Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We "bother" about this since an amphibious assault ship carrying attack and ASW helicopters - might according to some weasel like lawyers not constitute a carrier carrying aeroplanesEven the overly restrictive Cambridge definition of "aeroplane" fails to specify that the "wings" have to be fixed and stationary, hence rotary wings meet the definition.
We can argue til the cows come home what constitutes an "aircraft", but why bother? And any submarine larger than a midget is a ship, regardless of how much you'd like to think otherwise. The contention that the term "ship" includes the understood adjective "surface" is faulty, regardless of some people's cultural assumptions.
We "bother" about this since an amphibious assault ship carrying attack and ASW helicopters - might according to some weasel like lawyers not constitute a carrier carrying aeroplanes
as stated in the Montreaux Convention.
Do the Ukrainians have 3,000 AFVs and 1,500 artillery guns to lose?...2,979 tanks and other combat armored vehicles, 351 multiple launch rocket systems, 1,440 field artillery guns and mortars and 2,789 special military motor vehicles,"
Theoretically yes, and the claim 1500 artillery guns includes mortarsDo the Ukrainians have 3,000 AFVs and 1,500 artillery guns to lose?
And probably the 793 unmanned aerial vehicles includes antitank missiles. As we all know , Russian tanks are doing a great work destroying Ukrainian antitank missiles.Theoretically yes, and the claim 1500 artillery guns includes mortars
Seems somebody spent a lot of time counting russian equipment lost while trying to cross Siverskyi Donets
Did Russia "replace " Ukrainians with more compliant Russians in Crimea? If so, then Ukraine will have big problems trying to reclaim its territory.With Ukraine saving Kharkiv and pushing the Russians back to within kms of the Ukraine border it must have dawned on both sides that the UAF may have the growing strength and momentum to retake all of Ukraine, including the Donbas. Russia needs to up its game. My guess, a new offensive on Kiyv by the Belorussians. I'd say Crimea is forever lost though.
More issues for lawyers to get rich, since the Montreux Convention is the only paper with an international approval. - what Turkey independently decides is not really of international significance. Since Bulgaria and Rumania border the Black Sea and are NATO members as well already invalidates such a law enactment. That Erdogan is "unofficially" supporting another dictator is no secret and he's got his own war-crimes to justify.Regarding the Turkish Straights:
NO military ship or ship carrying military hardware is currently allowed passage, regardless of nation or allegiance.
Doesn't matter if it's a landing craft with "aircrafts", a freighter with armored cars or anything in between.
I posted a clear (and somewhat lengthy but concise) artical upthread that outlines Turkey's current position and why they're doing it.
As I had stated before, those doing most of the fighting and taking the brunt of the losses are the DNLR troops - not the Russian army in regards to manpower losses.Did Russia "replace " Ukrainians with more compliant Russians in Crimea? If so, then Ukraine will have big problems trying to reclaim its territory.
With the morale problem Russian troops have, are the Separatists in the same boat?
POTUS45 was very direct when dealing with NATO. Insisting that European countries increase their military budgets to meet the 2% treaty requirement and pointing out that being dependent on Russian oil and gas was "inappropriate". He was especially critical of Germany's overdependence on Russian energy, and the Nordstream II pipeline. He was the first US president to authorize and deliver lethal aid to Ukraine in their continuing fight against Russian expansionism.Do the citizens of the existing NATO countries have a say? As a Canadian and Brit I fully support welcoming both Finland and Sweden into NATO. But we should consider that the wider NATO spreads the more likely the West's sons and daughters will be sent into the grinder. I'm alright with that, but are America's parents willing to sacrifice their sons for the seemingly distant places like Finland, or even existing members like Bulgaria? This POTUS? No question, but the last POTUS and maybe the next POTUSes (is that POTI?) I'm not so sure. While my southern neighbour doesn't shirk from bombing Muslim despots and intervening where they perceive interest, they also have a strong isolationist streak.
It's now history rather than contemporary politics so I think it's safe (from Moderator sanction) to wonder here how POTUS45 would have reacted to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and how he would have dealt with Europe, NATO and its expansion.
Now the Russians are selling purloined Ukrainian grain to Syria and other "friendly" countries. The Ukrainians should have poisoned it just to kill the thieves off like Tribbles.
I hereby volunteer my services toI agree. We're going to have to do a first strike on Coney Island (aka "Little Odesa ").