Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
maybe your analysis is a bit too simple?
1. Putin does not accept Kiev's drive to become a NATO member, and insisted onto it's neutrality, due to the 1991 treaty, that also defines the borders of Ukraine
2. Ukraine annulled the "neutrality clause" in 2010, therefore Putin does not accept it's borders - defined entirely by the Soviet Union and "granted" by Jelzin in 1991 under the pretext of Ukraine being a member of CIS, (Alma-Ata Declaration) Ukraine and Georgia had decided to resign their membership in 2018 respectively Georgia in 2009.
3. Taking the existence of the Baltic republics (never been CIF members) into account and already being NATO members - he certainly doesn't see Finland as an additional threat, but rather as an elongation of an already threatening NATO borderline towards Russia. (aside from one attack under Stalin) - there has never been a war or warlike tensions between Finland and Russia caused by the latter since 1939, and after that till 1944 it was Finland that had allied with the Nazis against Russia. (naturally hoping to regain lost territory).
4. That Putin isn't happy about Finland haven given up on it's neutrality - is understood, and he will also have to take the blame for that in the Duma.
CIS (The CIS Heads of States meeting on 26 August 2005 adopted several resolutions, including one on military cooperation and another on the fight against terrorism).
The CIS Defense Ministers Council met on 20 June 2007 to discuss military cooperation. Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said that the Council had created a specific military cooperation plan through 2010.
So Putin's stance is indeed very simple: if a member breaks the Alma-Ata-Declaration - okay, let's talk about the respective borders of e.g. Ukraine because the one it holds are those
of the Ukraine. And Putin went into action in 2014 e.g. by accepting the "independence declarations" of the Donbass and Luhansk republic and after occupying the Crimea - the Crimea
republic.....and.......
Okay back to war talk and who destroyed how many of what...
In Jan 2010, Putin-puppet Viktor Yanukovych became president of Ukraine and canceled Ukraine's drive for NATO membership. This mollified Putin until Yanukovych was thrown out of power in the 2014 revolution and fled to exile in Russia, leading Putin to seize Crimea. In November 2014 after Russia had seized Crimea, Ukraine's new president, Petro Poroshenko announced that the country is now again pursuing NATO membership. From then on it was only a matter of time before either Ukraine gained NATO membership or they were brought back under Russian control through either regime change in Kyiv or military occupation. The race was on.My "analysis" (that's a grand term for my spoutings) is undoubtedly too simple. However....
1. Kiev's drive to become a NATO member really started in 2008 so how does that justify an invasion in 2022? How does ANYTHING that Ukraine has done justify an invasion?
In Jan 2010, Putin-puppet Viktor Yanukovych became president of Ukraine and canceled Ukraine's drive for NATO membership. This mollified Putin until Yanukovych was thrown out of power in the 2014 revolution and fled to exile in Russia, leading Putin to seize Crimea. In November 2014 after Russia had seized Crimea, Ukraine's new president, Petro Poroshenko announced that the country is now again pursuing NATO membership. From then on it was only a matter of time before either Ukraine gained NATO membership or they were brought back under Russian control through either regime change in Kyiv or military occupation. The race was on.
1. There was no "neutrality" or "border defining" treaty in 1991. Ukraine's borders are the same as that of the Ukrainian SSR.maybe your analysis is a bit too simple?
1. Putin does not accept Kiev's drive to become a NATO member, and insisted onto it's neutrality, due to the 1991 treaty, that also defines the borders of Ukraine
2. Ukraine annulled the "neutrality clause" in 2010, therefore Putin does not accept it's borders - defined entirely by the Soviet Union and "granted" by Jelzin in 1991 under the pretext of Ukraine being a member of CIS, (Alma-Ata Declaration) Ukraine and Georgia had decided to resign their membership in 2018 respectively Georgia in 2009.
3. Taking the existence of the Baltic republics (never been CIF members) into account and already being NATO members - he certainly doesn't see Finland as an additional threat, but rather as an elongation of an already threatening NATO borderline towards Russia. (aside from one attack under Stalin) - there has never been a war or warlike tensions between Finland and Russia caused by the latter since 1939, and after that till 1944 it was Finland that had allied with the Nazis against Russia. (naturally hoping to regain lost territory).
4. That Putin isn't happy about Finland haven given up on it's neutrality - is understood, and he will also have to take the blame for that in the Duma.
CIS (The CIS Heads of States meeting on 26 August 2005 adopted several resolutions, including one on military cooperation and another on the fight against terrorism).
The CIS Defense Ministers Council met on 20 June 2007 to discuss military cooperation. Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said that the Council had created a specific military cooperation plan through 2010.
So Putin's stance is indeed very simple: if a member breaks the Alma-Ata-Declaration - okay, let's talk about the respective borders of e.g. Ukraine because the one it holds are those
of the Ukraine. And Putin went into action in 2014 e.g. by accepting the "independence declarations" of the Donbass and Luhansk republic and after occupying the Crimea - the Crimea
republic.....and.......
Okay back to war talk and who destroyed how many of what...
MANPADS may be designed for surface to air, but plenty of anti-aircraft weapons have proven to be effective against ground targets in the past.
Кстати, в немецких новостях сообщают, что генерал ВВС России был сбит на своем Су-25 «Стингером». Его имя было дано как генерал-майор Канамат Боташоу.
Couldn't agree more. You expect the media to go somewhere else at this point in the war, but expect more here. The. gyros, fries............I come back to this thread to see what's up in the Russian-Ukraine war, and all I see are the wilfully Oblivious bickering about the name of Ukraine. The Ukrainians have told us how to refer to their country, the matter is settled. Take it off line to DMs please, no one else caresC.
Retired Russian Air Force Major General Kanamat Botashev was shot down and killed in the sky over Ukraine. Information about the death of the pilot was confirmed to the BBC by three former subordinates of Botashev, who kept in touch with him after the end of the service. They requested anonymity for personal security reasons.
Kanamat Botashev was born in 1959 in Karachay-Cherkessia, graduated from the Yeysk Higher Military Aviation Institute and qualified as a fighter-bomber. He rose from lieutenant to general.
"Стингер" на выходе из атаки, взрыв в воздухе и… Всё". Российские паблики обсуждают гибель летчика-генерала - BBC News Русская служба
В небе над Украиной был сбит и погиб генерал-майор военно-воздушных сил России в отставке Канамат Боташев. Информацию о гибели летчика подтвердили Би-би-си три бывших подчиненных Боташева, которые поддерживали с ним связь после окончания службы.www.bbc.com
As a Canadian I should know, but I wonder what we did with our Leopard 1s.....
Сan beI'm confused. If he was retired, why was he flying an Su-25 over Ukraine? If he wasn't retired, why the hell was a Major General flying combat ops?
There's something distinctly hokey about this.
Could Putin have been thinning the ranks of less supportiveI'm confused. If he was retired, why was he flying an Su-25 over Ukraine? If he wasn't retired, why the hell was a Major General flying combat ops?
There's something distinctly hokey about this.
Oleh Ustenko, an adviser to the Ukrainian president on economic issues, said at a briefing at the Ukraine Media Center:Or they simply leave it un-rebuilt like they did much of East Berlin and East Germany until the East and West reunited.
I think the Poles want the German armoured units, with their crews, rather than to take their tanks away. Besides, the Germans will need them.What do the Poles think - Abrakadabra and the Leo2s are in their service?
German armed forces have no spare Leo2 available and those in hands of the industry seem to require reactivation/refurbishment.
Maybe Ukraine will need to follow Germany's example post-1945 and import millions of Turks and Asian/African people to rebuild.Oleh Ustenko, an adviser to the Ukrainian president on economic issues, said at a briefing at the Ukraine Media Center:
The total value of direct and indirect losses inflicted by the aggressor on Ukraine has already reached about $1 trillion.
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Ukraine was worth $165 billion US dollars in 2021, according to official data from the World Bank.