Russian special military operation in Ukraine #20

sepheronx wrote:So I noticed a heavy spread of fear and silliness on telegram regarding himars systems saying how it's destroying everything around, fuel depots and ammo depots. So far I haven't seen much with maybe a few hits around donbass area with possibly 2 ammo depots being hit.
I also know 2 of these systems have been destroyed, how much is left? And I'm wondering is if most of these systems are stationed around donbass area?

First you need to ask yourself what did you see on the video?
(Ignore the text, because I could write hundreds of stories which would make sense in video description)

Destroyed Ukrainian equipment found by Russian forces during advances. Looks like a result of mines. Either Ukrainians stepped on their own mines or it was Russian mines placed behind enemy lines.

Most likely Ukrainians stepped on flying mines placed by Ka-52s

What are you smoking dude? Combined arms from the Russia side has been almost absent. There is very little support from the Russian airforce for the ground forces. Russia lost entire columns of shit during the March of the retards into Ukraine during month one. They are pulling t62s out of storage. Probably cause they realised they are losing to much frontline stuff.

Where did BTC trader go anyway

sepheronx wrote:So I noticed a heavy spread of fear and silliness on telegram regarding himars systems saying how it's destroying everything around, fuel depots and ammo depots. So far I haven't seen much with maybe a few hits around donbass area with possibly 2 ammo depots being hit.

I also know 2 of these systems have been destroyed, how much is left? And I'm wondering is if most of these systems are stationed around donbass area?

Norway misunderstood: cargo went to Svalbard

by David Narmania

Less than two days after the instruction of State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin to study the issue of denunciation of the treaty between Russia and Norway on the delimitation of maritime spaces in the Barents Sea, Oslo let the cargo destined for Russian settlements on Spitsbergen pass.
Moreover, the Kremlin commented on the statement extremely correctly: “As far as we understand, the parliament is talking about studying this issue, not formulating any position, but studying this issue. Of course, all kinds of scenarios are being considered, because the situation is not simple, very difficult "There is no official position on this matter. We hope that it will be possible to resolve this problem through dialogue," Peskov said.
In Oslo , of course, they were quick to emphasize that the decision to allow the passage was in no way connected with the possibility of denouncing the agreement - according to the representative of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, Ane Lunde, the transport took the containers from the border on July 2, and on the 5th they were already loaded onto the ship, which went to Svalbard .

Volodin's statement itself came after the Norwegian authorities on June 29 rejected a request to exclude from sanctions and allow cargo for Russian settlements in Spitsbergen, which had been stuck at the border back in May, to pass. It was about 20 tons of products and equipment.

Obviously, in Norway they waited two months to decide on such a step three days before the statement of the speaker of the State Duma . And of course, at a time when NATO is in a state of indirect conflict with Moscow , it is worth waiting for these three days to report that the tense situation between the country - a member of the alliance and Russia has been resolved. Fresh legend, but hard to believe.
And what is the connection between the border treaty and deliveries to Svalbard?
The deal in question was one of the most controversial decisions of Dmitry Medvedev 's entire reign , at least judging by the backlash at home. The fact is that the archipelago has a unique legal status. Although it is under the sovereignty of Norway, it can be used by all countries that signed the Paris Treaty of 1920 for economic and scientific purposes. The Soviet Union was actively involved in this, but after its collapse, Russia was forced to curtail its activities in Svalbard a little, albeit not completely. Yet in the nineties there were somewhat different priorities.

Nevertheless, Oslo, using the provisions of the treaty and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, announced its claims to a two hundred mile shelf zone around the archipelago. Moscow, however, adhering to a sectoral approach to defining borders in the Arctic , has insisted since Stalin's time that the border should run along the 35th meridian.
Attempts to somehow resolve this issue were made from the 1970s until 2010, when the above-mentioned delimitation agreement in the Barents Sea was signed . The parties divided the disputed area almost in half - no one managed to fully realize their claims. At the same time, Moscow and Oslo agreed to cooperate in new projects in the region, but Russian society regarded such an agreement as a concession.
Interestingly, from Norway it was signed by none other than Jens Stoltenberg , who at that time held the post of Prime Minister of Norway. There is an opinion that this is what allowed him to become NATO Secretary General four years later.

The agreement, apparently, can be considered a kind of Indian summer of Russia's attempts to become part of the collective West and solve problems through serious compromises - after the events of 2008, when the same Medvedev did not allow Saakashvili to commit a massacre in South Ossetia , it became clear that post- the Yalta world order is living out its last days.
Of course, the denunciation of the delimitation treaty by Moscow threatens to aggravate the situation in the Arctic, so Oslo's reaction is understandable. Volodin's statement there, judging by the strange commentary, was greeted with anxiety: they say that the agreement itself does not spell out the procedure for denunciation, which means that it is impossible to withdraw from it.
This, of course, is a lie and a provocation. For all documents where the process of renunciation of them is not specified, there is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, where it is written in black and white in Article 60 that the violation of the agreement by one of the participants allows the other signatory to suspend the document or even denounce it.

Although without any conventions, it is obvious that any attempts by the West to so freely appeal to international law after defiantly wiping their feet on it in the story of anti-Russian sanctions, which, by the way, caused delays in supplies to Svalbard, look like talking in favor of the poor.
Nevertheless, the fact that the parties managed to resolve the issue inspires hope and sets an example for other NATO members: even in the application of sanctions that were imposed in connection with the Russian special operation, it is necessary to soberly assess the possible consequences and avoid direct escalation.
About 600 Russian citizens now live in Svalbard. In the Kaliningrad region - more than a million.
I wonder how Lithuania will react to the denunciation of the 1997 border treaty, without which disputes could arise around a third of the country's territory, including Vilnius ? It is about studying this issue.

There were supposed to be 12 of them supplied. You are indeed seeing a social media psy op. HIMARS is no better than any of the other
long range MLRS systems that Kiev regime had. This is the same retarded "game changer" wonder waffle drivel we have been hearing for
months. At the end of the day all that we get is terror attacks on civilians by Kiev regime forces. In terms of military use this is all noise.

Mindless_drone wrote:....They are pulling t62s out of storage. Probably cause they realised they are losing to much frontline stuff...