This will most likely trigger article 4 of the NATO agreement. This would entail military leaders meeting to discuss next moves, rather than a full on article 5 retaliation.
-
-
And it is safe to assume that that process is already underway.Comment
-
Meanwhile, on the other side
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1592614508442578945?s=20&t=EVqHW7hL_vqgg6mKCZC1qw
I pray (and believe) that they are being more responsible in private.Comment
-
The path to nuclear war is through incremental moves. Not Russia suddenly dropping a bomb on the US or vice versa. You did this, so I do that, you exploded this so I'll explode that, you targeted this so I'll target that. The experts have done military modelling (sadly not glue and balsa-wood) and time and again small things like this make nuclear war all the more likely. It's why we have to be so careful whilst at the same time not allowing Russia to get away with this.Comment
-
Could also possibly be a Ukrainian air defence missile gone astray.Comment
-
-
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...krainian-strayPoland’s president, Andrzej Duda, has said there was no evidence to suggest a missile that landed in his country on Tuesday evening, killing two people, was an intentional attack or had been launched by Russia.
“Most likely, it was a Russian-made S-300 rocket,” Duda said on Wednesday. But he said there were “many indications” that the missile was fired as part of Ukraine’s air defences and “unfortunately fell on Polish territory”.
Nato’s secretary general confirmed that while an investigation was ongoing, initial analysis suggested the incident was “likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory” against Russian cruise missile attacks.Comment
-
Ukraine doubling down on the "it wisnae me" defence seems a bold move.Comment
-
Zelenskyy's indecent haste in declaring the missile to be Russian and trying to drag NATO further, and much more directly, into the conflict isn't a very good look.
It's his first real misstep of the war but it's quite a big one.Comment
-
A (deliberately) wide selection of views as to what we might expect to see in Ukraine in 2023: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63987113Comment
-
Another clumsy Russian businessman falls from a window of his hotel in India in completely unsuspicious circumstances a mere two days after his friend died in the same hotel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64101437Comment
-
"Superintendent Vivekananda Sharma of Odisha police said (as he patted his wallet) Mr Budanov was found to have suffered a stroke while his friend "was depressed after his death and he too died". The Russian consul in Kolkata, Alexei Idamkin, told the Tass news agency that police did not see a "criminal element in these tragic events"."Comment
-
I saw an interesting video a while back that framed the whole war as being mostly about the canal from kherson to crimea. Crimea only has a limited amount of water, and relied on that canal for water for agriculture and industry. So when russia seized the area, the economy basically collapsed when the ukrainians closed the canal, turning the region into a financial black hole
building that big bridge made it much easier to get things in and out of crimea, and the water pipeline they ran across it was enough to support the population and tourism.
So the main war goals for Russia were to puppet ukraine, and carve off those four southern provinces to make a landbridge to crimea, and to seize and reopen the dnieper/crimea canal. The first one is gone, they haven't fully captured the four states, and the ukrainians hold one end of the dam that feeds the crimean canal.
I suppose the big challenge for ukraine is going to be holding off the russian offensive that will be coming and cutting the landbridge by pushing South and cutting the rail lines to crimea, and seizing part of the canal, and at that point russia will have achieved none of their war goals, and that's the point at which the internal fun and games begin in russia, because as it stands putin can point to having secured the long term future of crimea.
Comment
-
These things are lengthy but Yale University* uploaded an entire lecture series on the history of Ukraine. If you download them (or simply play them on your phone), they make for outstanding audio explainers as to the history of Ukraine, the emergence of modern day Russia and the actual historical issues that exist within the region. I basically treated them like podcasts for various long car journeys and found them fascinating.
*= if anyone is interested, I would also recommend the series on French history and European history from 1648 - 1945, both of which were done by the now sadly deceased John Merriman. As someone who is better as an audio learner, this really re-awakened a lot of my earlier interest in European history.Comment
-
The Ukraine lectures are by Timothy Snyder, the author of Bloodlands and On Tyranny, among other essential works.
I need to download the Merriman series.Comment
-
An interesting interview with an ex-mercenary on the Wagner Group
Comment
-
Canada is sending... [don't hold your breath]... Four — count 'em — Leopard tanks to Ukraine. Canadian Forces currently own 112 Leopard tanks. Germany, OTOH, will organize the shipment of 62 Leopard 2s. The United States said it will buy 31 M1 Abrams tanks for Ukraine.
To me the Canadian response seems piss poor. The Ukrainian people are struggling for survival against a massively superior foe militarily. Canada has the largest community of Ukrainian heritage, per-capita, of any other OECD or NATO country. There are six houses on my block that have had yellow and blue flags displayed since early last year. We could have... should have... done far, far, better. It's pathetic.Last edited by Amor de Cosmos; 27-01-2023, 03:01.Comment
-
What a bizarre offer. It's enough of an offer to piss Putin off (after all one would be enough) but not enough to make any kind of significant impact.
They have 112 of them, you say? When was the last time they used them, or any other tank, in anger?Comment
-
Good question. I've no idea, but suspect the answer is never.
The contribution has come under significant criticism today. Defence Minister Anita Anand says the size of Ottawa’s donation "takes into consideration the need to maintain Canada’s readiness: leaving enough tanks for Canadian troops to train at home and to meet North Atlantic Treaty Organization commitments for deployments." Yup. Sure.
Apparently 30 of the 112 tanks are armoured battlefield engineering vehicles, intended for erecting bridges and so on. Statements from within the military hierarchy however, claim that Canada only has about 20 tanks that function. The remainder are in storage or waiting for spare parts. Retired general Rick Hillier, a former Canadian chief of the defence staff, said, "This country’s “operational readiness is low, It’s appallingly low.”Comment
-
I must admit, of all the countries on planet, I can't imagine why Canada would need defensive weapons. Even Trump wouldn't be that daft.Comment
Comment