Ukraine Starts Another New Mobilization In Ukraine

According to Chief military commissar of Kyiv/Kiev.

Yurii Maksymov said that the Ukrainian army needs "replenishment" and therefore the mobilization in Ukraine will be continued.

In a bizarre twist to the Mobilization.
They announced today that Up to 60 years old men maybe drafted for the Ukrainian Mobilization.

The agenda should be expected by all those liable for military service, - the head of the Kyiv military registration and enlistment office

Повестку следует ожидать всем военнообязанным, — начальник Киевского военкомата

The summons are expected for all men under the age of 60 who are liable for military services if they are military fit for service.


-This comes after EU/UK are training 15k Ukrainians.

There were those who were mocking Russia's Mobilization. Here you have Ukraine stating they need Mobilization in order to replenishment its army.

a reply to: vNex92

Shame on them for mocking the home team. We're going to win this game of projectiles.

Quote from your link:

Из-за полномасштабного вторжения РФ в Украине объявлено военное положение и всеобщая мобилизация. Начальник Киевского городского центра комплектования и социальной поддержки полковник Юрий Максимов в интервью ТСН сообщил, что повестку следует ждать всем военнообязанным.

"Повестку следует ожидать всем военнообязанным лицам мужского пола в возрасте до 60 лет. То есть тем, кто военнообязан", - сказал он.

Также он прокомментировал вручение повесток на улицах.

"Нет запретов по месту вручения повесток. В законодательстве не указано, что оповещение возможно, например, исключительно по домашнему адресу или на работе, или в месте отдыха. Закон говорит об уведомлении путем вручения повестки. Все", - пояснил Максимов.

Well said, I cant even add anything because they did such a fine job.

originally posted by: vNex92


There were those who were mocking Russia's Mobilization. Here you have Ukraine stating they need Mobilization in order to replenishment its army.

The British media only runs down the Russian mobilisation. Only reports Russian losses. Only reports Russian military deaths. Never Ukranian. Total concentration by the MSM on Russia Russia Russia

SPAM

I think it is funny comparing a mobilization for an attacking country and one from a country defending itself on its own land.
Not joke funny, strange funny.

Oh, did the thread title come from the Office of Redundancy Office?

a reply to: beyondknowledge
*Sigh*
It's like Russia gate all over again with you all. Did common sense leave the building when Russia mobilized in February?

The the Donbas and Crimea are no longer part of Ukraine hence the mobilization. The years of shelling from Kiev they have endured has solidified this. In the op it even says that statement came directly from the Kiev military commissioner. Is the western propaganda impending your abilities to read?

Why do you all give me the impression you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about?

Why must I always reiterate this?
Invading sovereign county = Bad
Shelling your own citizens = Bad
Putin = Dictator
Zelensky = Dictator
Biden = Tin-pot pedophile dicktater

In regards to the thread. Ukraine needs to stand down before we all die.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
The British media only runs down the Russian mobilisation. Only reports Russian losses. Only reports Russian military deaths. Never Ukranian. Total concentration by the MSM on Russia Russia Russia

I understand that you are wrapped in conspiracy head to toe and cannot see a straight line without inventing corners, but are you serious?

A home nation at war - especially one which is 100 million people smaller than the invading nation - has to mobilise to avoid defeat. It is a national disgrace that Russia's huge army can't walk all over Ukraine's. It's embarrassing, frankly. And before you say it, it was weeks before Western aid came online to the fronts.

There are very few reports of Russian losses in British media outlets, unless they are embarrassingly stupid. They concentrate on Ukraine's civilian losses, along with any Russian civilian losses. If you can't see that you are blinding by your own conspiracy. The innocent civilians killed and injured in this insane war are the focus.

Russia is the aggressor. Russia is using indiscriminate shelling of civilian infrastructure. Russia is the story.

As a Brit living in a free country you are free to cheer on whichever side you like, but I bet if your neighbours knew your views you'd soon have a few bricks through your windows.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

As a Brit living in a free country you are free to cheer on whichever side you like, but I bet if your neighbours knew your views you'd soon have a few bricks through your windows.

I don't take sides in this inter Slav mafia dispute. Non of my business whatsoever. No connections to Slavic lands whatsoever. Just an observer that unlike many is not brainwashed by the western MSM into accepting that we should back one group of Slavs and not the other. Oh and non of my neighbours seem to give a damn about the inter Slav mafia disput, basically as it's non of our business whatsoever. Just like Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 and Afghanistan was non of our business.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I’d like the west to stay out of it too, but I know that’s not going to happen.

This isn’t comparable to Iraq though as that war was completely unjustified and the wests’ involvement was boots on the ground.

The UK and the US made a deal with Ukraine that they give up their nukes post WWII and we protect their sovereignty. It’s hard to say what would have happened if the tattered country kept the nukes.

Wherever someone stands, this is proof that history tends to resurfaced, and we need to keep that in mind when decisions are made.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: ufoorbhunter



The UK and the US made a deal with Ukraine that they give up their nukes post WWII and we protect their sovereignty. It’s hard to say what would have happened if the tattered country kept the nukes.

Yeah sure yet when we said "we protect their sovereignty" what we should have said is, we are going to colonise you and long term draw you into the NATO and EU and take control of your MIC and standardise it to further our Imperial cause and host our Military so we can push against Russia that little bit more

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

They asked to join the EU. Russia did a back room deal at the last minute to block it with their PM who got elected on the promise of getting them into the EU.

Russia invaded Crimea because of concerns Ukraine was cozying up to the west. Crimea hosts the Black Sea fleet and was on lease. Eastern Ukraine is the only land path from Russia to Crimea.

Russia has the most land mass of any nation on earth. How are we the colonizers when Ukraine wanted to change which umbrella they were under? That’s a common theme that ex USSR countries want nothing to do with Russia. Might have to do with the fact the USSR was second to china with how many of their own citizen they killed… in the tens of millions of you factor in famine.

The west isn’t without their flaws and messed up wars… but almost anyone in the world who they’d want to be under, west or east, and it’s heavily skewed in one direction. You and I have free speech and access to almost any information (if you don’t demand it on Facebook or twitter). We can openly trade almost any asset on earth. They can’t say that.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The UK and the US made a deal with Ukraine that they give up their nukes post WWII and we protect their sovereignty.

The UK, US and Russia made a deal with Ukraine to respect its independence, to respect its borders, to never invade Ukraine and never use nuclear weapons against them in return for Ukraine handing ALL its nuclear weapons to Russia.
This was immediately post-Soviet era.

Its really getting tedious reading people continuously spout Russian propaganda - not directed your way - about the threat posed by Ukraine.
It had a relatively poorly armed and funded military - as evidenced by the aid it is receiving - there were no NATO bases anywhere in Ukraine and it had been told quite firmly that there was no chance of it being allowed to join NATO in the foreseeable future.

What sort of 'threat' did such a country pose to the alleged 'might' of the Russian Armed Forces?

History teaches us that Appeasement does not work.

My best years are well past me; 57 years old and feel it.
I've been in better health and a damn sight fitter.

If a foreign nation invaded the UK I would fight to my last breath to repel them.
Why would I expect anyone from somewhere else not to do the same?

Should we just abandon them and let a de facto dictator extend his autocratic and repressive rule over a nation that doesn't want it?

No sane person wants war.....and I assure the last thing I want to see is British soldiers having to go fight and possibly die in yet another foreign war.

Anyone who thinks if we let Putin walk through Ukraine he will stop there is either incredibly ignorant of history and human nature or just remarkably naive.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
I don't take sides in this inter Slav mafia dispute. Non of my business whatsoever. No connections to Slavic lands whatsoever. Just an observer that unlike many is not brainwashed by the western MSM into accepting that we should back one group of Slavs and not the other. Oh and non of my neighbours seem to give a damn about the inter Slav mafia disput, basically as it's non of our business whatsoever. Just like Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 and Afghanistan was non of our business.

I'm an observer too. Nobody is being brainwashed because there is no conspiracy against one side or the other, just an expansionist aggressor and the oppressed - several countries of oppressed, not just Ukraine. The West did nothing other than limited sanctions when Putin marched into Georgia in 2008, and again when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, and again when he installed vassal states in Belarus, Luhansk and Donetsk between 2020-21. Invading Ukraine was a step too far and Putin wasn't ready for the reaction it commanded.

It's pretty obvious you are a nationalist, but we live in a world of countries, many of which are interdependent on each other. If you don't believe that, look what one 'Slav mafia' conflict is doing to prices worldwide.

a reply to: Freeborn

The ironic part is the fact people can be openly anti Ukraine or even pro Russia in the west is proof we have it better. Good luck if you’re actively opposing the war in Russia. We have had plenty of people on the west oppose all our wars, and ironically some of the same people who said they were unpatriotic during Iraq are the very ones praising Putin now and acting as if Russia is the last bastion of freedom.

One has to ask if it was a solid move to rid Ukraine of nukes, I’d say yes. And Russia seems hell bent on empire building, and they seem to be getting wore down. Ukraine wasn’t the only ones on their sights post WWII, and people can say all day long that western media is bias or propaganda… but why is it that Russians only absolute ally in this war is Belarus, with mild support from China, Iran and North Korea. If they’re so great why is all of their former satellite countries actively supporting Ukraine? Or previously historically neutral countries asking to align with the west like Sweden and Finland?

You don’t need to consume news to see where most of the world stands. Take a look at history and current events and it’s a no brainer that as imperfect as the west is, it’s pointed in the right direction for an average citizen. I’m sure Russia and China is taking defectors if anyone finds the west so problematic.

Russia has 144 million people, Ukraine 44 million and your trying to mock the guys that got invaded for doing a large scale mobilization, and defend the much larger country that is the aggressor that had to do a large scale mobilization, after that initial preinvasion mobilization.

You got a disconnect in your thinking mate.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

It truly beggars belief the number of 'Sons of Liberty' etc who are supporting a de facto dictator who opposes everything Libertarians and defenders of freedom of speech are supposedly about.
The man is the diametric opposite of all the values they allege to believe in.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

In addition to the US and UK, Russia was also a signatory to the Budapest Memo. Russia violated the memo as well as Ukraines sovereignty.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

According to the three memoranda, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:

Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

Lets see... This mess started when Russia threw a fit about Ukraine joining the EU and the common market, only to see Ukraine back off that and instead forced to maintain economics links to Russia. It was specifically agreed to by Russia not to use economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.


Reuters 2013 - Special Report: Why Ukraine spurned the EU and embraced Russia

a reply to: vNex92

How much more assistance can we render? Americans who work in the Weapons Industry are making lots of $$$ this year.

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: beyondknowledge

Biden = Tin-pot pedophile dicktater

who cares about the topic this is the best insult ever! hahahaha

originally posted by: TerraLiga


It's pretty obvious you are a nationalist, but we live in a world of countries, many of which are interdependent on each other. If you don't believe that, look what one 'Slav mafia' conflict is doing to prices worldwide.

Please keep personal accusations about being a nationalist away from ATS. Plus I'm certainly no nationalist, I can't bear all this national stuff with humanity divided into countries. I'd get rid of them given half a chance and pull down the walls and borders that divide human beings and create division. I do accept however, that our species is far from ready for such radical action. The Soviet's experimented with that idea and look where we are today