Next Battle In Ukraine Tougher For Ukrainians!

[Donald H]

America & Russia will continue to use Ukraine for a battleground. Neither will use nukes. This will end when the Russian military & people have had enough.

So far it looks like NATO has the superior weaponry.

The Moskva was the most sophisticated weaponry that the Russians have. It wasn't just any ship. The fact that it was sunk shows how far ahead the West is.

Maybe I should also ask you if any country's navy has warship capability to defend against the most modern weapons? Britain lost a modern warship of the same vintage in the Falklands.

Would you say with any certainty that America's aircraft carriers have defensive capability now that hypersonic weapons are a threat?
Or the Skvar torpedo with a nuclear warhead, travelling at 200 Mph?

 

[Donald H]

​

Noun[edit]
Manicheist (plural Manicheists)

1. Alternative form of Manichaean

Manicheist - Wiktionary

en.wiktionary.org

Manichaeism​

Manichaean theology taught a dualistic view of the world as a battle between good and evil.

Manichaeism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks for that, I'm a little pressed for time.

 

[Donald H]

The Ukrainian Air Force Just Got Bigger. It Seems Someone Gave Kyiv More MiG-29s.​

...
Amazingly considering the odds against them, Ukraine’s airmen have more flyable fighters today than they did in early April, according to U.S. Defense Department spokesman John Kirby.

Kyiv’s air force has “more operable fighter aircraft than they had two weeks ago,” Kirby told reporters Tuesday.

Donations of airplanes, and airplane parts, made it possible. “I would just say, without getting into what other nations are providing, that they have received additional platforms and parts to be able to increase their fleet size,” Kirby said.

It’s not hard to guess what Kirby was referring to. The governments of Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia weeks ago all signaled some degree of willingness to transfer to Ukraine old MiG-29s or spares for the same.
...

The Ukrainian Air Force Just Got Bigger. It Seems Someone Gave Kyiv More MiG-29s.

The Mig29 is a formidable aircraft and no doubt will be seen as an escalation by Russia.

What are it's intended design capabilities?
Will it be an asset to the Ukraine as a bomber?

 

[Stryder50]

The Mig29 is a formidable aircraft and no doubt will be seen as an escalation by Russia.

What are it's intended design capabilities?
Will it be an asset to the Ukraine as a bomber?

Web-searching and "goggle~etc." can help here;
...
The Mikoyan MiG-29 (Russian: Микоян МиГ-29; NATO reporting name: Fulcrum) is a twin-engine supermaneuverable fighter aircraft designed in the Soviet Union. Developed by the Mikoyan design bureau as an air superiority fighter during the 1970s, the MiG-29, along with the larger Sukhoi Su-27, was developed to counter new U.S. fighters such as the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon.[2] The MiG-29 entered service with the Soviet Air Forces in 1982.

While originally oriented towards combat against any enemy aircraft, many MiG-29s have been furnished as multirole fighters capable of performing a number of different operations, and are commonly outfitted to use a range of air-to-surface armaments and precision munitions. The MiG-29 has been manufactured in several major variants, including the multirole Mikoyan MiG-29M and the navalised Mikoyan MiG-29K; the most advanced member of the family to date is the Mikoyan MiG-35. Later models frequently feature improved engines, glass cockpits with HOTAS-compatible flight controls, modern radar and infrared search and track (IRST) sensors, and considerably increased fuel capacity; some aircraft have also been equipped for aerial refueling.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the militaries of a number of former Soviet republics have continued to operate the MiG-29, the largest of which is the Russian Air Force. The Russian Air Force wanted to upgrade its existing fleet to the modernised MiG-29SMT configuration, but financial difficulties have limited deliveries. The MiG-29 has also been a popular export aircraft; more than 30 nations either operate or have operated the aircraft to date. As of 2013 the MiG-29 was still in production by Mikoyan, a subsidiary of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) since 2006.
...

Mikoyan MiG-29 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, it's possible some of these may be used in a fighter-bomber role. Their primary value is air-defense and denying Russia use of it's air to ground attack types.

 

[Donald H]

Web-searching and "goggle~etc." can help here;
...
The Mikoyan MiG-29 (Russian: Микоян МиГ-29; NATO reporting name: Fulcrum) is a twin-engine supermaneuverable fighter aircraft designed in the Soviet Union. Developed by the Mikoyan design bureau as an air superiority fighter during the 1970s, the MiG-29, along with the larger Sukhoi Su-27, was developed to counter new U.S. fighters such as the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon.[2] The MiG-29 entered service with the Soviet Air Forces in 1982.

While originally oriented towards combat against any enemy aircraft, many MiG-29s have been furnished as multirole fighters capable of performing a number of different operations, and are commonly outfitted to use a range of air-to-surface armaments and precision munitions. The MiG-29 has been manufactured in several major variants, including the multirole Mikoyan MiG-29M and the navalised Mikoyan MiG-29K; the most advanced member of the family to date is the Mikoyan MiG-35. Later models frequently feature improved engines, glass cockpits with HOTAS-compatible flight controls, modern radar and infrared search and track (IRST) sensors, and considerably increased fuel capacity; some aircraft have also been equipped for aerial refueling.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the militaries of a number of former Soviet republics have continued to operate the MiG-29, the largest of which is the Russian Air Force. The Russian Air Force wanted to upgrade its existing fleet to the modernised MiG-29SMT configuration, but financial difficulties have limited deliveries. The MiG-29 has also been a popular export aircraft; more than 30 nations either operate or have operated the aircraft to date. As of 2013 the MiG-29 was still in production by Mikoyan, a subsidiary of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) since 2006.
...

Mikoyan MiG-29 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, it's possible some of these may be used in a fighter-bomber role. Their primary value is air-defense and denying Russia use of it's air to ground attack types.

Yes, I can google but that doesn't quite answer the question on how the Ukraine will use them.
And also, what enemy does the Ukraine need to bomb?
We still have to consider the Ukraine taking the fight to within Russia's borders.

This war is fraught with some very serious considerations that are so far being ignored.

If the Ukraine crosses Russia's borders, will Russia cross Poland's borders?

 

[Stryder50]

Yes, I can google but that doesn't quite answer the question on how the Ukraine will use them.
And also, what enemy does the Ukraine need to bomb?
We still have to consider the Ukraine taking the fight to within Russia's borders.

This war is fraught with some very serious considerations that are so far being ignored.

If the Ukraine crosses Russia's borders, will Russia cross Poland's borders?

Only the Ukraine can answer the question of how they will use the resources they have and I won't venture to be the "mind-reader" of their intentions.

To the point of your original post/question, the Mig-29 can serve as both an air-defense and and ground attack aircraft, so take and apply as you wish.

Russia crossed Ukraine borders to attack the Ukraine, so of course in sense of "quid-pro-quo" Ukraine can cross Russian borders in retaliations.

I don't either side is ignoring the "serious considerations" that war engenders, looks as if both sides are giving consideration and applications to such.

Also, given how Russia may have over-extended, not sure where and how Russia can expand towards Poland or any other nations that have come to the aid of Ukraine.

 

[krichton]

The Ukrainians only held onto Kyiv due to javelin missiles that cost MORE than the old 1972 Russian tanks.
Once they run out of those missiles, then the Ukraine is finished.

And in the east, the populations that observe, will be Russian instead of Ukrainian.
It is the Ukrainian forces that will be continually ambushed instead.

If Russia is still using the same 1972 tanks without ANY upgrades since 1972 then I would agree, which would mean they are barely combat effective. The ones in russia right now should all be the latest t72 variants that cost 2 million each. Your information, as usual, is always wrong.

There are more javelins in Ukraine right now then there are russian military vehicles. The US has sent 7000 to them. The UK sent 2,000 NLAWs to Ukraine in January. An unknown amount of Carl Gustaf anti tank launchers have also been sent there. The Ukranian army has more than enough anti tank weapons to destroy every Russian tank and military vehicle in Ukraine and have plenty left over. It's getting easier and easier by the day now that Ukraine has more tanks than Russia.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Stop that!

I'm aware of that point you make. You've repeated it a few times.

I haven't accepted it because you've not said anything to convince me it's true. I hope you do!

1. It's not Putin's war, it's Russia's war.
2. Putin holds over 80% popularity and it's increased since the beginning of the war.
3. Russia's struggle is justified. (this isn't proof, it's only my talking point unless it's backed up with evidence)

I invite you to deal with any of the three, or anything else you feel is relevant.

This is Putin's war. Putin had to cut off all independent media & call it a 'Special Military Operation'. The Russian people are only starting to learn the truth.

What's more important is that the Russian military is not happy with this war. They are losing.

Putin's popularity may have surged because of an onslaught of propaganda, but don't count on it lasting. The more Russian casualties, the more Russians will turn against this and against Putin. Those casualties are mounting up quick.

The 'Russian struggle' is NOT justified. If Putin has gone no further than sending the Russian army into Donbas it would have been reasonable, but launching a massive offensive across all of Ukraine is totally unjustified. Even Biden had said that a 'small incursion' would not get a response. He basically green lighted the Russians moving into Donbas.

However, now that the Russians have caused so much suffering throughout Ukraine, even the invasion of Donbas is no longer justified. Putin blew it big time.

I expect a massive Ukrainian counter-attack soon. Expect Russian casualties to be in the tens of thousands. The May 9 celebrations will not go well for Putin.

 

[Donald H]

I expect a massive Ukrainian counter-attack soon. Expect Russian casualties to be in the tens of thousands. The May 9 celebrations will not go well for Putin.

I would agree that there will be a larger counter attack by the Ukraine, but I would still maintain that it will be limited to staying within the rules of the war with which Russia can abide.

If the scale of the counter attack is so large to ignore the rules then Russia is going to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. All one needs to remember is that Russia isn't going to lose the war!

And so, I've asked the question of this forum of whether the US will respond with nuclear weapons? (or another nato country, depending on whose war against Russia?)

I quite value your input Richard, you stay within the bounds of rational and civil.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Maybe I should also ask you if any country's navy has warship capability to defend against the most modern weapons? Britain lost a modern warship of the same vintage in the Falklands.

Would you say with any certainty that America's aircraft carriers have defensive capability now that hypersonic weapons are a threat?
Or the Skvar torpedo with a nuclear warhead, travelling at 200 Mph?

The Falklands war was a very long time ago...long before the mass computerization of weaponry.

Stopping a missile at any speed isn't a difficult problem. Just lay down a steady stream of fire across the missile's path and let the missile run into it. Surrounding it with multiple streams of fire negates any maneuverability. Computerized systems can do that with 100% accuracy that older systems could never do. Only overwhelming the ship with more missiles than the system can destroy works.

I'm amazed that the flagship of the Black Sea was hit at all. I'd figure that in addition to it's anti-missile systems, it would have several escort vessels specifically dedicated to anti-missile systems. Perhaps that Russians were a bit to confident in their Black Sea superiority.

 

[Donald H]

The Falklands war was a very long time ago...long before the mass computerization of weaponry.

Stopping a missile at any speed isn't a difficult problem. Just lay down a steady stream of fire across the missile's path and let the missile run into it. Surrounding it with multiple streams of fire negates any maneuverability. Computerized systems can do that with 100% accuracy that older systems could never do. Only overwhelming the ship with more missiles than the system can destroy works.

You're misinformed. It's commonly accepted that a nuclear weapon is the only way to stop the latest hyper-sonic weapons. And so almost assuredly stoppable if detected in time for the nuclear weapon to defend at an acceptable altitude.

I'm amazed that the flagship of the Black Sea was hit at all. I'd figure that in addition to it's anti-missile systems, it would have several escort vessels specifically dedicated to anti-missile systems. Perhaps that Russians were a bit to confident in their Black Sea superiority.

If it's too unbelievable to accept then it's an indication of other issues not taken into consideration. If it wasn't a fire as Russia continues to claim, then Russia has decided to accept the loss.

Or something else??

You're obviously afraid of answering my questions to you on the use of nukes by Russia and a reply in kind by America.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I would agree that there will be a larger counter attack by the Ukraine, but I would still maintain that it will be limited to staying within the rules of the war with which Russia can abide.

If the scale of the counter attack is so large to ignore the rules then Russia is going to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. All one needs to remember is that Russia isn't going to lose the war!

And so, I've asked the question of this forum of whether the US will respond with nuclear weapons? (or another nato country, depending on whose war against Russia?)

I quite value your input Richard, you stay within the bounds of rational and civil.

The Ukrainians aren't going to stop until all Russians are out of Ukraine (Crimea excepted). The Russians have a choice, the Ukrainians do not.

It's doubtful that the Russians will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Russian doctrine is to only use nuclear weapons if Russia's existence is threatened. Of course I didn't think that Putin would ever order an invasion of Ukraine. Apparently he's not as smart as I thought he was.

If the Russians used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the world would NEVER forget or forgive. Certainly Ukrainians would never forget. Russia and NATO are not the only people that have access to nuclear weapons. Anyone that had any chance of a confrontation with Russia would be quick to be the first to use them. No one would feel any moral restraint when confronting Russia. It many take many years, but eventually Ukrainians would get their revenge.

 

[Hum Dinger]

You're misinformed. It's commonly accepted that a nuclear weapon is the only way to stop the latest hyper-sonic weapons. And so almost assuredly stoppable if detected in time for the nuclear weapon to defend at an acceptable altitude.


If it's too unbelievable to accept then it's an indication of other issues not taken into consideration. If it wasn't a fire as Russia continues to claim, then Russia has decided to accept the loss.

Or something else??

You're obviously afraid of answering my questions to you on the use of nukes by Russia and a reply in kind by America.

I was discussing non-nuclear missiles being used against ships, not nuclear ICBMs.

Russia no longer claims that it was a fire that sunk the ship. They've admitted that it was a Ukrainian missile.

If Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the U.S. would not respond with nuclear weapons. But don't be surprised if nuclear weapons found their way into Ukrainian hands some time in the future - if they don't have them already.

The way this is most likely end is that Finland will join NATO - which will create a huge strategic problem for Russia. They will not be able to maintain the war in Ukraine.

With Russia willing to invade their neighbors, Finland will certainly want to join NATO.

The invasion of Ukraine was the stupidest military action since the Germans attacked Russia.

 

[Donald H]

I was discussing non-nuclear missiles being used against ships, not nuclear ICBMs.

There's really no difference with ships. But I'm aware that I purposely led your topic a bit astray. An American aircraft carrier will be sunk by a hyper sonic missile, or 5 or 6. Alsmot certainly nuclear because all bets would be off when it's sunk.

Russia no longer claims that it was a fire that sunk the ship. They've admitted that it was a Ukrainian missile.

Did they? Thanks for the link?

If Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the U.S. would not respond with nuclear weapons. But don't be surprised if nuclear weapons found their way into Ukrainian hands some time in the future - if they don't have them already

It's possible but not very likely. And besides, the Ukraine would never use one.

.

The way this is most likely end is that Finland will join NATO - which will create a huge strategic problem for Russia. They will not be able to maintain the war in Ukraine.

I don't think that article 5 will continue to apply. It's extremely dangerous for America because an aggression by one is an aggression by all. If Russia is hit with a nuclear weapon then there's every reason to expect that Russia and China will neutralize America.

With Russia willing to invade their neighbors, Finland will certainly want to join NATO.

There's no purpose for Finland to join Nato. There's Finland's safety and security at stake for them to not. Nato's article 5 has outgrown it's usefulness. You've as much as said that when you said that the US wouldn't respond with nukes.

For the good of the world, Nato needs to take down the demands of article 5 as soon as possible.

The invasion of Ukraine was the stupidest military action since the Germans attacked Russia.

I can understand why you think so.

Can you understand why I would say that it was more stupid for America to challenge Russia finally on the Ukraine.

Sooner or later everyone will come to the understanding that this is America's war against Russia.

Not Nato's!
Not the Ukraine's.

We're half way there already. Maybe a couple of weeks? A couple of months?

 

[Donald H]

If the Russians used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the world would NEVER forget or forgive.

To be on the side of right, the country must win it's war. There can't be any exceptions. But America can't win and Russia can't win.

You'll have to start thinking outside of your American box and the comfort it affords you.

Only the military mind can suggest that a world war can be won.
The military mind isn't permitted to think in terms of MAD. It's always much too self-defeatist!

And besides, half the world is siding with Russia.

 

[para bellum]

Russian Captains and Majors are getting field promotions at unprecedented rates, lol.

Did someone mention Transnistra the other day?

Explosions thundered in the building of the so-called “MGB of Transnistria” in Tiraspol

A series of explosions took place in the building of the so-called “Ministry of State Security” of the unrecognized Transnistria. According to local media, the area around the facility …

ukrainetoday.org

Meanwhile...

Sweden and Finland agree to submit Nato applications, say reports

Two countries could apply for membership simultaneously as soon as mid-May, according to reports

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hum Dinger]

There's really no difference with ships. But I'm aware that I purposely led your topic a bit astray. An American aircraft carrier will be sunk by a hyper sonic missile, or 5 or 6. Alsmot certainly nuclear because all bets would be off when it's sunk.

Did they? Thanks for the link?

It's possible but not very likely. And besides, the Ukraine would never use one.

I don't think that article 5 will continue to apply. It's extremely dangerous for America because an aggression by one is an aggression by all. If Russia is hit with a nuclear weapon then there's every reason to expect that Russia and China will neutralize America.

There's no purpose for Finland to join Nato. There's Finland's safety and security at stake for them to not. Nato's article 5 has outgrown it's usefulness. You've as much as said that when you said that the US wouldn't respond with nukes.

For the good of the world, Nato needs to take down the demands of article 5 as soon as possible.

I can understand why you think so.

Can you understand why I would say that it was more stupid for America to challenge Russia finally on the Ukraine.

Sooner or later everyone will come to the understanding that this is America's war against Russia.

Not Nato's!
Not the Ukraine's.

We're half way there already. Maybe a couple of weeks? A couple of months?

I may have been mistaken about Russia admitting that the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles. It just seems weird that they continue to deny the obvious truth. But that sort of cognitive dissonance seems to be a Russian trait.

If Russian nukes Ukraine, Ukrainians will never forget. It will only be a matter of time before Ukrainians get their hands on a tactical nuke and use it against Russia. It may not be tomorrow or even next year, but someday it will happen - and they'll probably launch it from inside Russia. Russia will never know exactly where it came from.

NATO is never going to give up on article 5. This Russian invasion has proven that article 5 is absolutely necessary.

It seems to be another example of Russian cognitive dissonance in that they believe they will intimidate the rest of the world with nuclear sabre rattling. They won't. In fact they seem to think that the invasion of Ukraine will intimidate Finland into not joining NATO, when in fact it's had the opposite effect. Finland will soon be a member of NATO - a huge strategic loss for Russia.

Russia may be desperate to convince the world that America is responsible for this war, but that idea is laughable. Russia is solely responsible for this war and the whole world knows it - especially China. There may be a few countries that do not want to break off relations with Russia, but they'll abandon Russia like rats from the Moskva once they realize how weak Russia really is.

Russia may posture all they want about a war with NATO, but they know they will lose - badly. Their attempts at intimidation will fail.

This all reminds me of the Falklands war, when Argentina believed that the British would not want to go to war and were no longer powerful. Russia has made a very, very bad miscalculation!

 

[Donald H]

I may have been mistaken about Russia admitting that the Moskva was sunk by Ukrainian missiles. It just seems weird that they continue to deny the obvious truth. But that sort of cognitive dissonance seems to be a Russian trait.

I almost took your word for it. Did you make the mistake on purpose?

If Russian nukes Ukraine, Ukrainians will never forget. It will only be a matter of time before Ukrainians get their hands on a tactical nuke and use it against Russia. It may not be tomorrow or even next year, but someday it will happen - and they'll probably launch it from inside Russia. Russia will never know exactly where it came from.

That could be surmised about any defeated country. It hasn't proven true for nuclear weapons but it has proven true in at least one case for other weapons that are limited to the terrorist's ability. Freedom fighters played an important part during WW2.

NATO is never going to give up on article 5. This Russian invasion has proven that article 5 is absolutely necessary.

I can see it's advantages for America but I can also see the disadvantages. Why should New York be hit with a Russian nuke when Russia was hit with a Polish nuke?

It seems to be another example of Russian cognitive dissonance in that they believe they will intimidate the rest of the world with nuclear sabre rattling. They won't. In fact they seem to think that the invasion of Ukraine will intimidate Finland into not joining NATO, when in fact it's had the opposite effect. Finland will soon be a member of NATO - a huge strategic loss for Russia.

Don't you think that the world is far past the point of article 5 being relevant? Actually, I think that both Finland and Sweden will see nothing positive in becoming Nato members.

Russia may be desperate to convince the world that America is responsible for this war, but that idea is laughable. Russia is solely responsible for this war and the whole world knows it - especially China. There may be a few countries that do not want to break off relations with Russia, but they'll abandon Russia like rats from the Moskva once they realize how weak Russia really is.

Let's rise above your feelings that cause you to start with the references to 'vermin' Richard. It only sends a message of frustration and your need to bolster America's righteousness.

Russia may posture all they want about a war with NATO, but they know they will lose - badly. Their attempts at intimidation will fail.

Pay attention to the facts. Russia has the capability to win this war before tomorrow's breakfast in Los Angeles. You can still question Russia's resolve to do so instead of defeat. But you can't with me if you stoop to the level of the 'vermin' innuendoes.

This all reminds me of the Falklands war, when Argentina believed that the British would not want to go to war and were no longer powerful. Russia has made a very, very bad miscalculation!

First impressions would suggest that Russia has taken on more than they can chew. But I think a deeper look is warranted due to impressions being formed in large part by propaganda.

I think that Russia and China are 'solid' and China is playing the part that should be expected at the moment. I say that because I see no indication that Russia isn't content with it's accomplishments to date.

Can that be true if Russia was defeated on the Kiev front? Can Russia explain that away by suggesting it went as planned.

Did Scott Ritter invent it?

As to the sinking of Russia's missile cruiser? So far we've seen no major retaliation. That could be because major damage has been mutually agreed to be out of bounds.

 

[Donald H]

Ukraine Could Dissolve into Several Separate States.

Ukraine could dissolve into several states – Moscow

The behavior of Kiev and its handlers might ultimately lead to destruction of Ukraine as a single state, a top Russian official believes

www.rt.com

Could this be the answer for peace that' staring the world in the face, but being overlooked.

It worked in the Balkans, and was very much in accordance with America's agenda. It could work again and be within the bounds of both America's and Russia's agenda's and demands.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I almost took your word for it. Did you make the mistake on purpose?

That could be surmised about any defeated country. It hasn't proven true for nuclear weapons but it has proven true in at least one case for other weapons that are limited to the terrorist's ability. Freedom fighters played an important part during WW2.

I can see it's advantages for America but I can also see the disadvantages. Why should New York be hit with a Russian nuke when Russia was hit with a Polish nuke?

Don't you think that the world is far past the point of article 5 being relevant? Actually, I think that both Finland and Sweden will see nothing positive in becoming Nato members.

Let's rise above your feelings that cause you to start with the references to 'vermin' Richard. It only sends a message of frustration and your need to bolster America's righteousness.

Pay attention to the facts. Russia has the capability to win this war before tomorrow's breakfast in Los Angeles. You can still question Russia's resolve to do so instead of defeat. But you can't with me if you stoop to the level of the 'vermin' innuendoes.

First impressions would suggest that Russia has taken on more than they can chew. But I think a deeper look is warranted due to impressions being formed in large part by propaganda.

I think that Russia and China are 'solid' and China is playing the part that should be expected at the moment. I say that because I see no indication that Russia isn't content with it's accomplishments to date.

Can that be true if Russia was defeated on the Kiev front? Can Russia explain that away by suggesting it went as planned.

Did Scott Ritter invent it?

As to the sinking of Russia's missile cruiser? So far we've seen no major retaliation. That could be because major damage has been mutually agreed to be out of bounds.

First, you've made it clear that you are not familiar with common English phrases. "like Rats from a sinking ship" is a very common phrase, the fact that you saw such significance in it shows your lack of familiarity with English. Canadian you are not.

Second, your concept of article 5 is all wrong. NATO and Article 5 are strictly for defensive purposes. NATO integration means that no one country can act aggressively. It would take all NATO members to agree for any one of them to make an aggressive action. That's not likely. I know that Russians are raised on the belief that NATO is an aggressive threat, but it's not. That's just Russian government propaganda to generate paranoia among the Russian people.

One example of how NATO integration has prevented aggressive actions by it's members is that there has not been a war between France, the U.K. and Germany since NATO was conceived. That's historically amazing. Those countries have never gone this long without a war. (Same could have been said about the Warsaw pact countries).

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would have to be fools not to join NATO. Russia has proven it's willingness to invade it's neighbors.

China has no love for Russia. There are even some theories that if Russia is weakened, China will invade outer Manchuria. China needs it's commercial relationships with the West. China may have been interested in an alliance with Russia if the invasion of Ukraine had gone well - it would have seen a weakened West as unable and unwilling to defend Taiwan.

Russia pretending that they really didn't want to take Kyiv is just "sour Grapes" - another English expression - look it up on Wikipedia.

This war is going terribly for Russia and Russia sees no honorable way out. Russia expected Ukraine to fall in a matter of a few weeks. That did not happen. They are making very little progress in their offensive in Eastern Ukraine. They know that massive shipments of a whole new category of heavy weapons is on it's way to Eastern Ukraine. They can not control the skies over Ukraine, so they can't stop those shipments. They know that the Ukrainians are planning a major offensive very soon. It will be a disaster for Russia.

I know that your access to independent news reports is limited, but Russia did retaliate for the sinking of the Moskva by hitting a Ukrainian missile factory and has been hitting a lot of railroad stations.

Funny thing is that I believe that most of Russian's grievances against Ukraine are valid, but that this invasion, from a military point of view was the stupidest military decision since Hitler invaded Russia.