Russia and Ukraine

[Mainshow]

I also think thereīs something "off" or at least "unknown" - especially since Macron just confirmed that there had been "two missiles hitting Poland".

"One missile" might have been a mistake (either by RuZZia by shooting 100 rockets to Ukraine and one of them "going to far" or Ukraine by shooting down RuZZian rockets which were about to kill Ukrainians and one of them falling into Polandīs territory by mistake) but "two of them"? - That would be a tragic "coincidence".

Anyway, I will not draw to any conclusion(s) and itīs not my place to make such calls. This thread should be about facts and information on the war (and of course, us discussing whatīs been happening).
We need to wait until all facts are known AND we (NATO) have to act to finally make territories around Ukraine safer (what all forum members agreed on).

[franklex]

You're once again attacking another person and overreacting to an opinion different than yours. The truth is that the EU, whose part is also Greece, is sending constantly funds to help Ukraine with this war. So, please stop talking nonsense because at this case you're being unnecessarily harsh.

unnecessarily harsh is to suggest to Ukraine to surender and/or die or say it is poor and do not deserve anything like it was in that case. Hungary is also a part of EU, so? So that do says Orban is also should make feel ukrainians happy about, becouse Hungary pays???

[Mainshow]

Poland will probably not "activate" article 4 since they donīt treat this "incident" as an attack on Poland. However, they will elaborate and further discuss it.
Still, some measurements have to be agreed on to secure the regions.

source: Tagesschau, BBC

According to Belgium, both - pieces of a RuZZian missile as well as an Ukrainian interception missile have hit Poland.

They back up Macronīs statement that two missiles have hit Poland.

Ukraine war latest: No sign missile hit was intentional attack - Polish president - BBC News

[Mainshow]

Stoltenberg says Ukrainian air defences the 'likely' cause of blast


Stoltenberg continues by saying the incident in Poland was "likely" caused by the activity of Ukraine's air defence systems - echoing the view of the Polish president.

But the Nato chief is clear that "Russia bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine".

source: BBC Ukraine war latest: No sign missile hit was intentional attack - Polish president - BBC News

Stoltenberg says he welcomes more and more allies providing air defence systems to Ukraine.

"We are mobilising additional support," he says, especially different types of air defences.

[Artoo]

You can’t over react in war. We all grew up with the consequences of 9/11, and the various military operations that were based on bogus intelligence that was trusted, for the most part, because some people just wanted something to blow up. We have to be smarter, and those instantly calling for retaliation against Russia are showing their naïveté.

NATO have declared this an accident, which makes the most sense. Russia simply isn’t in a position to start another war - it cannot win the one it’s already in, never mind trying to fight a second one. I don’t personally believe there are any conspiracies at play, yet some people will not want to believe that for a variety of reasons (no matter what).

But the tragedy should act as additional motive for getting The Ukraine and Russia around a table and an agreement for a peace to be reached (or at least a cease fire).

[Mainshow]

You can’t over react in war. We all grew up with the consequences of 9/11, and the various military operations that were based on bogus intelligence that was trusted, for the most part, because some people just wanted something to blow up. We have to be smarter, and those instantly calling for retaliation against Russia are showing their naïveté.

NATO have declared this an accident, which makes the most sense. Russia simply isn’t in a position to start another war - it cannot win the one it’s already in, never mind trying to fight a second one. I don’t personally believe there are any conspiracies at play, yet some people will not want to believe that for a variety of reasons (no matter what).

But the tragedy should act as additional motive for getting The Ukraine and Russia around a table and an agreement for a peace to be reached (or at least a cease fire).

There HAS to be consequences (not directly targeted at Russia) to make sure that NATO members are better protected next time (such incidents can happen again and again). Also, like NATO said, itīs still "ultimately Russiaīs fault" + we need to wait for the official outcome of the investigations (especially since Macron and Belgium said that two missiles fell into Polandīs territory (one of them being Russian, one of them being Ukrainian, it seems).

Anyway, please donīt take this the wrong way but can you refrain from calling Ukraine "The Ukraine"?.
Just "Ukraine" is fine and grammatically correct.
Making use of the article "The" goes back to Russian colonialisation - implying that "The Ukraine" is just some landscape/region in another country which is clearly not the case.
Thank you ;)

[franklex]

But the tragedy should act as additional motive for getting The Ukraine and Russia around a table and an agreement for a peace to be reached (or at least a cease fire).

Agreement with Russia??? Are you seriouse? How about Minsk agreement 1, 2??? Russia denies Ukraine as a state, Putin denies ukrainians as a nation...

Thats the same as you will suggest to a victim of attack discuss with agressor a what? a break? Do you undrstand what do you suggest?

And even lets say Ukraine agres on somthing how you will made Russia keep any agreement?

[Mainshow]

Ukraine and Russia "around a table" is very naive and it suggest that Russia really wants peace.

The massive load of missiles shot at Ukraine should have been enough "proof" that Russia doesnīt want to end this peacefully.
Russia targetting Ukrainian cities in the West, close to the border and parts of Ukraine they have "retreated from" and not "formally annexed" also proves that Russia wouldnīt just stop after getting "the Donbass region". They didnīt stop after getting Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Crimea..

Thereīs no point of trying to agree with some fascist mass murderers who are committing acts of genocide on some peace treaty. Itīs pointless.

Ukraine already said that they are in for a peace treaty but:
1. Russia has to retreat from all Ukrainian territories.
2. Russia has to pay reparations
3. Russia needs to get a new president.

If Russia really wants peace, they can follow these steps easily and be on the right side of history.. or they can continue playing to be a colonial and imperialist power.

[Artoo]

There HAS to be consequences (not directly targeted at Russia) to make sure that NATO members are better protected next time (such incidents can happen again and again). Also, like NATO said, itīs still "ultimately Russiaīs fault" + we need to wait for the official outcome of the investigations (especially since Macron and Belgium said that two missiles fell into Polandīs territory (one of them being Russian, one of them being Ukrainian, it seems).

Consequences for who?

There is a strong argument to make that NATO failed to protect its own border. Is it NATO’s fault for not having technology in place to prevent missiles crossing a border (rogue or otherwise) it shares with a country at war, or the fault of the neighbouring country accidentally causing an issue when trying to defend itself?

Accidents happen. No one was challenging NATO’s authority. Intent matters and there appears to be zero intent to deliberately attack or involve NATO.

[Mainshow]

Consequences for who?

There is a strong argument to make that NATO failed to protect its own border. Is it NATO’s fault for not having technology in place to prevent missiles crossing a border (rogue or otherwise) it shares with a country at war, or the fault of the neighbouring country accidentally causing an issue when trying to defend itself?

Accidents happen. No one was challenging NATO’s authority. Intent matters and there appears to be zero intent to deliberately attack or involve NATO.

NATO, Russia and Ukraine.

NATO because they werenīt able to protect their own civilians (new measurements which Latvia already suggested, Germany has offered to Poland and Poland has already initiated)
Russia because they are still "ultimately to blame" for this incident because they caused the whole situation by deliberately blasting tons of missiles without making sure that they donīt come close to NATO borders (they provoked everything).
Ukraine because they need a better "protection" (a "positive" consequence like getting more airdefence systems - like Stoltenberg already suggested) and Selensky needs to wait to blame anyone straight away (diplomatic talks to elaborate on that issue).

[marat2408]

Ukraine already said that they are in for a peace treaty but:
1. Russia has to retreat from all Ukrainian territories.
2. Russia has to pay reparations
3. Russia needs to get a new president.

If Russia really wants peace, they can follow these steps easily and be on the right side of history.. or they can continue playing to be a colonial and imperialist power.

That is not for you to decide.

[Mainshow]

That is not for you to decide.

And you are lucky because I didnīt decide it - Thatīs the conditions for peace talks/treaties (coming from Ukrainian authorities/officials).

[Artoo]

Agreement with Russia??? Are you seriouse? How about Minsk agreement 1, 2??? Russia denies Ukraine as a state, Putin denies ukrainians as a nation...

Thats the same as you will suggest to a victim of attack discuss with agressor a what? a break? Do you undrstand what do you suggest?

And even lets say Ukraine agres on somthing how you will made Russia keep any agreement?

I am very serious - ultimately diplomacy is the only way out of this. It also doesn’t matter if Putin believes the rubbish he says - it doesn’t make it true, and he knows this.

franklex why don’t you tell us exactly what The Ukraine wants and how it intends to achieve that? What do you classify as a victory, and how do you intend to endure Russia doesn’t repeat this entire exercise in five years?

As far as I can see, the only guarantee you have is if you invade Russia and overthrow Putin. Failing that, it’s going to have to be a diplomatic solution.

NATO membership will be impossible unless there is peace, so that’s not a viable solution: if NATO were happy to admit you and absorb the conflict, it would have already done so.

[marat2408]

I want to appeal to mods to change the title of this thread. There are no evidence that it were russian missiles. Innocent until proven guilty. Do not misinform.

[franklex]

Consequences for who?

There is a strong argument to make that NATO failed to protect its own border. Is it NATO’s fault for not having technology in place to prevent missiles crossing a border (rogue or otherwise) it shares with a country at war, or the fault of the neighbouring country accidentally causing an issue when trying to defend itself?

Accidents happen. No one was challenging NATO’s authority. Intent matters and there appears to be zero intent to deliberately attack or involve NATO.

I guess, mainshow ment for NATO. Air defence system of Ukraine can not to strike all incoming rockets and not as effectiv as western onces and Nato could protect its borders by giving months ago more air defence systems that would shout down missiles at the central and eastern parts over Ukraine but not when they are almost at the border of Ukraine and Nato membrs.

[Mainshow]

Ukraine, please. Artoo

I agree with you, though, to end this conflict, it has to be on "diplomatic terms" but right now, thatīs simple not possible because Russiaīs elite are fascists and Ukraine shouldnīt and will not easily give up 4 regions (especially since none of them has been fully invaded, conquered and occupied by Russia.

The best case scenario - in my opinion - is for Ukraine to get hold of Crimea and maybe get in talks with Russia afterwards ("maybe" letting Crimea be Russian in favor to get back all regions of the Donbass region) but thatīs not something we can decide and itīs something which is highly questionable because the Eastern parts of Ukraine as well as Crimea voted in favor of becoming independent from Russia and it would be another horrible "victory" for a fascist regime whose successful invasions of Moldova and Georgia and Crimea led to the belief that they can "conquer Kyiv within 5 days" - Russia will not stop after getting either Crimea or the Donbass (since they already tried to conquer Kyiv, attacked Lviv and tried to reach Transnistria).

[franklex]

Consequences for who?

There is a strong argument to make that NATO failed to protect its own border. Is it NATO’s fault for not having technology in place to prevent missiles crossing a border (rogue or otherwise) it shares with a country at war, or the fault of the neighbouring country accidentally causing an issue when trying to defend itself?

I also think they could shut down that russian missile but it would mean that Nato shut down russian misils directly and involvs it into a war. But nato many times repeat it wont protect air of Ukraine and wont shut rockts from its thrithory. And when ukrainian anti-misile rocket tried to shut down russian missile there was nothing to do for nato air defence systems, I guess they simply were out of needed time or distanc to do somthing.

[Mainshow]

I want to appeal to mods to change the title of this thread. There are no evidence that it were russian missiles. Innocent until proven guilty. Do not misinform.

I agree with you.

I wouldnīt call this "misinformation" because that were basically the news yesterday (when they changed the thread title) but it should be back to the previous one, for sure.

From what we know now (and we still have to wait to get to know further information), it was a Soviet missile used by Ukrainians to counterattack Russian missiles. But that would be too long and misleading for a thread title.

That said, Russia is not "innocent" in this incident - even if the missiles have been entirely Ukrainian fired from Ukrainian territory because Russia caused the overall situation by invading Ukraine and shooting tons of missiles (which Ukraine was trying to counterattack).

[Artoo]

Ukraine and Russia "around a table" is very naive and it suggest that Russia really wants peace.

Russia and The Ukraine already entered into diplomacy at the start of this conflict. They already sat around a table whilst soldiers fought. Wasn’t there even an agreed ceasefire so civilians could leave the country?

So much happened, but my understanding is that negotiations and diplomacy never actually stopped. Didn’t Zelensky offer Russia an agreement to not join NATO a few weeks ago, as a means of a ceasefire?

[Mainshow]

Russia and The Ukraine already entered into diplomacy at the start of this conflict. They already sat around a table whilst soldiers fought. Wasn’t there even an agreed ceasefire so civilians could leave the country?

So much happened, but my understanding is that negotiations and diplomacy never actually stopped. Didn’t Zelensky offer Russia an agreement to not join NATO a few weeks ago, as a means of a ceasefire?

Many things happened in this war - I canīt recall everything (especially not correctly) but I also think that Ukraine propsed to give up their dream of joining NATO if they can join EU instead - but dunno, Russia is going fully Hitler-mode "protecting" Russian culture and language in Ukraine and thus, wants to "achieve more than just conquering the Donbass region") - they also want to "turn Ukraine into a neutral state" (whatever it means.. probably as neutral as Kazakhstan in which Russian soldiers were able to shoot at protestors in January or neutral as Belarus in which Russian soldiers, missiles and nuclear weapons can be sent to EU borders or invade Ukraine from). Thereīs no common ground right now.

[Artoo]

According to NATO:

Asked whether he can give more details regarding the missile explosion in Poland, Stoltenberg says it would not be right to give more details while an investigation is ongoing, reiterating that preliminary findings show it was likely a Ukrainian air defence missile.

BBC

[Mainshow]

Btw, two interesting articles why "The Ukraine" is wrong:

From 2022:

English makes this distinction not with different prepositions but with the definite article “the.” English speakers use “in” before the name of a politically defined unit such as a nation or a state, and “in the” for a territory that is not politically defined. Hence, “last week I was in Kentucky,” or “last week I was in the Bluegrass region.”

“Last week I was in Ohio” is fine, but if I turn to a friend and say, “Last week I was in the Ohio,” she might reasonably think I was in the waters of the Ohio River, on a cold swim.

There are exceptions, but these are the general principles that bind speakers of Russian and English.

The distinction is critically important for the sovereignty of the Ukrainian nation-state, suggesting as it does that Ukraine is either a bounded nation-state—like Germany—or a region of Russia with amorphous borders—like the Caucasus. This is why, in 1993, Ukraine’s government asked Russia’s government to abandon the Soviet-era practice of referring to Ukraine as “na Ukraine” and use only “v Ukraine.” The “na” construction is, however, still widely used in Russia.

To a Ukrainian worried about the nation-state’s territorial integrity, that little word “the” might suggest that the speaker does not much care whether Ukraine is an independent state. Like it or not, and intentionally or not, the language a person uses reflects their political positions, including their position on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.

So, does Putin say “na Ukraine”—“in the Ukraine”—or “v Ukraine” (“in Ukraine”)? In a subtle twist of diplomacy, the English-language translations of Putin’s recent addresses have him describing “the events in Ukraine,” even though he says “na Ukraine” in Russian throughout his addresses.

Even Putin’s translators see the benefit of sticking with the official English-language name of Ukraine. Perhaps they hope it will make the content more palatable to a Western Anglophone audience. But make no mistake: Putin is arguing that Ukraine’s sovereignty is a historical fiction, and he is underscoring his point by referring to events happening “na,” not “v,” Ukraine. English speakers don’t have to follow him by saying “the.”

The Politics of “Ukraine” Versus “the Ukraine” – SAPIENS

From 2015:

Adding "the" before Ukraine is actually a throwback to Communism. Prior to the fall of the USSR, Ukraine was known as "The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic." In 1991, the USSR fell, splitting Ukraine from Russia and permanently cutting off that pesky "the."

Because of the article's association with the Soviet Union, Ukrainians are particularly sensitive about it. "After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians probably decided that the article denigrated their country [by identifying it as a part of Russia] and abolished 'the' while speaking English, so now it is simply Ukraine," explained Oksana Kyzyma, press secretary for the Ukrainian Embassy in the United Kingdom. "That's why 'the' Ukraine suddenly lost its article in the last 20 years, it's a sort of linguistic independence in Europe, it's hugely symbolic."

Why Ukrainians Hate When You Say 'The Ukraine' (newsweek.com)

[Mainshow]

According to NATO:



BBC

posted last page - yeah, it probably and likely was a missile part of the Ukrainian air defence system.

The question remains if there were indeed 2 missiles (like France and Belgium claimed - one of them being Russian/one Ukrainian). It seems that the Ukrainian one were counterattacking a Russian missile - but we should be waiting for some official information.

[Artoo]

And now we’re going around in circles.

We're hearing more from the US now, where American Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin has been speaking about the air defence systems the US has supplied to Ukraine since the war with Russia began.

During a routine meeting of defence ministers, Austin is quoted by Reuters news agency as saying the US has provided Ukraine with a number of what are called NASAMS air defence systems.

And they've had a 100% success rate in Ukraine intercepting Russian missiles, he reportedly adds.

Careful not to assign blame, Austin repeated assurances issued by other US officials - and fellow Nato countries - that Washington would work with Poland to gather more information on the explosion in Poland yesterday.

BBC

[Mainshow]

And now we’re going around in circles.



BBC

From my understand, Ukraine use different types of air defence systems/tanks etc. (like what they already had, got sent by NATO members, etc.)
Itīs clearly some additional piece of information but it doesnīt make other aspects/information "untrue" at this stage, imo - or am I failing to see the message of that post/article?