NewStats: 3,259,817 , 8,170,939 topics. Date: Monday, 26 May 2025 at 04:51 AM w2s4k

😂 🤣 😭 🤣 😂 🤣 😭 🤣

⚡A NATO-supplied F-16 of the AFU has been confirmed shot down by the Russian military.

The Ukrainian command claims it was responding to drone threats when it got hit.

Trump ignoring Israel lately

⚡Meeting between Russian and American representatives begins in Istanbul.

WritterNg:
⚡ Another Ukranian F-16 fighter jet shot down by Russian forces.

There is no jet from UK USA evil nato that Russia will not burn in Ukraine
That why nato can't afford open war with mother Russia

WritterNg:
⚡Since General Solodchuk was just promoted to command of the Russian Center Group, we can safely conclude this bullshit never happened.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14120107/Top-Russian-general-500-North-Korean-soldiers-killed-British-Storm-Shadow-missiles-devastating-attack.html

Every Russians military bases have nuke bunker even Ukraine Soviet forces bases has one

So top officers drive into the bunker and conduct work so saying UK USA evil nato weapons hit them their is just pipe dream

⚡Trump:

Syria will not have a chance if sanctions remain in place.

⚡Trump on meeting with Putin:

We must meet and we will meet.

WritterNg:
⚡ Another Ukranian F-16 fighter jet shot down by Russian forces.

Aviation cannon/guns ke to shoot down Russian missiles? This is a suicide mission, Not even air to air missiles or Surface to Air missiles??Wahala dey. Ukraine is in deep trouble no wonder they're begging for ceasefire.

WritterNg:
⚡Since General Solodchuk was just promoted to command of the Russian Center Group, we can safely conclude this bullshit never happened.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14120107/Top-Russian-general-500-North-Korean-soldiers-killed-British-Storm-Shadow-missiles-devastating-attack.html

Go to school, you na go say no. Ordinary English, you no fit interpret properly. They reported "allegedly", you are here making a fuss over nothing. Even the newspaper did not make a definitive statement on it and wrote "if true" at the end of the report.
I didn't know English was so cumbersome to understand.

Ukraine counted the military dead men to the exact number of 500

Lol round figure

WritterNg:
😂 🤣 😭 🤣 😂 🤣 😭 🤣

A frikin suit

Your claim "....if member states faced a threat from an external power, ECOMOG has a clause/protocol for mutual defence" is not accurate. The protocol I think you might be referring to would be the 1981 ECOWAS Protocol on Mutual Assistance in Defence; however, it was adopted by ECOWAS states—not ECOMOG and it led to the establishment of the AAFC (Allied Armed Force of the Community) concept.

ECOMOG wasn't created until 1990 (which was approx. 10 years later). Also, I guess you know that ECOMOG no longer exists. Its operations ended '99/2000 when it withdrew from Liberia. What the ECOWAS has today is the ESF i.e ECOWAS Standby Force.

While ECOWAS's scope includes a military role as demonstrated in its interventions in Ivory coast (ECOMICI), Gambia (ECOMIG) etc. This role DOES NOT include a mutual defense mandate - at least not in a NATO-style way. There's no binding legal basis/obligation for a collective military action against an invading country. The closest thing it now has to a mutual defense treaty would be the 25th article of the 1999 protocol which allows it to intervene in event of a threat to the security of a member state by armed groups or insurgents (this description is too vague and doesn't clearly cover conventional interstate aggression).

Yes, ECOWAS still technically has the 1981 protocol which makes provision for a mutual military Assistance. However, it is functionally obsolete and It is now superseded in relevance by the Revised treaty of 1993 + the 1999 protocol which both reoriented ECOWAS toward internal stability, not external defense. Basically, "mutual defense" has now evolved to mean the establishment of the ECOWAS standby force (ESF). Problem however is that the ESF (which has since become the primary vehicle for ECOWAS security interventions including those initially envisioned by the 1981 protocol) does not have the mandate to fight off an invading country. And frankly, even if it did have such mandate, i wouldn't bet on it.

P.S: *its predecessors - ECOMOG and co. notably did nothing during the Bakassi Peninsula conflict (between NG & Camerron). So, i'm inclined to expect similar actions inaction from their successor.

cc obedience4

⚡Ukrainian media claim that the Russian delegation demanded a full Ukrainian withdrawal from four regions. When the Ukrainian side refused, the Russians reportedly stood up and warned that next time, the demand would include five regions.

⚡The Ukrainian delegation brought an official translator to the meeting with the Russian delegation, but he just sits there and doesn't do anything because, obviously, no one in the Ukrainian delegation speaks Ukrainian and the negotiations are taking place entirely in Russian.

⚡Ukrainian diplomatic source says Russian demands at talks unrealistic and go far beyond anything previously discussed.

WritterNg:
⚡Ukrainian media claim that the Russian delegation demanded a full Ukrainian withdrawal from four regions. When the Ukrainian side refused, the Russians reportedly stood up and warned that next time, the demand would include five regions.

Exactly

Let their UK USA evil nato fans be saying Ukraine is winning online

WritterNg:
⚡Ukrainian media claim that the Russian delegation demanded a full Ukrainian withdrawal from four regions. When the Ukrainian side refused, the Russians reportedly stood up and warned that next time, the demand would include five regions.

This is how a winning side talks...take it for peace or leave it for war. Ukraine choice.

Ukraine is already down totally, if they fail to use this opportunity and consolidate, their will be bitter consequences.

Finland understand the game was up, and have to cede land to USSR, to ensure their sovereignty and peace.

WritterNg:
⚡Ukrainian media claim that the Russian delegation demanded a full Ukrainian withdrawal from four regions. When the Ukrainian side refused, the Russians reportedly stood up and warned that next time, the demand would include five regions.

Perfect opening demand.

-Lord

⚡China marks Pakistan’s six Indian jet kills – three Rafales, one Su-30MKI, one MiG-21, and one Heron UAV – on its J-10C jets.

⚡Steve Witkoff:

If Trump brings Iran and the Arab nations together, the Middle East could outpace the EU economically.” He adds, “The Gulf is highly undervalued. Europe is dysfunctional. A united Gulf could overtake Europe.

https://x.com/clashreport/status/1923380666617762023

WritterNg:
⚡Steve Witkoff:

If Trump brings Iran and the Arab nations together, the Middle East could outpace the EU economically.” He adds, “The Gulf is highly undervalued. Europe is dysfunctional. A united Gulf could overtake Europe.

https://x.com/clashreport/status/1923380666617762023

100% true...that's why Trump stance towards that region has changed...Big spenders and no crazy regulation like EU

shoodboi2:


I'm not here to argue with you. You and I both know you never agree to anything and will begin another argument that will last for the next three/four days. I am not interested in such.

Comparing ECOWAS with NATO is very odd. I have never even seen anyone do such until you did so yesterday. They have very different and incomparable roles.

That guy thinks from his anus, u re pouring water in a basket trying to educate him.

⚡Russia's chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky to Ukrainian delegation, according to the Economist.

"We don't want war, but we are ready to fight for a year, two, three - as long as it takes. We fought with Sweden for 21 years. How long are you ready to fight?"

And on the land captured from Sweden, we built Saint Petersburg."

OddFellow:
Your claim "....if member states faced a threat from an external power, ECOMOG has a clause/protocol for mutual defence" is not accurate. The protocol I think you might be referring to would be the 1981 ECOWAS Protocol on Mutual Assistance in Defence; however, it was adopted by ECOWAS states—not ECOMOG and it led to the establishment of the AAFC (Allied Armed Force of the Community) concept.

ECOMOG wasn't created until 1990 (which was approx. 10 years later). Also, I guess you know that ECOMOG no longer exists. Its operations ended '99/2000 when it withdrew from Liberia. What the ECOWAS has today is the ESF i.e ECOWAS Standby Force.

While ECOWAS's scope includes a military role as demonstrated in its interventions in Ivory coast (ECOMICI), Gambia (ECOMIG) etc. This role DOES NOT include a mutual defense mandate - at least not in a NATO-style way. There's no binding legal basis/obligation for a collective military action against an invading country. The closest thing it now has to a mutual defense treaty would be the 25th article of the 1999 protocol which allows it to intervene in event of a threat to the security of a member state by armed groups or insurgents (this description is too vague and doesn't clearly cover conventional interstate aggression).

Yes, ECOWAS still technically has the 1981 protocol which makes provision for a mutual military Assistance. However, it is functionally obsolete and It is now superseded in relevance by the Revised treaty of 1993 + the 1999 protocol which both reoriented ECOWAS toward internal stability, not external defense. Basically, "mutual defense" has now evolved to mean the establishment of the ECOWAS standby force (ESF). Problem however is that the ESF (which has since become the primary vehicle for ECOWAS security interventions including those initially envisioned by the 1981 protocol) does not have the mandate to fight off an invading country. And frankly, even if it did have such mandate, i wouldn't bet on it.

P.S: *its predecessors - ECOMOG and co. notably did nothing during the Bakassi Peninsula conflict (between NG & Camerron). So, i'm inclined to expect similar actions inaction from their successor.

cc obedience4

ECOMOG as a military apparatus is not a decision-making body, Any formal agreement based on the military apparatus "ECOMOG" will have to be done by the ECOWAS body. ECOMOG and its subsequent Forces are simply the military apparatus of the body ECOWAS. You saying that the ECOMOG didn't adopt the mutual defence pact is wrong, The 1981 mutual defence assistance pact by the ECOWAS body is legal binding on all its military apparatus "ECOMOG and all ECOWAS subsequent military formations.


Another thing we need to clarify is that there's no difference between ECOMOG and the present ECOWAS standing force, the ECOWAS military apparatus is based on Standby notice, they don't have any standing military or permanent bases, they are only called upon when the need arises and member states are mandated to contribute to the force. After each assignments they are disbanded and when need be are organised in another name, which mostly mirror the country they are operating in. ECOMOG was the name used by the ECOWAS body in Liberia, ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia is abbreviated as ECOMIG, etc, The reason why I used ECOMOG is because that's the best-known intervention force to date of ECOWAS military intervention

All you have said is what we call technicalities. The bottom line is that just like you said, ECOWAS as a body has a protocol for mutual defence.which is subject to personal interpretation and the different scenarios involved. I never said it was legal binding, Some NATO at some point have refused to participate in NATO's intervention operations. ECOWAS as a body has not faced any external threats or aggression before.. The fact still remains that they are provisions that are in the ECOWAS charter that be used as a basis to enforce mutual defence, all that is subject to interpretation.

NATO, for example is a defensive alliance, but certain clauses have been used to allow it to become an invading/enforcing force.
It is all subject to interpretations.


In regards to Nigeria and Cameron clash, it wasn't a large-scale military conflict, and besides Nigeria pulls the major weight in all ECOWAS interventions, and wouldn't likely need any help from the ECOWAS body, if the war had escalated with the French military ing the Cameroonians then maybe the ECOWAS body would have intervene.

There were certain high level discussions by ECOWAS to invade Mali and Faso and restore the democratic elected government. I think discussions were held in Abuja

So I decided Mate to look up the ECOWAS Revised treaty 1993 and the protocol 1999

in article 5 of the revised treaty that deals with security, I don't think I saw anything that downgraded the 1981 agreement on Mutual Defence Assistance, same with the I999 protocol
The role of ECOMOG, as defined in the 1999 protocol, has a big IF, Point H says any other operations as may be mandated by the security Council. Any other operations may also Included defence against an invading force.

Reading through the principles of the ECOWAS from the Protocol 1999, it says, and I quote Territorial integrity and political independence of member states. My question is this how dose ECOWAS enforce and ensure the territorial integrity of if military force is needed.

For example, if Nigeria were to be invaded by South Africa, how would the ECOWAS body enforce the territorial integrity of Nigeria and ensure her political independence when military force is needed.


Like I pointed out, all these are technicalities, ECOWAS hasn't faced external threats, and if need be, she has a protocol to fall to the 1981 mutual defence agreement, I have read through the 1999protocols and the treaty 1993 i don't think i have seen any thing to dispute the "legality of the 1981 protocol.


if not for our brothers in the north and our leader weakness, ECOWAS military apparatus should have invaded Burkina Faso and removed that "illegitimate thing" that parade itself a leader and restore the democratic elected government to power.

Also in objective C there's "Mutual defense Assistance".

P.s If I should be honest, I don't think the present ECOWAS, regardless of the mutual defence agreement, is capable of mounting a defence for a member state, the alliance is way too weak,.. That military junta in Burkina Faso should have been given an ultimatum and invaded.

Cc OddFellow

⚡US official to Al Jazeera:

USS Truman is on its way out of the Middle East, and there are no plans to replace it.

WritterNg:
⚡Russia's chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky to Ukrainian delegation, according to the Economist.

"We don't want war, but we are ready to fight for a year, two, three - as long as it takes. We fought with Sweden for 21 years. How long are you ready to fight?"

And on the land captured from Sweden, we built Saint Petersburg."

WritterNg:
⚡Russia's chief negotiator Vladimir Medinsky to Ukrainian delegation, according to the Economist.

"We don't want war, but we are ready to fight for a year, two, three - as long as it takes. We fought with Sweden for 21 years. How long are you ready to fight?"

And on the land captured from Sweden, we built Saint Petersburg."

Russia has history, Ukraine has none! This statement is a fact, plus Ukraine has no cards to play...they are lossing badly now.

You're likely referring to the Great Northern War (1700-1721), a conflict involving Russia, Sweden, and other European powers.
The war lasted for 21 years and had significant implications for the region.

The Great Northern War saw Russia, led by Peter the Great, emerge as a major power in Europe. Sweden, under King Charles XII, faced challenges on multiple fronts, ultimately losing territory and influence.

⚡Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif:

A 6th Indian Mirage fighter jet was shot down on the night of May 6-7.

⚡US working on plan to move 1 million Palestinians to Libya.