Russian forces 'liberate' east Ukrainian city of Lysychansk
Russia says its forces and allies have taken control of Ukraine's eastern Luhansk region, after capturing the final Ukrainian holdout of Lysychansk.
www.abc.net.au
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
www.abc.net.au
Russians press assault on eastern Ukraine, Belarus accuses Kyiv of air strikes
Russian forces are pounding the city of Lysychansk and its surroundings in an all-out attempt to seize the last stronghold of resistance in eastern Ukraine's Luhansk province, the regional governor says.
www.abc.net.au
'A war crime': Prime Minister disturbed by what he sees on visit to Ukraine
Anthony Albanese, who was invited to Ukraine by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, surveys "devastating" destruction in Irpin, describing what he sees as "a war crime".
www.abc.net.au
Thumpalumpacus
Major
KYIV, July 3 (Reuters) - Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Sunday acknowledged Kyiv's forces had withdrawn from Lysychansk in the eastern Donbas region after a grinding Russian assault, but vowed to regain control over the area with the help of long-range Western weapons.
Russia said its capture of the city of Lysychansk less than a week after taking neighbouring Sievierdonetsk gave it full control of the eastern Luhansk region - a political win that meets a key Kremlin war goal. The battlefield focus now shifts to the neighbouring Donetsk region, where Kyiv still controls swathes of territory.
www.reuters.com
Russia said its capture of the city of Lysychansk less than a week after taking neighbouring Sievierdonetsk gave it full control of the eastern Luhansk region - a political win that meets a key Kremlin war goal. The battlefield focus now shifts to the neighbouring Donetsk region, where Kyiv still controls swathes of territory.
Zelenskiy vows to regain Lysychansk after Ukrainian withdrawal
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Sunday acknowledged Kyiv's forces had withdrawn from Lysychansk in the eastern Donbas region after a grinding Russian assault, but vowed to regain control over the area with the help of long-range Western weapons.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
KYIV, July 3 (Reuters) - Ukrainian forces hit a Russian military logistics base with over 30 strikes in the Russian-occupied southern city of Melitopol on Sunday, the city's exiled mayor said. A Russian-installed official confirmed that strikes had hit the city.
"At 3 o'clock (0000 GMT) and 5 o'clock (0200 GMT), there were over 30 strikes on a single military base," Melitopol Mayor Ivan Fedorov, who is currently on Ukraine-controlled territory, said on Telegram.
The military aerial logistics base has been "taken out of action" and other resistance activity caused a Russian armoured train carrying ammunition to derail on Saturday near Melitopol, Fedorov said.
The base was occupied on the second day of Russia's invasion in February and was being used to store ammunition for heavy Russian weapons, he later said on television.
"They stored and handled the logistics of ammunition for heavy weapons at this base," he said.
"At present the situation has not calmed down (and) everything is still detonating," he added.
[...]
RIA cited local Russian-appointed official Vladimir Rogov as saying that around 16-18 Ukrainian MLRS rockets had hit Melitopol in two strikes at 0300 and 0445 Moscow time (1200 GMT and 0145 GMT).
www.reuters.com
Gratifying seeing them put to such good and quick use.
"At 3 o'clock (0000 GMT) and 5 o'clock (0200 GMT), there were over 30 strikes on a single military base," Melitopol Mayor Ivan Fedorov, who is currently on Ukraine-controlled territory, said on Telegram.
The military aerial logistics base has been "taken out of action" and other resistance activity caused a Russian armoured train carrying ammunition to derail on Saturday near Melitopol, Fedorov said.
The base was occupied on the second day of Russia's invasion in February and was being used to store ammunition for heavy Russian weapons, he later said on television.
"They stored and handled the logistics of ammunition for heavy weapons at this base," he said.
"At present the situation has not calmed down (and) everything is still detonating," he added.
[...]
RIA cited local Russian-appointed official Vladimir Rogov as saying that around 16-18 Ukrainian MLRS rockets had hit Melitopol in two strikes at 0300 and 0445 Moscow time (1200 GMT and 0145 GMT).
Ukraine hits Russian military base in occupied Melitopol, exiled mayor says
Ukrainian forces hit a Russian military logistics base with over 30 strikes in the Russian-occupied southern city of Melitopol on Sunday, the city's exiled mayor said. A Russian-installed official confirmed that strikes had hit the city.
Gratifying seeing them put to such good and quick use.
Admiral Beez
Major
And a suitcase. Anything sufficiently large is a potential nuclear weapon delivery system.
Suitcase nuclear device - Wikipedia
Agree, Roger. The other problem is finding the cables, it's not like they are signposted and out at sea in international waters the majority lie deeper than the deepest military submarines can reach. Primarily the cables in shallower waters are within countries' territorial waters, so sneaking submarines and ships into a sovereign nation's waters is going to raise alarm. These cables do require regular maintenance, but it's done from ships on the surface, rather than submarines.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
A couple bits of info re Putin giving nuclear weapons to Belarus.
1. Belarus, before the disintegration of the USSR, possessed nuclear weapons. The only reason they did not retain the weapons is due to the efforts by Russia, the US, and other nations to limit the proliferation of possible problems.
Ukraine also possessed nuclear weapons at the time of the fall of the USSR. They did not at first give the weapons to Russia, but instead used them as a bargaining chip to gain promises of support and security/protection in the future.
Most of this is addressed by the Alma Ata Agreement/Protocols and follow-on treaties already mentioned upthread.
2. Putin may end up needing the Belarus armed forces to win (or at least not lose) a conventional war with Ukraine, thereby providing a victory (or at least avoiding a loss) usable for political purposes. To say that he would never give nuclear weapons to Belarus assumes that Putin sees things in the same light as you do (
I suspect that this is not the case). If he thinks that giving nuclear weapons to Belarus will allow him to maintain power/prevent the fall of the current norm of the RF government and/or prevent the RF from descending into chaos, then he will do so.
3. re actual nuclear weapons vs nuclear capable weapons. It is (near?) impossible to prevent US/NATO/Ukraine from knowing if Belarus actually gets nuclear warheads/weapons. Without actual nuclear warheads there would be no reason for US/NATO/Ukraine not to cause as much trouble for Lukashenko as possible. And for Lukashenko to try to bluff the US/NATO into not shredding his armed forces, if US/NATO takes an active stance toward Belarus, would be pointless.
4. Hopefully, Lukashenko knows the above (he seems to), and knows that his only hope is to successfully walk a fine line between the RF and US/NATO/Ukraine by not getting so involved that his fate and the fate of Belarus are tied to the outcome of the war.
1. Belarus, before the disintegration of the USSR, possessed nuclear weapons. The only reason they did not retain the weapons is due to the efforts by Russia, the US, and other nations to limit the proliferation of possible problems.
Ukraine also possessed nuclear weapons at the time of the fall of the USSR. They did not at first give the weapons to Russia, but instead used them as a bargaining chip to gain promises of support and security/protection in the future.
Most of this is addressed by the Alma Ata Agreement/Protocols and follow-on treaties already mentioned upthread.
2. Putin may end up needing the Belarus armed forces to win (or at least not lose) a conventional war with Ukraine, thereby providing a victory (or at least avoiding a loss) usable for political purposes. To say that he would never give nuclear weapons to Belarus assumes that Putin sees things in the same light as you do (
I suspect that this is not the case). If he thinks that giving nuclear weapons to Belarus will allow him to maintain power/prevent the fall of the current norm of the RF government and/or prevent the RF from descending into chaos, then he will do so.3. re actual nuclear weapons vs nuclear capable weapons. It is (near?) impossible to prevent US/NATO/Ukraine from knowing if Belarus actually gets nuclear warheads/weapons. Without actual nuclear warheads there would be no reason for US/NATO/Ukraine not to cause as much trouble for Lukashenko as possible. And for Lukashenko to try to bluff the US/NATO into not shredding his armed forces, if US/NATO takes an active stance toward Belarus, would be pointless.
4. Hopefully, Lukashenko knows the above (he seems to), and knows that his only hope is to successfully walk a fine line between the RF and US/NATO/Ukraine by not getting so involved that his fate and the fate of Belarus are tied to the outcome of the war.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
On the otherhand, top Belarusian commanders refused to deploy troops about a month ago, there is clear dissention in the ranks.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
2. Putin may end up needing the Belarus armed forces to win (or at least not lose) a conventional war with Ukraine, thereby providing a victory (or at least avoiding a loss) usable for political purposes. To say that he would never give nuclear weapons to Belarus assumes that Putin sees things in the same light as you do
I think it more likely that he will station mobile nukes there, under direct Russian control and manning, rather than giving Lukashenko the keys to the car. First, it underlines the superior/subordinate relationship between Moscow and Minsk. Second, if one were to be struck, Putin could claim that it is a direct attack on Russian forces and perhaps be on firmer legalistic footing, though I doubt that's a big factor. Thirdly, by keeping them under direct Russian control, he can redeploy them at his whim.
Well, in coastal waters cables are mapped. Otherwise they can be damaged by anchors, etc.
Fishing vessel can be used as a simple tool for the cables destruction, note the incident in Norway mentioned earlier.
Soviet fishing vessels were used extensively for the spying and for the search of anything interesting on the sea bottom near the foreign bases and exercises areas.I am sure that tradition lives on. Actually, Russian intelligence have more opportunities now. In the USSR those vessels were under the Soviet flag and carried visible identifications on the funnels.. Today, Russian operators can use any flag of convenience. That innocently looking trawler registered in Barbados can be doing something more than fishing while sailng in the NATO country waters...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Admiral Beez
Major
So far in this war Ukraine has lost entire Luhansk oblast (region), including the cities of Severodonetsk and now Lysychansk, and lost most of the Donetsk oblast, including the city of Mariupol. I expect once the remainder of the Donetsk oblast is taken, with all of the Donbas (shown below) then in Russian hands that Putin will declare victory and put his forces on the defensive. I would not be surprised if a "referendum" is then quickly held and the Donbas then annexed into Russia.
Does Ukraine stand any chance of retaking these two oblasts and the Donbas? I just don't see them having the ability to fight an sustained offensive to retake the Donbas. I hope I'm wrong.
samf.substack.com
Does Ukraine stand any chance of retaking these two oblasts and the Donbas? I just don't see them having the ability to fight an sustained offensive to retake the Donbas. I hope I'm wrong.
Can Ukraine Win?
A Ukrainian soldier shows off a HIMARS multiple rocket launcher - part of the package of US military aid (Photo by Anastasia Vlasova for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
samf.substack.com
Last edited:
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,515
- Mar 26, 2007
What if we get Iran back in the oil line? Yes i know. But isnt this a perfect time to trade?
Why not make a deal of the century. Quite the nuke stuff sell oil. If there is a time to trade equally, it will be now. And i mean trade, not bully each other around.
There must be a deal worth making. Hope they will find it. Depending on the rest of the oil producers wast a good plan after all.
Why not make a deal of the century. Quite the nuke stuff sell oil. If there is a time to trade equally, it will be now. And i mean trade, not bully each other around.
There must be a deal worth making. Hope they will find it. Depending on the rest of the oil producers wast a good plan after all.
More Australian aid to Ukraine:
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,004
- Jun 25, 2013
It would be useful to split Iran from Russia, and if a new nuclear deal could be arranged, that would be wonderful. The problem is that any deal made by this US administration would likely be abrogated if a different party wins in 2024. Rather obviously, this would make the US seem to be unreliable and untrustworthy.
Admiral Beez
Major
I wish Canada would act with Australia's alacrity. General Dynamics Canada produces the LAV 6, but so far we've sent none to Ukraine.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,515
- Mar 26, 2007
True. But i can see even such benifits for all involved. On all fronts of thinking.
Admiral Beez
Major
And some of those 1,500 T-72 tanks the Iranians have would do nicely under Ukrainian colours.
