among Republicans for continuing to finance Ukraine’s military at current levels, suggesting the White House may face resistance following Tuesday’s midterm elections as it seeks to continue a security assistance program that has delivered Ukraine the largest such annual sum since the end of the Cold War.
In a trip to Kyiv on Friday, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the United States supported a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and said U.S. support would continue regardless of domestic politics. “We fully intend to ensure that the resources are there as necessary and that we’ll get votes from both sides of the aisle to make that happen,” he said during a briefing.
Eagerness for a potential resolution to the war has intensified as Ukrainian forces recapture occupied territory, pushing closer to areas prized by Putin. Those begin with Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014, and include cities along the Azov Sea that now provide him a “land bridge” to the Ukrainian peninsula. Zelensky has vowed to fight for every inch of Ukrainian territory.
Veteran diplomat Alexander Vershbow, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia and deputy secretary general of NATO, said the United States could not afford to be completely “agnostic” about how and when the war is concluded, given the U.S. interest in ensuring European security and deterring further Kremlin aggression beyond Russia’s borders.
“If the conditions become more propitious for negotiations, I don’t think the administration is going to be passive,” Vershbow said. “But it is ultimately the Ukrainians doing the fighting, so we’ve got to be careful not to second-guess them.”
While Zelensky laid out proposals for a negotiated peace in the weeks following Putin’s Feb. 24 invasion, including Ukrainian neutrality and a return of areas occupied by Russia since that date, Ukrainian officials have hardened their stance in recent months.
In late September, following Putin’s annexation of four additional Ukrainian regions in the east and in the south, Zelensky issued a decree declaring it “impossible” to negotiate with the Russian leader. “We will negotiate with the new president,” he said in a video address.
That shift has been fueled by systematic atrocities in areas under Russian control, including rape and torture, along with regular airstrikes on Kyiv and other cities, and the Kremlin’s annexation decree.
Ukrainians have responded with outrage when foreigners have suggested they yield areas of their country as part of a peace deal, as they did last month when billionaire Elon Musk, who has helped supply Ukraine’s military with satellite communication devices, announced a proposal on Twitter that could allow Russia to cement its control of parts of Ukraine via referendum and give the Kremlin Crimea.
In recent weeks Ukrainian criticism of proposed concessions has grown more pointed, as officials decry “useful idiots” in the West whom they’ve accused of serving Kremlin interests.
“If Russia wins, we will get a period of chaos: flowering of tyranny, wars, genocides, nuclear races,” presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak said Friday. “Any ‘concessions’ to Putin today — a deal with the Devil. You won’t like its price.”
Ukrainian officials point out that a 2015 peace deal in the country’s eastern Donbas region — where Moscow backed a separatist campaign — only provided Russia time before Putin launched his full-scale invasion this year. They question why any new peace deal would be different, arguing that the only way Russia will be prevented from returning for further attacks is vanquishing its military on the battlefield.
Russia, facing a poor position on the battlefield, has proposed negotiations but in the past has proved unwilling to accept much other than Ukrainian capitulation.
“Cynically, Russia and its Western supporters are holding out an olive branch. Please do not be fooled: An aggressor cannot be a peacemaker,” Andriy Yermak, head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, wrote in a recent op-ed published by The Washington Post.
Ukrainian officials also question how they can conduct negotiations with Russian leaders who fundamentally believe in Moscow’s right to hegemony over Kyiv.
Putin has continued to undermine the notion of a sovereign and independent Ukraine, including in remarks last month when he once again asserted that Russians and Ukrainians were one people, and argued that Russia could be “the only real and serious guarantor of Ukraine’s statehood, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
While Western officials also hold profound skepticism of Russia’s aims, they have chafed at Ukraine’s harsh public rebukes as Kyiv remains entirely dependent on Western assistance. Swiping at donors and ruling out talks could hurt Kyiv in the long run, officials say.
The maximalist remarks on both sides have increased global fears of a years-long conflict spanning the life of Russia’s 70-year-old leader, whose grip on power has only tightened in recent years. Already the war has deepened global economic woes, helping to send energy prices soaring for European consumers and causing a surge in commodity prices that worsened hunger in nations including Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan.
In the United States, rising inflation partially linked to the war has stiffened head winds for President Biden and his party ahead of the Nov. 8 midterms and raised new questions about the future of U.S. security assistance, which has amounted to $18.2 billion since the war began. According to a poll published Nov. 3 by the Wall Street Journal, 48 percent of Republicans said the United States was doing “too much” to support Ukraine, up from 6 percent in March.
Progressives within the Democratic Party are calling for diplomacy to avoid a protracted war, releasing but later retracting a letter calling on Biden to redouble efforts to seek “a realistic framework” for a halt to the fighting.
Speaking in Kyiv, Sullivan said the war could end easily. “Russia chose to start it,” he said. “Russia could choose to end it by ceasing its attack on Ukraine, ceasing its occupation of Ukraine, and that’s precisely what it should do from our perspective.”
The concerns about a longer conflict are particularly salient in nations that were already hesitant to throw their weight behind the U.S.-led coalition in support of Ukraine, either because of ties with Moscow or reluctance to fall in line behind Washington.
South Africa abstained from a recent U.N. vote that condemned Russia’s annexation decrees, saying the world must instead focus on facilitating a cease-fire and political resolution. Brazil’s new president-elect, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has said Zelensky is as responsible for the war as Putin.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has tried to maintain good relations with Moscow and Kyiv, offered assistance on peace talks in a call with Zelensky last month. He was spurned by the Ukrainian leader.
Zelensky told him Ukraine would not conduct any negotiations with Putin but said Ukraine was “committed to peaceful settlement through dialogue,” according to a statement released by Zelensky’s office. The statement noted that Russia had deliberately undermined efforts at dialogue.
Despite Ukrainian leaders’ refusal to talk to Putin and their vow to fight to retake all of Ukraine, U.S. officials say they believe that Zelensky would probably endorse negotiations and eventually accept concessions, as he suggested he would early in the war. They believe that Kyiv is attempting to lock in as many military gains as it can before winter sets in, when there might be a window for diplomacy.
Zelensky faces the challenge of appealing both to a domestic constituency that has suffered immensely at the hands of Russian invaders and a foreign audience providing his forces with the weapons they need to fight. To motivate Ukrainians domestically, Zelensky has promoted victory rather than settlement and become a symbol of defiance that has motivated Ukrainian forces on the battlefield.
While members of the Group of Seven industrialized bloc of nations seemingly threw their weight behind a Ukrainian vision of victory last month, endorsing a plan for a “just peace” including potential Russian reparation payments and security guarantees for Ukraine, some of those same countries see a potential turning point if Ukrainian forces approach Crimea.
Reports of a Russian withdrawal from the southern city of Kherson have raised the question of whether Ukrainian forces could eventually march on the strategic peninsula, which U.S. and NATO officials believe Putin views differently than other areas of Ukraine under Russian control, and what a likely all-out fight for Crimea would mean for Kyiv’s backers in the West.
Not only has Crimea been under direct Russian control for longer than areas seized since February, but it has long been the site of a Russian naval base and is home to many retired Russian military personnel.
Illustrating Russia’s elevation of Crimea, the Kremlin responded to an explosion last month on a bridge linking the region to mainland Russia — a symbol of Moscow’s grip of the peninsula — by launching a barrage of missiles on Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv, ending a long period of peace in the capital.
In the meantime, Ukrainian leaders continue to telegraph their intention to pursue total victory, not only to their beleaguered citizens but also to Moscow.
Zelensky told an interviewer on Wednesday that the first thing he would do after Ukraine prevails in the war would be to visit a recaptured Crimea. “I really want to see the sea,” he said.
- Posts : 13817
Join date : 2016-02-01
A survived Russian mobilized soldier Alexei Agafonov told RU media Verstka how his entire battalion of more than 500 poorly equipped men died under Ukrainian artillery fire near Svatove, Luhansk region on Nov 1-2. They had only 3 shovels to dig trenches... https://t.co/YMhI6bvS73
— Viktor Kovalenko (@MrKovalenko) November 5, 2022
[Dobrovoljački] Odred Bootur iz Jakutije od 105 ljudi je 28. jula krenuo u rat sa Ukrajinom, ispratio ih je lično šef republike Ajsen Nikolajev.
2. novembra Bootur se vratio u Rusiju. Na snimku i fotografijama objavljenim na telegram kanalu šefa Jakutije može se prebrojati 13 povratnika.
Komandant odreda prijavio je samo 8 mrtvih.
Командир отряда отчитался только о 8 погибших. pic.twitter.com/564aZVjLMX
— Независимый взгляд(@zgldz) November 6, 2022
Medijski zapisi ne sadrže osetljiv materijal, u donjem tvitu je poređenje brojnosti pri odlasku i povratku.
- Posts : 7775
Join date : 2017-03-14
Mirko pazi metak
- Guest
Prigožin kaže da Vagner otvara centre za obuku u Kursku i Belgorodu i preporučuje da poslodavci upute polno zrele muške jedinke u redove najamnika.
Sasvim normalan dan u zemlji koja je skroz ista kao druge zemlje.
Sasvim normalan dan u zemlji koja je skroz ista kao druge zemlje.
- Posts : 37657
Join date : 2014-10-27
arkan
_____
And Will's father stood up, stuffed his pipe with tobacco, rummaged his pockets for matches, brought out a battered harmonica, a penknife, a cigarette lighter that wouldn't work, and a memo pad he had always meant to write some great thoughts down on but never got around to, and lined up these weapons for a pygmy war that could be lost before it even started
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Poslodavci su sad neka vrsta vojnog odseka?
- Guest
Ideja je da rotiraju radnu snagu, da 25% polno zrelih muškaraca (tako je rekao) bude na frontu u redovima privatne vojske koja po ruskim zakonima uopšte ne sme da postoji , a 75% da radi. Distopija.
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Bukvalno distopija. Poslodavci da jave koimnije neophodan u narednom periodu (ili zauvek ako se ne vrate).
Sergej, jel mozes da ostanes malo duze na poslu ove nedelje? Naravno, nema problema, ako treba i iduce. I svake.
Sergej, jel mozes da ostanes malo duze na poslu ove nedelje? Naravno, nema problema, ako treba i iduce. I svake.
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Vlasnik/generalni javi ko moze, onda ga posete pravi pozivari iz Wagnera. Ta zemlja je jeziva.
- Posts : 35771
Join date : 2012-02-10
Znaci, sad poslodavcu treba davati kovertu
_____
★
Uprava napolje!
- Posts : 182
Join date : 2022-10-16
Da vam malo pokvarim raspolozenje ... ovi levicari kazu da rat nema veze sa Ukrajinom i da se radi o ratu Amerike i Rusije 
Sve neke teorije zavere proturaju: One World Government (citaj WEF), Liberal Authoritarianism (citaj Washington-Brusseles) sa cenzurom i fasistickom propagandom, Cak se i Tramp pominje u pozitivnom kontekstu sa otklonom od njega ali i nevoljnim priznanjem da je covek mira. A nisu neke "budale iz Srbije" kako vi volite da otresete neprijatne cinjenice 
. Tucker-Trump-Chomski 
kakva kombinacija! Jos 2 dana do pobede!
Sve neke teorije zavere proturaju: One World Government (citaj WEF), Liberal Authoritarianism (citaj Washington-Brusseles) sa cenzurom i fasistickom propagandom, Cak se i Tramp pominje u pozitivnom kontekstu sa otklonom od njega ali i nevoljnim priznanjem da je covek mira. A nisu neke "budale iz Srbije" kako vi volite da otresete neprijatne cinjenice . Tucker-Trump-Chomski kakva kombinacija! Jos 2 dana do pobede!_____
Ronald Reagan: 'If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism'
- Posts : 37657
Join date : 2014-10-27
my mind is blown
_____
And Will's father stood up, stuffed his pipe with tobacco, rummaged his pockets for matches, brought out a battered harmonica, a penknife, a cigarette lighter that wouldn't work, and a memo pad he had always meant to write some great thoughts down on but never got around to, and lined up these weapons for a pygmy war that could be lost before it even started
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Fakat nisu iz Srbije
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
LeViCaRi
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 7775
Join date : 2017-03-14
javio se glavni strateški analitičar
Serbian President Vucic said that a possible battle for Kherson would be decisive in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Serbian President Vucic said that a possible battle for Kherson would be decisive in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
- Posts : 41623
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : wife privilege
А кад прођу две недеље?
_____
cousin for roasting the rakija
И кажем себи у сну, еј бре коњу па ти ни немаш озвучење, имаш оне две кутијице око монитора, видећеш кад се пробудиш...
- Posts : 13817
Join date : 2016-02-01
Italijanski dnevnik Republika piše da NATO smatra da treba pregovarati nakon što Ukrajinci povrate Herson pod svoju kontrolu.
- Spoiler:
- Take Kherson and then negotiate: NATO now sees a window of opportunity
by our correspondent Claudio Tito
Confidential reports between Washington and Brussels identify a short-term negotiating window: get as far as the Dnipro shores and push for a ceasefire from a position of strength
BRUSSELS - Negotiate. Even in the short term. When the position of advantage is evident. After the recapture of the southern city of Kherson, where one of the toughest battles against the Russian army is being fought. In the latest analyses circulating in the NATO offices in Brussels, the confrontation in that area is taking on a value that is not only strategic from a military point of view. But also from a political and diplomatic one. And it is mainly the U.S. that is conveying to the allies the possibility of a breakthrough. Because beating the Russian army in one of the most important gateways to the Sea of Azov and Crimea can mean a real chance to engage in the first real negotiations with Moscow.
Indeed, in the reports circulating between Atlantic Alliance officials and EU interlocutors, one assumption is made: the Russian military is now under pressure. Unable to react successfully to the Ukrainian advance. Their reaction is focused defensively on destroying infrastructure - power grid, water supply, bridges, roads -, building a triple line of trenches and using natural barriers such as the Dnipro River. The goal is to slow the advance of Kiev troops. Kherson is not just any town: decisive for access to the sea and crucial for control of water resources and river transport. Recapturing it would mean permanently changing the direction of the conflict.
Precisely for this reason, a message is coming from the US-through Brussels-that is also an invitation to the Ukrainian government: if and when Kherson is recaptured, then negotiations can begin. From a position of strength and not weakness. The point is that the White House for the first time has begun to speculate on such a concrete path. Not without Kherson, however. Not now. Not least because starting negotiations at this stage would only mean giving Moscow's military time to reorganize. Some strategic cornerstones must, in short, be consolidated first. To then discuss having the upper hand. This is also why Washington and NATO have confirmed to Zelensky the forthcoming dispatch of more missiles with a range capable of inhibiting the action of Iranian-built drones. More weapons, then, will arrive in Kiev precisely with the goal of reaching the Kherson target.
What's more, there are two key aspects that the U.S. Administration is emphasizing in now-daily exchanges with NATO allies. The first concerns the Russian threat of the use of tactical nuclear bombs. While this is considered a form of deterrence that is not currently active, it remains a risk to be avoided. Not least because in that case not only would there almost inevitably be a wide-ranging reaction with conventional weapons, but it would become difficult to contain the nervousness of some allies such as the Poles, who now represent the EU's closest partner militarily to Washington (indeed, some reaction schemes involve precisely the deployment of Warsaw's troops). The other concerns relations with China. Having lost Kherson, the crisis in the former Red Army would be over. The solutions hypothesized a few months ago in connection with a possible "regime change" in the Kremlin have now been overcome. At this point, for the United States, the total defeat of Putin would result in a worse consequence: handing over control of Russia to China. It would be like going from the frying pan into the fire. Better, then, a hostile but bruised leader independent of Beijing.
Of course, American plans for dialogue also depend on political factors: the first will take shape next week with the midterm elections. The possibility of the Democrats losing their majorities in both the Senate and the House (and the widespread victory of Trumpian candidates) may have different effects. Just as it is not yet clear whether the Biden-Putin talks at the G20 in Bali will take place. The war however enters a different phase thanks to a kind of "parellela convergence" of Kremlin and White House interests. A negotiation may certainly not lead immediately to peace but perhaps to a cease-fire in the Donbass. And also to the extension of the grain agreement.
- Posts : 7229
Join date : 2019-11-04
MNE wrote:javio se glavni strateški analitičar
Serbian President Vucic said that a possible battle for Kherson would be decisive in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Klauzevučić
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Najvaznija je sledeca
- Posts : 22555
Join date : 2014-12-01
Ta prica o pregovorima posle Hersona je deo psiholoskog rata i zvaka za ludaka kojom se dodatno demoralisu ruske trupe, koje bi valjda trebale da razmisljaju po sistemu "ajde vala nek vrate Herson pa da idemo kuci".
- Posts : 52531
Join date : 2017-11-16
Rusi uopste ne deluju kao da ce napustiti Herson
Similar topics
