Ukraine invasion

[RolloTape2025]

You can say endless provocation from the West, and that can be used as a justification. But it doesn't change that Ukraine is a victim here. Attacked and damaged by Russia, not by Western provocation. At least not damaged in a direct way like the current war has.

There is a point where someone 'crosses the Rubicon'. Always there is a backstory, prior conflicts, disagreements etc. but it is clear that Russia did cross with a full invasion in 2022 and various other things dating back to 2014. Just because a person feels threatened, doesn't give them the right to kill 100s of thousands of people (a moral standpoint, not a political one) by invading their country and taking the land.

I understand your comment about China building up Mexico into an elite nuclear force and how it wouldn't be allowed by the USA. I don't really see the logic in it though. Advanced countries have nuclear weapons that can be launched across the globe. They have submarines armed with nuclear weapons that are hard to locate and could be sitting off the border of the USA or the UK right now. Advanced planes that are armed with nuclear weapons that are also hard to locate/shoot down. The idea that nuclear weapons can't be on our borders doesn't make much sense when they can be launched across the globe and dropped on precise targets in under 30 minutes. What does it matter if they are on your border or not? What will you gain with an advantage of distance between you and them? 5 minutes extra warning that won't actually matter unless you can prevent the missiles hitting? I am not aware that any country has the capability to prevent a large strike of nuclear missiles in mid-air with any surety. Once the nukes are flying, it will all be over fairly quickly, and that will be true regardless of whether they sit on the Mexico border or in China or anywhere else.

 

[Atilla]

You can say endless provocation from the West, and that can be used as a justification. But it doesn't change that Ukraine is a victim here. Attacked and damaged by Russia, not by Western provocation. At least not damaged in a direct way like the current war has.

There is a point where someone 'crosses the Rubicon'. Always there is a backstory, prior conflicts, disagreements etc. but it is clear that Russia did cross with a full invasion in 2022 and various other things dating back to 2014. Just because a person feels threatened, doesn't give them the right to kill 100s of thousands of people (a moral standpoint, not a political one) by invading their country and taking the land.

I understand your comment about China building up Mexico into an elite nuclear force and how it wouldn't be allowed by the USA. I don't really see the logic in it though. Advanced countries have nuclear weapons that can be launched across the globe. They have submarines armed with nuclear weapons that are hard to locate and could be sitting off the border of the USA or the UK right now. Advanced planes that are armed with nuclear weapons that are also hard to locate/shoot down. The idea that nuclear weapons can't be on our borders doesn't make much sense when they can be launched across the globe and dropped on precise targets in under 30 minutes. What does it matter if they are on your border or not? What will you gain with an advantage of distance between you and them? 5 minutes extra warning that won't actually matter unless you can prevent the missiles hitting? I am not aware that any country has the capability to prevent a large strike of nuclear missiles in mid-air with any surety. Once the nukes are flying, it will all be over fairly quickly, and that will be true regardless of whether they sit on the Mexico border or in China or anywhere else.

When the nukes are next to your border, your response time is likely to be in seconds not minutes. With nukes, first strike gives the aggressor a clear advantage. If key bases are taken out, firing from submarines or mobile units is just a last dying flinch from the losing side. Proximity and response times a fundamental key factors.

There is one other fact Ukraine seems to be missing here which makes no sense. Being a neighbour to Russia, hosting and firing nukes for NATO, means it will also come under the effect of radiation fall out because the weather patters will carry radia-active clouds and rains to where ever the wind blows. So it's really a zero sum game for both Russia and Ukraine.

You need to ask who wins from all this? Well obviously it's uncle Sam, and it's big 5 dogs of war CORPORATIONs making billions whilst being away from it all.

 

[RolloTape2025]

When the nukes are next to your border, your response time is likely to be in seconds not minutes. With nukes, first strike gives the aggressor a clear advantage. If key bases are taken out, firing from submarines or mobile units is just a last dying flinch from the losing side. Proximity and response times a fundamental key factors.

There is one other stupid fact Ukraine seems to be missing here which makes no sense. Being a neighbour to Russia, hosting and firing nukes for NATO, means it will also come under the effect of radiation fall out because the weather patters will carry radia-active clouds and rains to where ever the wind blows. So it's really a zero sum game for both Russia and Ukraine.

You need to ask who wins from all this? Well obviously it's uncle Sam, and it's big 5 dogs of war CORPORATIONs making billions whilst being away from it all.

I don't agree. 'Response time' typically means the time you have to launch a counter attack. It doesn't change the overall situation. In the example, Mexico launches a nuclear attack and devastates the USA, and the USA has 100s of missile silos and submarines sitting off coasts that weren't hit by that attack and they 'respond' and devastate Mexico. Both sides are devastated, there was no advantage to be gained. The result is always the same, devastation to both. One took 5 minutes, the other took 25 minutes. What is this 'clear advantage' you think one is getting? It doesn't exist. The only border issue concern applies to non-nuclear type war. And the reason you can tell that there is no advantage, is because this is why things like nuclear submarines became valuable militarily as a deterrent. So that you could always strike back, even if someone launched at you first. The distance doesn't matter. Unless you can actually use that response time to shoot down all the attacking missiles. But that hasn't been demonstrated as far as I am aware.

The rest of your post I agree with. Except that Russia gains some land/territorial control. Debateable how valuable that is, but they think it is.

 

[timsk]

Hi RT,

You can say endless provocation from the West, and that can be used as a justification. But it doesn't change that Ukraine is a victim here. Attacked and damaged by Russia, not by Western provocation. At least not damaged in a direct way like the current war has.

I agree, but would add that Ukraine is a victim of U.S. foreign policy as much as anything else. If it wasn't for that and their (i.e. U.S.) continued meddling in other people's affairs the world over - Ukraine wouldn't be in the mess it's now in. Also, if Zelensky had a shred of decency, he would have stuck to his manifesto promises that got him elected - which was to get rid of corruption (what a joke!) and to stop the victimization and ethnic cleansing of Russians living in the Donbas region. He reneged on both.

There is a point where someone 'crosses the Rubicon'. Always there is a backstory, prior conflicts, disagreements etc. but it is clear that Russia did cross with a full invasion in 2022 and various other things dating back to 2014. Just because a person feels threatened, doesn't give them the right to kill 100s of thousands of people (a moral standpoint, not a political one) by invading their country and taking the land.

Yes, you're right, which is why I'm at pains to point out that I'm not a supporter of Putin and Russia. As a matter of principle, I believe there are always other options to be explored before the military one is taken. Also, as devil's advocate, Russia would argue that the rubicon was crossed by the west years ago and has been repeatedly crossed many times since!

I understand your comment about China building up Mexico into an elite nuclear force and how it wouldn't be allowed by the USA. I don't really see the logic in it though. Advanced countries have nuclear weapons that can be launched across the globe. They have submarines armed with nuclear weapons that are hard to locate and could be sitting off the border of the USA or the UK right now. Advanced planes that are armed with nuclear weapons that are also hard to locate/shoot down. The idea that nuclear weapons can't be on our borders doesn't make much sense when they can be launched across the globe and dropped on precise targets in under 30 minutes. What does it matter if they are on your border or not? What will you gain with an advantage of distance between you and them? 5 minutes extra warning that won't actually matter unless you can prevent the missiles hitting? I am not aware that any country has the capability to prevent a large strike of nuclear missiles in mid-air with any surety. Once the nukes are flying, it will all be over fairly quickly, and that will be true regardless of whether they sit on the Mexico border or in China or anywhere else.

Atilla has already addressed this point. I would add that if you take out the command and control centre (i.e. the Kremlin) it will make it extremely difficult for Russia to strike back with any real effectiveness. Sure, they'll get a missiles away, some may even hit their intended target. However, there are nutjobs in the U.S. more than happy to take that gamble and believe their own BS that they can shoot down anything Russia fires at them.

Even if you're 100% correct in what you say, it's reasonable to assume that ordinary Russians (especially those living in Moscow) would expect their leaders to stop their enemies from using Ukraine as a proxy and putting nuclear weapons right at their front door. It also begs the question: if the U.S. is a benign power (all evidence is to the contrary), and they have no military ambitions towards Russia - why provocate them in the first place? What's the point in doing something that you yourself would not tolerate if the roles were reversed and the shoe was on the other foot?
Tim.

 

[Atilla]

I don't disagree with all of that. But there are some things I would challenge.

"Crimea always belonged to Russia". Nothing always belonged to ... {insert a country or people here}. People have fought over land and resources and defined borders for many thousands of years, long before Russia existed in its current form. That type of thinking leads to all kinds of problems all over the world, usually death and destruction and groups of people convinced they have the right to commit war atrocities because it is 'their land'. Please stop thinking like that. It obviously cannot be right.

Fair point. Use of always in the history of human evolution is not the right word but let's say in our lifetime or in the last couple of hundred years. Otherwise, people can take up issue with what ever suits their needs. For example Zionists who believe god gave them the land and promised only them the king of kings to save them all etc., coz they are the chosen people.

Ultimately, however, if we don't let bygones be bygones and take some common sense approach here, we are collectively looking into a cesspit of madness - Zionist being case in point.

There was a point in time very recently where Crimea was not a part of Russia and it was taken back/annexed in 2014. It was given up by the Soviet Union decades before in the 1950s, right? You can debate why the Soviet union did that, but you don't get to claim it is Russia's land anyway. After world war II and the allies have West Germany under control, let's give it back to German control...but you know what, we did control it once, and we did give it back, so maybe we still own it and can annex it again? UK controlled Hong Kong, but it was given to China. Should we think it is ok to go to war to take HK back? Is this how you think?

I did say Russia has some valid security concerns, NATO membership of Ukraine on their borders for example. That is a justification, but does not change that someone strikes first and someone is the aggressor/invader. A person could be in a position where they are worried for their personal safety, perhaps they need to hit someone in self-defence. However, in the analogy Russia is by far the stronger person in this fight, and Ukraine isn't really advancing to take Russian lands, they are mostly defending. So it doesn't feel like Russia is just in a state of self-defence. I think if you got into a situation on the street, and decided you had to hit a much smaller weaker person, and they just tried to protect their body and you carried on attacking again and again, it wouldn't be considered self-defence. And certainly not if you carried on beating them for several years.

I think Tim has answered this post and I'd say the same. Kennedy was ready to strike Cuba if it hosted any Warsaw weapons and this notice was sent to the Russians and Cubans in no uncertain terms. Similarly if Mexico were to host Nukes, US and any other country in that scenario would take the same step. If you ignore this point then forgive me but you are not being realistic.

Voltaire may well have said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" all sounds very nice but not what is being played out in our Western democracies. I think more likely, people are dying and being silenced to perpetuate the lies. Once again look at what Israel is doing and how over 100 journalists killed, supported by US and UK weapons to silence the truth in Gaza.

"Russia said many times Ukraine joining NATO is a red line ultimately will lead to WW3". Yes this is a threat of violence. Russia has no real right to tell other countries they need to be neutral like Switzerland. Of course strategically they may not like Ukraine joining NATO, but they are not in charge of what other countries determine for themselves. Only a bully would do that. They can attack and create wars in their own interest, which is what they have done, but I don't think it is right to say "Russia warned they didn't want x, y or z to happen, so now it is your fault". We don't all bow down to mother Russia's desires. At least not yet.

And I also mentioned before about very worrying comments about USA wanting Greenland. So I am not in a West versus commie Russia/China mentality. But we have to apply some logic. Crimea was very recently not part of Russia. It was taken. Parts of Ukraine (non-Crimean) are also recently being taken by Russia, violently.

My comment about neutrality similar to Switzerland, was an opinion and you are right about sovereignty and independence, but as above, there is reality and then there is common sense.

The US and the West new exactly what it was doing expanding the so called defensive NATO alliance all the way to Russia's border and the consequences.

There have been precedents and there is diplomacy. There is no reason this war perpetrated by the West and fuelled by Ukraine should have started imho.

If I was leading Ukraine, I would do everything in my power to pursue friendly neighbouring policies, and jump at the chance of neutrality to be like Switzerland and membership of the EU. I really REALLY struggle with how Zelensky could have possibly turned down this deal?


It is also worth remembering that consequences of this war has made Russia and China stronger.

US has dumped on the EU, UK and most spectacularly Ukraine which has made US very rich indeed. The fall out is clear for everyone to see.

 

[RolloTape2025]

I think Tim has answered this post and I'd say the same. Kennedy was ready to strike Cuba if it hosted any Warsaw weapons and this notice was sent to the Russians and Cubans in no uncertain terms. Similarly if Mexico were to host Nukes, US and any other country in that scenario would take the same step. If you ignore this point then forgive me but you are not being realistic.

My comment about neutrality similar to Switzerland, was an opinion and you are right about sovereignty and independence, but as above, there is reality and then there is common sense.

There have been precedents and there is diplomacy. There is no reason this war perpetrated by the West and fuelled by Ukraine should have started imho.

If I was leading Ukraine, I would do everything in my power to pursue friendly neighbouring policies, and jump at the chance of neutrality to be like Switzerland and membership of the EU. I really REALLY struggle with how Zelensky could have possibly turned down this deal?


It is also worth remembering that consequences of this war has made Russia and China stronger.

US has dumped on the EU, UK and most spectacularly Ukraine which has made US very rich indeed. The fall out is clear for everyone to see.

But Cuba did host 'Warsaw'/Russian weapons. They were already being deployed in Cuba. Invasion was considered. Nuclear war was considered, but ultimately diplomacy won the day. Although it was a pretty close thing from what I have read. Which sort of shows the stupidity that I mentioned. We could have ended up in an all out nuclear war destroying the world, because of an invalid concern about nuclear weapons being in neighbouring Cuba...while at the very same time, there was a Russian nuclear armed submarine in the waters around Cuba (Submarine B-59) which almost launched a nuclear weapon. That is a classic example of worrying about all the wrong things and making the situation possibly much worse. Russia's invasion of Ukraine could have started World War 3 and the destruction of the world, because of an invalid concern.

On that point, google search says that a US Ohio class submarine can hold up to 288 nuclear warheads. They have at least 14 of these submarines. These warheads are 20 to 80 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. They also have missile silos and bomber planes that can be quickly launched and deploy nuclear weapons, and all of these can act quite well regardless of whether US was hit first or from the other side, whether a command and control centre like Washington DC or the Kremlin or wherever have been taken out. And that also doesn't include allies who also would be forced to launch.

So no, there is no common sense to worrying about nuclear weapons on your border. In the UK we are not particularly worried about France and their nuclear arsenal. I agree some people may be worried about missiles in Mexico and an equally stupid politician may want to do something about it, but it just ensures mutual destruction and so diplomacy IS the only common sense approach. Otherwise it is creating a problem which could rapidly escalate into the very thing you don't want, simply because one thinks erroneously that a few hundred miles location will make a difference in an all-out nuclear Armageddon. It won't. So instead let's have diplomacy.

Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons, nor is it in NATO, nor was it threatening Russia or building up a massive military on the border to invade. Russia did build up a military on the board and in Belarus. Those are conventional weapons and not nuclear and in that case you can worry about build up on your border. But it was Russia doing that.

I don't want to defend USA and their foreign interference over history as it is pretty indefensible but so is what Russia is doing right now.

Regarding your other comment, I also did do some searches about whether Zelensky would have accepted neutrality, and there were a lot of articles that stated he was willing to do that. I don't know whether that is the truth or not, but there seems some evidence he was open to it at least.

 

[Atilla]

But Cuba did host 'Warsaw'/Russian weapons. They were already being deployed in Cuba. Invasion was considered. Nuclear war was considered, but ultimately diplomacy won the day. Although it was a pretty close thing from what I have read. Which sort of shows the stupidity that I mentioned. We could have ended up in an all out nuclear war destroying the world, because of an invalid concern about nuclear weapons being in neighbouring Cuba...while at the very same time, there was a Russian nuclear armed submarine in the waters around Cuba (Submarine B-59) which almost launched a nuclear weapon. That is a classic example of worrying about all the wrong things and making the situation possibly much worse.

On that point, google search says that a US Ohio class submarine can hold up to 288 nuclear warheads. They have at least 14 of these submarines. These warheads are 20 to 80 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. They also have missile silos and bomber planes that can be quickly launched and deploy nuclear weapons, and all of these can act quite well regardless of whether US was hit first or from the other side, whether a command and control centre like Washington DC or the Kremlin or wherever have been taken out. And that also doesn't include allies who also would be forced to launch.

So no, there is no common sense to worrying about nuclear weapons on your border. I agree some people may be worried about missiles in Mexico and an equally stupid politician may want to do something about it, but it just ensures mutual destruction and so diplomacy IS the only common sense approach. Otherwise it is creating a problem which could rapidly escalate into the very thing you don't want, simply because one thinks erroneously that a few hundred miles location will make a difference in an all-out nuclear Armageddon. It won't. So instead let's have diplomacy.

Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons, nor is it in NATO, nor was it threatening Russia or building up a massive military on the border to invade. Russia did build up a military on the board and in Belarus. Those are conventional weapons and not nuclear and in that case you can worry about build up on your border. But it was Russia doing that.

I don't want to defend USA and their foreign interference over history as it is pretty indefensible but so is what Russia is doing right now.

Regarding your other comment, I also did do some searches about whether Zelensky would have accepted neutrality, and there were a lot of articles that stated he was willing to do that. I don't know whether that is the truth or not, but there seems some evidence he was open to it at least.

Agree with much of what you say and it is sad that Russia's security concerns could not be acknowledged and some sort of diplomatic settlement reached.

wrt Cuba, as I understand it it was the Russian's that backed down, because after some psychological assessment of Fidel Castro it was deemed he could push the red button and thus not reliable. Much like some people have concerns over Trump that he is capable of pushing that red button, as he does like to exercise power knowing he can get away with it.

Irrespective of what we think about the start of this war the consequences have been a high inflation, high interest rates, higher energy prices, loss of billions for us in the UK and Europe giving away money to Ukraine to continue a losing fight, whilst US has gained imho. We can all make up our own minds about who the winners and losers are.

👍

 

[RolloTape2025]

Agree with much of what you say and it is sad that Russia's security concerns could not be acknowledged and some sort of diplomatic settlement reached.

wrt Cuba, as I understand it it was the Russian's that backed down, because after some psychological assessment of Fidel Castro it was deemed he could push the red button and thus not reliable. Much like some people have concerns over Trump that he is capable of pushing that red button, as he does like to exercise power knowing he can get away with it.

Irrespective of what we think about the start of this war the consequences have been a high inflation, high interest rates, higher energy prices, loss of billions for us in the UK and Europe giving away money to Ukraine to continue a losing fight, whilst US has gained imho. We can all make up our own minds about who the winners and losers are.

👍

Yes. I think with Cuba both sides backed down a bit, both willing to concede things and both not really wanting a nuclear war. Saner heads prevailed.

I too wish saner heads would have prevailed for Ukraine.

 

[timsk]

Yes. I think with Cuba both sides backed down a bit, both willing to concede things and both not really wanting a nuclear war. Saner heads prevailed.

I too wish saner heads would have prevailed for Ukraine.

You make a lot of good points RT and I agree with much of what you say. With regard to diplomacy, the one (only?!) good thing about the Trump administration is that they are at least talking to their Russian counterparts. That wasn't happening under Biden - which is insane, IMO. Also, for their part, the Ukrainian government have passed a law making it illegal to engage with the Russians - so there is zero direct contact between the two sides. This comes solely from Zelensky although, to be fair, my understanding is that Russia will not agree to any final peace settlement while Zelensky remains in power.

So, ultimately, Zelensky will have to go - which is one reason why he does not want peace. The other is that he knows he's going to have to give Russia most - if not all - of he land to the east that they've captured since the war began. This is totally unacceptable to the far right Azov nationalists who will treat Zelensky as a traitor if he signs such a deal. Effectively, he'll have a target on his back. Then there are millions of bereaved Ukrainian families who know - just as we do - that Zelensky could have ended the war in the first month, but chose not to for reasons that Atilla has mentioned several times he struggles to understand. So, he's not popular with huge swathes of his own people, either. Then there are any number of Russians who loathe him in equal measure. All in all, he has a lot of enemies. When the war ends, he'll have his $millions, but he'll spend the rest of his days looking over his shoulder and wondering if the cup of tea he's served in a fine bone china cup in an exclusive restaurant is laced with polonium. Not a nice way to live, IMO.
Tim.

 

[RolloTape2025]

Zelensky's best bet seems to be to resign then. For Ukraine and for himself so that he isn't killed by his own people or Russia. Failing that, at least open some dialogue with Russia and be open-minded to concessions.

It is stupid to have zero contact between sides.

I won't put all of that on Ukraine though. In this unbalanced war, Russia 'could' in effect end it tomorrow and withdraw. Not that they would want to, but they could. Ukraine cannot end this war by their own decision, they would need lots of concessions, agreements, Zelensky resignation etc. They don't have nearly as much power to end it as Russia. So there is an onus on Russia, and we can't just blame Zelensky for not ending it.

Probably earlier on, the war could have been halted and avoided, even a month in as you mentioned. But perhaps human nature is that after a certain amount of atrocities have been witnessed, it's fight to the death mentality.

New people need to step forward on either or both sides and hopefully some progress. People that can at least negotiate something. Or perhaps another country can step in, as the latest news I read was that USA is stepping out completely now that the minerals deal is done.

Although I don't believe Russia is losing the war like some media have said, it must be taking a quite heavy toll on them too. As a super power they can handle it, but they must also be suffering heavily, lost lives, lost military equipment, high inflation, financial losses, the drain of a 3 year war on their whole system. They may be wanting a deal and thinking this attrition can't go on for too many more years

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Ukraine Sold And Dropped: Kyiv Left Face To Face With Russian Army

DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK: MONERO (XMR): 86yfEHs6pkoDEKCxc6MAnQX8cVHmzhYxMVrNuwKgNmqpWK8dDxjgGnK8PtUNJMACbn6xEGxmRauNTHJhUJpg9Mwz8htBBND BITCOIN (BTC): bc1qgu58lfszcpqu6fd8l98m378wgzugyg9y93lcym BITCOIN CASH...

southfront.press

US-Ukraine Minerals Deal ‘Isn't Worth the Paper it's Printed On' - Expert

The new minerals deal is unlikely to yield any payoff for Ukraine, Matthew Crosston, professor of national security and director of academic transformation at Bowie State University, told Sputnik.

sputnikglobe.com

Zelensky threatens world leaders ahead of Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations​

Zelensky’s Veiled Threat Against Foreign Leaders Attending Parade in Moscow Signals His Derangement

“Truly, the regime has become a terrorist state and a terrorist gang led by Zelensky,” veteran military and political observer Evgeny Mikhailov told Sputnik, commenting on Zelensky’s warning Saturday that Ukraine “cannot take responsibility for what happens” in Russia on May 9.

sputnikglobe.com

Moscow responds to Zelensky’s Victory Day threats​

Putin’s ceasefire offer is ‘test’ for Ukraine – Kremlin​

Zelensky’s Ceasefire Rejection is a Terrorist Threat on Global Scale - Moscow

Earlier in the day, Zelensky rejected Russia's proposal for a three-day ceasefire on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Victory in World War II, saying that Ukraine cannot guarantee the safety of foreign guests who will attend the May 9 parade in Moscow.

sputnikglobe.com

Ukrainian troops to take part in Victory Day parade in London – UK MOD​

Moscow has called the move “blasphemous” and “disrespectful” due to Kiev’s open glorification of Nazism

Ukrainian Attacks On Territory Of Russia On May 3, 2025 (Map Update)

During the past night, Russian air defenses destroyed 170 Ukrainian drones in the rear regions;At night, Russian air defense intercepted 96 UAVs over the Crimean Peninsula;At night, Russian air defense intercepted 47 UAVs in the Krasnodar region;At night, Russian air defense intercepted 9 UAVs...

southfront.press

Military Situation In Ukraine On May 3, 2025 (Maps Update)

Russian forces advanced and entered Novolenovka village;Russian forces are storming the outskirts of Novaya Poltavka;Fighting is ongoing near Alexandropol;Russian forces gained a foothold in the eastern part of Malinovka. Fighting is ongoing;Russian forces are storming Stara Mykolaivka;

southfront.press

 

[Mactheriverrat]

If Ukraine attacks Moscow during the May 9 WW2 victory day celebration. There will be major escalation of this war.