Does anyone else see the big problem with what the Reuters headline implies?
Ukraine will ‘test and use’ any non-banned weapons to retake Crimea: official
Ukraine will “test and use” any non-banned weapons to liberate its territory, including Russian-occupied Crimea, the head of its National Security and Defence Council said on Friday.
Oleksiy Danilov’s comment comes with Kyiv expected to mount a counteroffensive in the coming weeks or months aimed at retaking Russian-held territory in the south and east.
“Crimea is the territory of Ukraine, and we will test and use there any weapons not prohibited by international laws, that will help liberate our territories,” he tweeted.
Kyiv’s Western partners have provided crucial military support, including modern battle tanks and armoured vehicles, since Russia’s full-scale invasion last year.
OK, there’s a little bit more than what’s in the headline, but, really, Ukraine is absolutely no closer to kicking Russia out than when Russia invaded. To think they would then be able to go and retake Crimea (which Russia took with ease, all while Obama, with Biden as VP because of his “foreign policy experience”, stood by and did nothing that made a difference) is absurd. Russia has quite a bit of defenses built up. Without help from Biden, Canada, the UK, and a few other EU nations, Russia would already have conquered Ukraine. And many of the nations supplying arms and money (where’s that money going?) are getting squishy.
The news media isn’t really talking that much about Ukraine anymore, especially in terms of them winning. The NY Times has these two articles
Russian Invasion of Ukraine Revolutionizes NATO Military Strategy
The first looks more like NATO working towards direct confrontation. Scrolling way down the Washington Post we see
Ukraine accuses Russia of undermining deal on grain shipments
Same at so many outlets. The Economist, though, is yammering about Ukraine’s counteroffensive drawing near. Glad they could let Russia know it’s coming. The Financial Times is talking about how the war is dividing the world.
Would the small number of nations offering material support continue if Ukraine retook Ukraine and then tried to go after Crimea? Doubtful.
The reason that the USA did not help Ukraine when Russia took Crimea is simple, we were never asked. Ukraine was ruled by a Putin puppet, Yanukovych. He has since fled to Russia under threat of arrest
The “small” number of countries giving military aid to Ukraine consists of 27 out of the 30 NATO members (Hungary Malta Cyprus)
Non NATO members providing military aid include Pakistan Australia New Zealand Azerbaijan Sudan South Korea
The total amount of Sid both military and non military given by other countries exceeds the total given by the USA
So far 54 countries have sided the Ukrainians.
Russia has lost 25% of the land it once held in Ukraine. Ukraine is the 2nd largest, after Russia, country in Europe.
The sanctions have also reduced Russia’s oil/gas income over
40% their oil sells st a discount
Today’s current Ural oil price sold to China/India is about 50$ a barrel.
Not much more than production costs.
The Dark Brandon has allowed Putin to continue to pump and sell to avoid market oil prices to increase.
But Russia state income is way way down, remember their production costs are high
Russia took Crimea in 2014. The Ukraine of today has proven that it is capable of punching above its weight and Russia is a sclerotic heavyweight. If the West will go the distance Russia will ultimately fail in its goal to destroy Ukraine as a sovereign nation.