Special Thread: Yanayojiri Mgogoro wa Ukraine na Urusi. Nini chanzo na hatma ya mzozo?

Bwana Utam said:

@Pietro umekua na hoja zaajabu sana ujue mzeee
Matokeo ya counter offensive kufanikiwa kwake kulitakiwa hii kura isiwepo yaani iwe kura haiendelei ama haiwezi fanyika hapa hata sisi pro PUT IN tungejua kweli mmepambana ila unasema matokeo ya kaunta wakat nchi inamegwa huko na hamna lakufanya sasa hayo matokeo c yanakua yamefeli ama unadhani matokeo yakushambulia nikutaka ushinde (rrferendum isifanyike) ama ushindwe (referendum kufanyika nanasikia saa 10 jioni matokeo)

Sasa hapa kuna uhusiano gani wa referendum na hayo maeneo kutokuchukuliwa mapema
Kama uwezo wakuyachukua wanao watayachukua ama wayachukue haijalishi kuna ref ama hakuna sababu LPR iliondoka mapema tu na zaporinhe mapema tu wahii SVO

Hayo maeneo licha ya kwamba wamagharibi hawatayatambua kujitenga kwake ila nakuhakikishia hayatakaa yarejelee UKRAINE

Kwan kuna taifa la magharibi lilitambua ref ya CRIMEA ila ile sinisehm ya RUSSIA namaisha yanaendelea kwaku like or not
Ili UKRAINE airejeshe CRIMEA na sehem zinazoondoka leo nilazima aingie total war na RUSSIA jambo ambalo hataweza hata siku moja hasa akiwa mwenyewe

Hii ishu yakutegemea kwamba UKRAINE anapigana akiwa kwake halaf mtegemee kukomboa sehem musahau

:-RUSSIA hashindwi na hajashindwa wala kuchelewa kuchukua eneo lolole ila anaenda kwautaratibu maalum kama angetaka kubeba hayo maeneo kama mnavyotaka leo msingelishuhudia ref huko LPR na DPR pamoja na sehem nyengine za UKRAINE

:-Ninavyoamini mie kuhusiana na ODESSA yaani RUSSIA hatakama yuko na malengo gani maadam kaamua kuimega UKRAINE sidhanii kama atakua kaimega vyema kama akiwaachia ODESSA yaani lazima aondoke na ODESSA kwagharama yeyote ile ila sio kwamuda wowote ila nikupitia hii SVO
Ninachoamini mie kituo kinachofuata ODESSA ila muda utaamua ila RUSSIA kwenye hii SVO hajakurupuka kaenda kwamahesabu kawaprove wrong mlitaka aiteke KIEV angetumia rasilimali nyingi OP ingemshinda akaona aanze kubeba strategic place ambazo pia zitafanya SVO iendelee kupitia huko aliko pateka ntaambatanisha na maeneo aloteka nafaida zake uonr ndugu mmoja hapo kapost Qibsyl

[emoji116]

[emoji635] [emoji1255] On September 27, referendums on the accession of the Liberated territories of Ukraine to the Russian Federation end. And the procedure for their admission to the Russian Federation may take place on September 29.

We analyze what Ukraine is losing:
[emoji188] Regions in which referendums are held have rich black soil, mineral deposits, developed industry, large economic, industrial and human potential, developed mining industry, transport and industrial infrastructure.

[emoji188] Until 2014, only Donetsk and Lugansk regions together accounted for 16% of Ukraine's GDP.

[emoji188] Integration of agricultural regions (Zaporozhye and Kherson regions) will turn the Russian Federation into the largest player in the grain market;

[emoji188] Odessa actually remains the only access point of Ukraine to the sea (at the same time, Odessa remains in the sphere of interests of the Russian Federation);

[emoji188] Ukraine is losing about 9 million people, and taxpayers in uncontrolled territories will move into the Russian legal field.

As you can see, the situation is amazing, but at the same time, no one is talking about the future arrival of winter, when the lack of energy resources and other economic difficulties will force European countries to radically reconsider their policy of supporting Ukraine.

[emoji91] Yet akili ndefu wa JF wanadai Ukraine is winning.

Mwisho:-siamini kama hii SVO inaweza kua imekamilika ama itakamilika bila ODESSA kuondoka

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

Click to expand...

vunjo said:

Wanajeshi wa Russia wanazidi kujisalimisha tazama video na wananjaa kweli tazama huyo mmoja anafakamia maji[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]
Me nasubiri mobilization waje uwanjani

Click to expand...

Sikirimimimasikini said:

View attachment 2369684

Click to expand...

kp kipanya44 said:

[emoji28][emoji2][emoji1787]View attachment 2368661

Click to expand...

FUSO said:

mwambieni aiwashe hiyo nyukilia....kama kweli kidume !!

Click to expand...

vunjo said:

Wanajeshi wa Russia wanazidi kujisalimisha tazama video na wananjaa kweli tazama huyo mmoja anafakamia maji[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]
Me nasubiri mobilization waje uwanjani

Click to expand...

FUSO said:

Naona warusi wa bongo wameukimbia uzi...!! Tuliwaambia mapema sana kwamba Urusi hana ubavu wa kupigana na watu wa magharibi kwa umoja wao.

Sasa atabokolewa na Crimea inaondoka - na akithubutu kutumia nyukilia basi tutamsahau na itabaki historia, watamvamia ka mpira wa kona

Click to expand...

Msulibasi said:

Umezoea ugomvi wa wapiga debe . Nuke inasambaa pakubwa na itakula waliomo na wasiomo nadhani utakuwa Form tatu

Click to expand...

abdulqadirj said:

ok, Jamaa wanafanya mambo yao kwa mipanngo na mahesabu makali sana ila hiyo odesa hata mimi naipenda wafanye waichukue tu

Click to expand...

FUSO said:

mwambieni aiwashe hiyo nyukilia....kama kweli kidume !!

Click to expand...

PNU said:

Sidhani kama itachukuliwa, nahisi watasurrender haraka kabla ya kuchukuliwa….Itakuwa hatari kma Odesaa nayo itaenda maana bahari nzima ya ukrain itakuwa imeondoka, hvyo Russia itakuwa na control kinachoingia na kinachotoka Ukrain kupitia bandari zote…na mbaya zaidi ile miji iliyopiga referendum itakuwa na uchumi mkubwa kuliko Ukrain iliyobaki, waukrain wengi watadefect kuelekea kwnye hiyo miji, maana baada ya vita sidhani kma Ukrain anaweza kurebuild miji yote kwa kasi ukilinganisha na Urusi. Hiyo miji ijiandae kwa wimbi kubwa la wakimbizi.

Click to expand...

mtarimbo said:

Kwa hiyo unategemea niamini hii habar yako kama wewe huamini ya kwangu ,bwashee unachekesha

Click to expand...

Mwanamkiwi said:

Naona sasa mipango inayojadiliwa upande wa NATO na Marekani, je wajiandae kivipi kwa matishio kutoka Urusi kuhusu matumizi ya silaha za nyuklia.
Naona hao wanaosema: Tusiogope mbwa anabweka tu, haumi. Ukraine imeshapiga Krimea, hakuna kilichotokea.

Wengine wanasema: hatuwezi kuwa na uhakika, maana akishindwa Putin hawezi kubaki, atajaribu mengi ili asipinduliwe.
Naona mawazao mbalimbali yanayojadiliwa, pamoja na kuandaa ama silaha ndogo za kinyuklia za kujibu ndani ya Urusi, au kuandaa pigo bila nyuklia itakayoangamiza kituo cha Kirusi kinachtumiwa kurusha silaha ya nyuklia ya kwanza.
Sipenda hayo yote. Ni hatari kweli.
Sina uhakika jinsi ya kuchukua lugha ya Zelenski. SIjui kama anamini uwezekano wa ushindi kweli? AU anatafuta tu nafasi nzuri zaidi kwa majadiliano?
Nahisi nyuma ya mapazia anaambiwa asisukume mno kuhusu Krimea - kama nafasi ya kumpa mbwa Putin angalau mfupa mdogo na pia kuzingatia msimamo wa wenyeji - haieleweki wazi kama kuna kweli idadi kubwa huko Krimea wanataka kurudi Ukraine...


BAsi someni hapa majadiliano ya Marekani:

Recommendations for US policy to prevent Russian nuclear use​

To prevent Russia from employing nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the United States should issue a clearer deterrent threat. It could choose between vague or explicit threats issued publicly or privately.

• At present, Putin may believe that he could use nuclear weapons without a significant Western response. A clearer US deterrent threat would help disabuse him of that notion.
• A vague threat (e.g., “Russia’s decision to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine would risk the gravest possible consequences”) has the benefit of conveying to Russia that there would be repercussions for nuclear use without committing the United States to a particular course of action.
• A more specific threat (e.g., “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack against Ukraine as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response”) would have greater deterrent value but limit US flexibility.
• While a vague threat could be dismissed as cheap talk, a more specific threat runs the risk of drawing a “red line” that Washington cannot enforce, making a vague threat the better option.
• These threats could be conveyed privately, but a public threat would likely be more effective in deterring Russia and assuring allies, as US credibility would be on the line for the world to see.

Recommendations for a US response to Russian nuclear use
A clearer threat should be sufficient to deter a Russian nuclear attack, but Washington must be prepared to execute its threat if deterrence fails.

Retaliatory option 1: The United States could intensify its current approach: increasing sanctions on Russia, further isolating Moscow internationally, arming Ukraine with more advanced weapons, and redoubling efforts to militarily reinforce Eastern Europe.

• Russian nuclear use might provide an opening to convince countries that have so far been reluctant—such as India and possibly even China—to participate in escalating sanctions.
• The United States could provide Ukraine with more advanced weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory and help Ukrainian units operate in a nuclear environment. This might include supplying iodine pills, radiation suits, Geiger counters, and other relevant material.
• The United States and NATO could strengthen their military posture in Eastern Europe, including adding heavier and permanent conventional forces while also relocating US nuclear weapons to Poland. They could announce the development of additional types of low-yield, theater nuclear weapons for deployment in Europe, such as a nuclear Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) or Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM).
• The United States could go on nuclear alert to deter attacks on NATO allies. This could include taking visible steps to place warheads on bombers and sending nuclear submarines out to sea.

Pros: These steps would impose a cost on Russia, and Washington could plausibly claim that it has followed through on its deterrent threat.
Cons: There is a risk that many friends and foes will see these measures as an insufficient response to a nuclear attack.

Retaliatory option 2: The United States could respond with military force.

• Option 2A: The United States could conduct a limited conventional strike on the Russian forces or bases directly involved in the attack. A more robust version of this option would be to join the war on Ukraine’s side.

Pros: Direct US military intervention would be widely perceived as a meaningful response, potentially restoring nuclear deterrence in Ukraine and reinforcing the global nuclear taboo.

Cons: A military response increases the risk of escalation to a direct Russia-NATO war. Russia might conclude that the United States is unwilling to use nuclear weapons, encouraging additional Russian nuclear strikes. Some US allies might still see a conventional response to a nuclear attack as insufficient.

• Option 2B: The United States could use nuclear weapons to respond to and deter further Russian nuclear use in Ukraine.

Pros: A nuclear response is most likely to reinforce the deterrence of adversaries, result in the assurance of allies, and reestablish the global taboo against nuclear use in the future by demonstrating that countries cannot use nuclear weapons without dire consequences. Both allies and adversaries might be surprised or perceive weakness if the United States does not respond in kind to a nuclear attack on Ukraine.
Cons: A US decision to use nuclear weapons would raise challenging questions about what Russian target to hit with what US nuclear weapon. A US nuclear strike may restore deterrence, but it might also provoke a Russian nuclear reprisal, raising the risk of a larger nuclear exchange and further humanitarian disaster.

Given the costs and benefits above, the best US response if deterrence fails may be a mix of options 1 and 2A: an intensification of ongoing efforts to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine and a limited conventional strike against the Russian forces or bases that launched the nuclear attack.

Memo to the president: How to deter Russian nuclear use in Ukraine—and respond if deterrence fails

The US should issue vague public threats of serious consequences should Russia use nuclear weapons and be prepared to follow through with conventional military strikes if deterrence fails.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Click to expand...

Morogoro kaskazini said:

jiji la kupyanks ambalo urusi ilijiondoa teyari sehemu kubwa ya jiji hilo imesharudiwa na urusi katika jimbo la kharkiv.

makombora ya himars xamekutana na mziki wa drone za iran

Click to expand...

kp kipanya44 said:

Source; almashauri ya kichwa chako [emoji2][emoji2][emoji1787]

Click to expand...

Yoda said:

Vipi kuhusu
Uvamizi wa Georgia 2008?
Uvamizi wa Chechnya 1990?
Uvamizi wa Finland winter war 1939?
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact na uvamizi wa Poland mwaka 1939?

Click to expand...

Sikirimimimasikini said:

View attachment 2369684

Click to expand...