FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / MIKES GRIPES /  Heard on the news

Heard on the news

Started by Denny56 REPLIES887 VIEWS· 15 Jul 2025, 04:06
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
15 Jul 2025, 04:06
#1
15 Jul 2025, 04:06#1

this morning classless Trump saying that 'Putin fooled Obama, Bush and Clinton but he doesn't fool me'


Yeah, right.


Should invite him to Ruckers where I religiously stated months ago that Putin was playing him, that Putin had no interest in peace and that he was all talk. Trump also boasted that he gets on well with Putin.......with tears in my eyes I ask again.....who in hell wants to get on well with a murdering dictator!!!

Funny though that Putin has never said that he gets on well with Trump.


As per normal I expect the TrumpZealots to jump to Trump's defence......not sure who they hate more.....the truth or the anti Trump.


No matter, at the end of the day Trump has finally woken up and that's only after the unnecessary destruction of the Ukraine and thousands of innocent Ukrainian lives.


Go'on now.....sing the useless Turd's praises.



CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2025, 07:18
#2
15 Jul 2025, 07:18#2

Denny


The above is what is so misleading by the site members like you and some other site members, Trump is not a war monger, He is a person who believe that it is not in the interest of ordinary people losing their lives, He met Putin twice while he was previous president and at the Helsinki meeting told Putin that Russiaa was cheating on the Nuclear armaments treaty of 1984 and tore up the treaty, He then said that he wants a new treaty and that needs to ensure guarantees of the signatories not cheating on the treaties Putin accepted the suggestion and a ne treaty was being being negotiated - but that was not completed by the time he left office in Janary 2021. Before he left office Trump - believing that Germany became to depedent on Russia for gas provision Trump banned the completion pf the Baltic sea pipeline. Putin had no option but to accept Trumps action.


In the meantime Trump through negotiations tried to get the allied troops out of Afghanistan on an organzed basis and the same applied to Iraq. That while the media was attacking Trump of colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election and that story persisted in 2020 in the election campaign. In the State media in Russia Biden was supported as DP cndidate in the eelction and Russian istitutions spent millions to support the eletion of Biden and Putin himself said he wants to see Biden as President and the Russian Government spent millions on advetising supporting Biden , In October 2021 Biiden met with Putin in Geneva - but Biden obviously did not know what was discussed and a bare 4 months later Putin approved the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops. Putin had proof of corruption by Biden in both Ukraine and Russia while he was the VP under Obama and subsequently so Putin regarded Biden as corrupt and stupid shit,


So Trump thought that in the negotiations on issues between him and Putin the latter would cave in and be reasonable during negotiations. This was obviously not the case since Trump;s re-election in 2024 and again Putin supported Harris' election as candidate, Putin wants big shit a US Presidents - he knows they would not really act against Russia,


If there is one thing Putin did not want to see happenig it was Trump's election victory in 2024 and in intial tlephone convesatins Putin seemed to agree with peace negotiations starting. Putin also know that the USDF wa weakened by maladministration while Biden was President - so he started breaching moves to create peace in Ukraine and Trump found out that Putin was not really supporting peace engottiations. So Rubio stated if the Russians wants war in Ukraine they will get war in Ukraine, This time it would be real harm of Russia with modern equipment be provided to Ukraine.


Biden provided some arms to Ukraine =- but mostly outdated equipment the USDF force got in the 1980's and even earlier collected from USA army bases throughout the world. These arms were supposed to be replaced ny mre modern arms being provided to the US bases. It never was replaced and the USD weakened as a result, and Trump's first budget contained an 25% increased DF budget - strictly controlled by the new administration. Trump's first priority was to get replacement weaponry developed since the 2 000's. Much was doine within the past six months leaving the USA unable to keep supplying replacement weaponry to the US army.


So if Putin want war - he will get war and this time war with weaponry of the most modern design nd delivery has already started iro of replacment weaponry. The USA routinely spent 5,8% of its GDP on defense spending and Trump now forced the NATO members to up their defense spending to 5% of theiir GDP.


Will Putin cave in when under pressure - we do not klnow yet, Since the US attack on nuckear development bases in Iran - the Iran Prime Minster went to Moscow and got nothing from the Russians. Unlike the spineless and mental instability of Biden - Trump will isolate Russian trade with the world, Trump already got the support of Tutkey on he issue of stabality of the ME situation.and the signs are that Turkey wants their own negotiations to stop the Ukraine War to restart. Trumps demands in those negotiations are clear - no nucler arms development and no support of terrorist organizations by Iran.


If their is one thing Putin does not want is a direct clash with Trump and the signs are that new negotiations is likely to start soon. He knows that if Trump says in Public that the USA would destroy his objectives it would happen. It is likely that Tump will cause Turkey to block Russian shipping from using the Bosphorus and that will destroy 100% ability of trading with countries worldwide.


.



,

DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
15 Jul 2025, 11:45
#3
15 Jul 2025, 11:45#3

Trump added of Putin: ‘He fooled Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden – he didn’t fool me.’

CH
ChippoPro3,372 posts
15 Jul 2025, 14:19
#4
15 Jul 2025, 14:19#4

Do you old people know when beeno is?

last time he posted was in march.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2025, 16:44
#5
15 Jul 2025, 16:44#5

Hysteria arrives with another facinating post about Trump…what a bore

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2025, 17:49
#6
15 Jul 2025, 17:49#6

Here’s a heard on the news for you Hysteria…..Trump has been privately encouraging the Ukraine to step up attacks on Russia. Which was then leaked, presumably by somebody in the room to the Financial Times. If it was a US publication the bet would be it was part of the US team…but given it’s a British newspaper the odds are it was Ukraine that leaked it.


How’s that play in your Putin stooge narrative….stooge.


And shame on the Financial Times for publishing this….a once enjoyable paper is now totally unreliable.

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
15 Jul 2025, 23:14
#7
15 Jul 2025, 23:14#7

War in Ukraine



Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call

US president encouraged Ukrainian leader to step up deep strikes on Russia

US President Donald Trump, right, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the recent Nato summit. Trump said he was ‘very unhappy’ with Russia and its president over the lack of progress towards a deal to end the war © Telegram/Handout/Anadolu/Getty Images


Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call on x (opens in a new window)


Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call on facebook (opens in a new window)


Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call on linkedin (opens in a new window)






current progress 100%

Christopher Miller in Kyiv, Henry Foy in Brussels, Max Seddon in Berlin and Lauren Fedor in Washington

Published11 hours ago

|Updated18:45

710

Donald Trump has privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on Russian territory, even asking Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could strike Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons, according to people briefed on the discussions.

The conversation, which took place during the July 4 call between the US and Ukrainian leaders, marks a sharp departure from Trump’s previous stance on Russia’s war and his campaign promise to end US involvement in foreign conflicts.

While it remains unclear whether Washington will deliver such weapons, the discussion underscores Trump’s deepening frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to engage in ceasefire talks proposed by the US president, who once vowed to resolve the war in a day.

The conversation with Zelenskyy on July 4 was precipitated by Trump’s call with Putin a day earlier, which the US president described as “bad”.

Two people familiar with the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy said the US president had asked his Ukrainian counterpart whether he could hit military targets deep inside Russia if he provided weapons capable of doing so.

“Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?” Trump asked on the call, according to the people.

They said Zelenskyy replied: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”

Trump signalled his backing for the idea, describing the strategy as intended to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” and force the Kremlin to the negotiating table, according to the two people briefed on the call.

A western official, who had been informed of the call, said the conversation reflected a growing desire among Ukraine’s western partners to supply long-range weapons capable of “bringing the war to Muscovites” — a sentiment echoed privately by American officials in recent weeks.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Trump’s July 4 call with Zelenskyy.

But speaking to reporters as he left the White House on Tuesday, Trump said Zelenskyy “shouldn’t target Moscow”. He also said the US is “not looking” to supply long-range missiles to Kyiv.

Trump added that tariffs and sanctions would be applied to Russia if a peace deal was not reached in 50 days.

“We’re going to see what happens with President Putin. So far, I have been very disappointed with President Putin. I have solved a lot of wars in the last three months, but I haven’t got this one yet. This is a Biden war, it’s not a Trump war. I am here to try and get us out of that mess.”

Ukraine’s presidential office did not respond to requests for comment.

The discussion between Trump and Zelenskyy led to a list of potential weapons for Kyiv being shared by the US side with the Ukrainian president in Rome last week, according to three people with knowledge of it.

During a meeting with US defence officials and intermediaries from Nato governments, Zelenskyy received a list of long-range strike systems that potentially could be made available to Ukraine via third-party transfers.

The arrangement would allow Trump to sidestep the need for Congressional approval on direct US military aid by authorising weapons sales to European allies, who would then pass the systems on to Kyiv.

The Ukrainians had asked for Tomahawk missiles, precision strike cruise missiles with a range of around 1,600km. But the Trump administration — like the Biden administration — had concerns about Ukraine’s lack of restraint, said a person familiar with the list shared with Zelenskyy.

During a meeting in the Oval Office with Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte on Monday, Trump announced a plan to provide Ukraine with Patriot air defence systems and interceptor missiles but did not disclose any shipments of other weapons systems.




Donald Trump threatened 100% secondary tariffs on Russia on Monday © White House

The US president said he was “very unhappy” with Russia and its president over the lack of progress towards a deal to end its war. “I’m disappointed in President [Vladimir] Putin, because I thought we would have had a deal two months ago.”

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia’s security council and a former stand-in president for Putin, shrugged off Trump’s decision. “Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin . . . Russia didn’t care,” Medvedev wrote on X.

Two of the people briefed on the call between Trump and Zelenskyy and familiar with US-Ukraine discussions on military strategy said that one weapon discussed was the Army Tactical Missile System, or Atacms.

Ukraine has used US-supplied Atacms missiles with a range of up to 300km (186 miles) to strike targets in Russian-occupied territory and, in some cases, deeper inside Russia. The Atacms can be launched from HIMARS rocket systems that the Biden administration delivered to Ukraine. But they do not fly far enough to reach Moscow or St Petersburg.

Russia has repeatedly threatened to attack western targets in response to western supplies of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, but has yet to do so.

After Ukraine first used the Atacms system to strike military targets inside Russian sovereign territory last November, Putin said the war had “taken on elements of a global nature” and responded by test-firing the Oreshnik, an experimental intermediate-range missile, on the city of Dnipro.

The Russian president said Moscow was entitled to “use our weaponry against military facilities of countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities, and in the case the aggressive action escalates, we will respond just as decisively and symmetrically”.

Following the Atacms strikes, Russia also published an updated version of its nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold for potential use. The changes could envision a Russian nuclear first strike against the US, UK and France — Nato’s three nuclear powers — in response to Ukraine’s strikes on Russia with weapons such as the Atacms and Storm Shadow missiles.

Washington has at times warned Ukraine off using them to strike deep inside Russia, but those constraints appear to be loosening now.

Ukraine has mostly used its own domestically-produced long-range drones to strike military targets deep inside Russia that help fuel its war machine.

Its most audacious attack came in early June, when Ukraine’s SBU security service launched swarms of suicide drones hidden inside prefabricated homes that it smuggled into Russia and attacked the country’s fleet of strategic bombers. The planes had been used in Moscow’s bombardments of Ukrainian cities throughout the war. At least 12 aircraft were heavily damaged or destroyed in what Kyiv dubbed Operation Spiderweb.

'Film me!’: Russia's executions of Ukrainian POWs point to a policy | FT Film


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025. All rights reserved.

Reuse this content (opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Latest on War in Ukraine

  1. White House Watch
  2. Donald Trump’s frustration with Russia boils over
  3. War in Ukraine
  4. EU’s Russian asset plan equals expropriation, warns Euroclear
  5. War in Ukraine
  6. US threatens Russia with ‘severe’ tariffs over war in Uk


BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
15 Jul 2025, 23:30
#8
15 Jul 2025, 23:30#8

POTUS Batshit ... ffs just send the weapons, including long range missiles ...

End 6 months of obfuscation, doing sweet f'all

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2025, 23:44
#9
15 Jul 2025, 23:44#9

Yes FFS just put us on course for a potential nuclear conflict, who cares says Blob, just as long as we can get Trump

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
15 Jul 2025, 23:55
#10
15 Jul 2025, 23:55#10

A March CBS/YouGov poll found that 68% of Republicans disapproved of continued military aid to Ukraine. Since 2022, many congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to block or restrict Ukraine aid, starting with Kentucky senator Rand Paul’s delay of a $40bn package, which Greene voted against, too.

Sies

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Jul 2025, 03:34
#11
16 Jul 2025, 03:34#11

Aid (2023 through 2025) to the Ukraine as a % of donor country GDP


USA 0.53%


Ireland 0.04%


NZ 0.03 %


Sies

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
16 Jul 2025, 04:56
#12
16 Jul 2025, 04:56#12

“Putin’s got a sort of carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the next 50 days.” Putin’s next move will be to “double down” and increase the attacks on Ukraine to apply maximum damage in the time frame given by Trump, says Sir Bill Browder, head of the Global Magnitsky Campaign.

DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
16 Jul 2025, 08:02
#13
16 Jul 2025, 08:02#13

POTUS Batshit ... ffs just send the weapons, including long range missiles ...

End 6 months of obfuscation, doing sweet f'all

And you say POTUS is Batshit.....

Just from this statement right here, it is extremely clear who the Batshit one is.....

Thank fuck you are not involved in the decisions of this war, because if you were, it would have gone nuclear already

Such a dumb, stupid and very naive comment to make ..... "just send the long range missiles"


BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
16 Jul 2025, 09:30
#14
16 Jul 2025, 09:30#14

Up yours ................

So its ok for Russia but please don't respond in a similar fashion cos that might anger Putin & he'll start using nuclear weapons ?

DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
16 Jul 2025, 10:00
#15
16 Jul 2025, 10:00#15

"So its ok for Russia but please don't respond in a similar fashion cos that might anger Putin & he'll start using nuclear weapons ?"

Ok.....let's make sure that we get this very clear here ...

Are you currently calling POTUS Batshit for not recommending, endorsing and sending long range missiles that Ukraine can use to target Moscow?

Yes or No

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
16 Jul 2025, 10:35
#16
16 Jul 2025, 10:35#16

Yes & remember that unlike Russia, the Ukrainians don't target schools hospitals kindergartens maternity wards playgrounds shops homes apartment blocks etc

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
16 Jul 2025, 10:48
#17
16 Jul 2025, 10:48#17










https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=ba28415142d5cdfa&q=images+of+war+damage+in+Ukraine&udm=2&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeqDdErwP5rACeJAty2zADJjYuUnSkczEhozYdaq1wZrEWeBTRRMkGx8PE2F9zI9kP0W9slwfD0e_E2SCYpxxEsASI-LxkVBvfu-XibWr_YDicyb17E6vKrWBOlLdgfdjFpLOhNCkwKiTYaFviHAaGJoUkT5_nrzWq6VkkQdeHpPTQCkROQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-4Kbz_sCOAxWfkq8BHZ88NggQtKgLKAF6BAgfEAE&biw=1366&bih=614&dpr=1









Al Jazeera

Photos: Ukraine assesses damage as ...

ABC News - The Walt Disney Company

What's the cost of damage to Ukraine's ...



NBC News

Drone video shows war damage and ...

OPB

Here's how much it could cost to ...



Al Jazeera

Russian attacks kill one in Ukraine ...

United Nations Development Programme

Breaking barriers, building hope in ...

The Guardian

Russia's war in Ukraine 'causing £3.6bn ...

Esri

Open-Source Data Documents War ...

The Conversation

The Russia-Ukraine War has caused a ...

New America

Protecting Property Rights during and ...

Euronews

War in Ukraine has already caused $60bn ...

United Nations Development Programme

In Ukraine, machine-learning algorithms ...


BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
16 Jul 2025, 10:53
#18
16 Jul 2025, 10:53#18










https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=ba28415142d5cdfa&q=images+of+war+damage+in+Ukraine&udm=2&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeqDdErwP5rACeJAty2zADJjYuUnSkczEhozYdaq1wZrEWeBTRRMkGx8PE2F9zI9kP0W9slwfD0e_E2SCYpxxEsASI-LxkVBvfu-XibWr_YDicyb17E6vKrWBOlLdgfdjFpLOhNCkwKiTYaFviHAaGJoUkT5_nrzWq6VkkQdeHpPTQCkROQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-4Kbz_sCOAxWfkq8BHZ88NggQtKgLKAF6BAgfEAE&biw=1366&bih=614&dpr=1









Al Jazeera

Photos: Ukraine assesses damage as ...

ABC News - The Walt Disney Company

What's the cost of damage to Ukraine's ...



NBC News

Drone video shows war damage and ...

OPB

Here's how much it could cost to ...



Al Jazeera

Russian attacks kill one in Ukraine ...

United Nations Development Programme

Breaking barriers, building hope in ...

The Guardian

Russia's war in Ukraine 'causing £3.6bn ...

Esri

Open-Source Data Documents War ...

The Conversation

The Russia-Ukraine War has caused a ...

New America

Protecting Property Rights during and ...

Euronews

War in Ukraine has already caused $60bn ...

United Nations Development Programme

In Ukraine, machine-learning algorithms ...


DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
16 Jul 2025, 11:32
#19
16 Jul 2025, 11:32#19

Ukraine are not entirely innocent when it comes to unecessary casualties or deaths from missiles, drones or any other military attacks, but they are nowhere near on the level as Russia, which I have called out many times before.

So you want the US president to announce that he is authorising sending the Ukraine some US made long range ballistic missiles, so that Ukraine can start targeting Moscow where Putin is?


DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
16 Jul 2025, 12:43
#20
16 Jul 2025, 12:43#20

So you want the US president to announce that he is authorising sending the Ukraine some US made long range ballistic missiles, so that Ukraine can start targeting Moscow where Putin is?

Yes or No

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Jul 2025, 15:54
#21
16 Jul 2025, 15:54#21

BB


BB No they taarget theatres as an example using Muslims fanatics for the purpose,

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Jul 2025, 15:54
#22
16 Jul 2025, 15:54#22

BB


BB No they target theatres as an example using Muslims fanatics for the purpose,

DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
16 Jul 2025, 16:46
#23
16 Jul 2025, 16:46#23

Well BB is calling Trump Batshit crazy for not already sending these US made long range missiles 6 months ago....

Missiles that could very easily target Moscow or anywhere else in Russia that Putin or any other high profile Russian is ....

I just wanted to get confirmation from BB to see if he really is that delusional and that this is exactly what he wants to happen right now..... but he seems to have gone quiet.

And if anyone else agrees with BB and thinks that Trump is Batshit stupid for not doing this now or 6 months ago, I'm all ears.... let's debate it.

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
16 Jul 2025, 17:27
#24
16 Jul 2025, 17:27#24

And you say POTUS is Batshit.....

Just from this statement right here, it is extremely clear who the Batshit one is.....

Thank fuck you are not involved in the decisions of this war, because if you were, it would have gone nuclear already

Such a dumb, stupid and very naive comment to make ..... "just send the long range missiles"


Gone nuclear, just like when the west sent tanks to Ukraine it went nuclear, or like the time the West sent mass quantities of artillery to Ukraine's it went nuclear. or like the time the the Americans sent HIMAR's/GMLRS and it went nuclear and like the time the Britain/France sent Storm Shadow/SCALP and it went nuclear, and the time the west sent fighter aircraft and it went nuclear, or the time Ukraine actually invaded and occupied Russian territory it went nuclear.


Every time the Russian's warned the west they would respond, they would escalate and they start talking about nuclear weapons. Each time it turned out to be hot air. If you haven't figured it out yet, its a Russian Psyop.


So yes just send the long range missiles and stop hobbling the Ukrainian's. It's absolutely nuts that Russia can fire whatever missiles into Ukraine it wants but Ukraine has to agree to range restrictions. Talk about fighting with one hand tied behind your back.


Almost sounds like you're actually taking the Biden administration's position on the war.


Ok.....let's make sure that we get this very clear here ...

Are you currently calling POTUS Batshit for not recommending, endorsing and sending long range missiles that Ukraine can use to target Moscow?

Yes or No


In my opinion as long as they are valid military targets, by all means fire away.


Ukraine are not entirely innocent when it comes to unecessary casualties or deaths from missiles, drones or any other military attacks, but they are nowhere near on the level as Russia, which I have called out many times before.


Hold up here. Ukraine does not attack civilians targets on purpose. Have their attacks killed Russian civilians? yes they have but not on purpose and in this type of war it's unavoidable. Russia on the other hand does deliberately targeted Ukrainian civilian targets. Ukraine have gone out of their way to abide by restrictions placed upon them, they have shown remarkable constraint. I've no doubt if they had access to longer range missiles they would be used against genuine military targets, Ukraine doesn't have the resources to waste terrorising civilians.


So you want the US president to announce that he is authorising sending the Ukraine some US made long range ballistic missiles, so that Ukraine can start targeting Moscow where Putin is?


Putin is legitimate target. He's the man who instigated this illegal and unprovoked war and is the ultimate head of the army that's prosecuting that war. He's tried to kill Zelensky on more than occasion. But I doubt Ukraine would actual use the missiles to launch such an attack, partly because I really doubt they know where he is and partly because I doubt it would be effective. Putin is reported not to spend a great deal of time in Moscow and has access to numerous residencies and secure locations across Russia. A long range missile like would still take some time to reach the target in Moscow, a Tomahawk fired from Ukraine would take something close to an hour, so if you fire the missile first you need to know were Putin is, how long he would be there, hope the missile isn't intercepted or that he's not given advanced warning and moved to a secure location. Probably better to use it on a fixed in place high value strategic target. A weapons production, ammunition storage etc.


BB No they taarget theatres as an example using Muslims fanatics for the purpose,


Good lord, you're a stupid and disgusting person.






BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
17 Jul 2025, 00:32
#25
17 Jul 2025, 00:32#25

Ukraine

Threefold increase in the number of children killed or injured in Ukraine over the past three months [EN/UK]

Format

News and Press Release

Source

  1. UNICEF

Posted

4 Jul 2025

Originally published

4 Jul 2025

Origin

View original

Attachments

  1. Download Report (PDF | 2.08 MB)

Latest UN-verified data, released by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, reveals a significant rise in child casualties, as well as evolving risks for children that merge online influence with deadly offline impacts

KYIV/GENEVA, 4 July 2025 – The verified number of children killed or injured in Ukraine between 1 March and 31 May 2025 increased by more than 200 per cent compared to the previous quarter, according to data from the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

222 children were killed or injured between 1 March and 31 May 2025, compared to 73 between 1 December 2024 and 28 February 2025. The ongoing use of explosive weapons in populated areas has been particularly deadly and destructive.

Only in April this year, 97 children were killed or maimed, the highest UN-verified monthly number of child casualties since June 2022.

“There is no respite from the war for children across Ukraine,” said UNICEF Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia, Regina De Dominicis. “The situation for children is at a critical juncture, as intense attacks continue to not only destroy lives but disrupt every aspect of childhood.”

The destruction and damage to health facilities, educational infrastructure, water and electricity networks, and safe places to play, all impact children today and into the future. At the same time, intense hostilities in areas of the north-east and eastern regions continue to result in waves of internal displacement and increased humanitarian needs, including cash assistance, essential supplies, as well as mental health, psychosocial and broader child protection support.

There are also new threats evolving for children, as modern warfare merges online risks with deadly offline impacts. The use of children, through online influence, to conduct activities in Ukraine, such as attacks on military objects, sabotage, or information gathering, is particularly concerning and puts their safety and well-being at risk.

As reported by the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, at least two boys died, and one was injured during such acts. In addition, 91 boys and 12 girls have reportedly been detained, with 42 children convicted for their involvement in the conflict, leading to the incarceration of at least seven children, according to data from Ukrainian law enforcement authorities.

The use of children by any party to conflict must cease, and authorities are urged to treat children as victims and to take swift action to support and protect them, including by ensuring access to child-friendly justice services.

UNICEF is working with the Government of Ukraine to strengthen the child-friendly justice system that empowers and protects children by ensuring access to comprehensive legal support services, promoting alternatives to detention, as well as emphasising restorative justice and rehabilitation tailored to the unique needs and best interests of every child.

UNICEF continues to call for immediate compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law and to end and prevent grave violations against children. Children need sustained and lasting peace to recover, one in which their rights and wellbeing are protected and prioritised.

Media contacts

Toby Fricker

Chief of Communication & Partnerships

UNICEF Ukraine

Email: tfricker@unicef.org

Joe English

DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
17 Jul 2025, 03:23
#26
17 Jul 2025, 03:23#26

Every time the Russian's warned the west they would respond, they would escalate and they start talking about nuclear weapons. Each time it turned out to be hot air.


Exactly. Only a stupid would fall for what by now has become a Russian mantra. Putin wouldn't dare, think he's aware that the west has nuclear as well and in greater numbers. It's just a cheap tactic to strike fear into the west, for them to back off and then for him to continue with his onslaught.

Our resident Fool has bought into it hook, line and sinker.

BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
17 Jul 2025, 04:28
#27
17 Jul 2025, 04:28#27

China has apparently warned Russia ... don't even think about using nukes & Putin replied, 'yes Daddy.'

DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
17 Jul 2025, 09:08
#28
17 Jul 2025, 09:08#28

Well, if Russia is Nuked China will be affected...... water, agriculture, amongst many other things, let alone their people will suffer radioactive poisoning.

Only a fool will swallow their BS....it ain't going to happen.

DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
17 Jul 2025, 09:10
#29
17 Jul 2025, 09:10#29

Gone nuclear, just like when the west sent tanks to Ukraine it went nuclear, or like the time the West sent mass quantities of artillery to Ukraine's it went nuclear. or like the time the the Americans sent HIMAR's/GMLRS and it went nuclear and like the time the Britain/France sent Storm Shadow/SCALP and it went nuclear, and the time the west sent fighter aircraft and it went nuclear, or the time Ukraine actually invaded and occupied Russian territory it went nuclear.

Out of everything you have just mentioned here, there is nothing here that could attack Moscow, so I'm not sure why you mentioned them all.... and I'm also not sure who said that doing all this above would end up with the war going nuclear, because it wasn't me.

Yes, hypothetically Moscow could get hit with a Storm Shadow missile, but only if it was sent from the very north of Ukraine, however.....always keep in mind that this missile and all the other NATO supplied missile's have had their software locked by Western partners to prevent unauthorised range extensions or target programming, which is precisely why nothing like this has yet happened, because if it did, we would both be thinking differently about where this war ended up.

I guarantee you right now, that if multiple Storm Shadow missiles or other NATO supplied missiles had already been launched and hit Moscow, or other high profile targets in Russia, then the escalation of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO would be the highest it has ever been.

Ukraine themselves have almost finalised their own Hrim-2 missile build, which apparently would have the capability to hit Moscow, but even if this comes into operation soon, Trump has already asked Zelensky to refrain from hitting the Russian capital.... now here is where I don't agree with Trump at all, even though I do believe it could force Putin to do something very drastic or stupid, to show force....but I do believe that Ukraine has the right to use and send whatever weapon they themselves have developed, to fight this war.

Every time the Russian's warned the west they would respond, they would escalate and they start talking about nuclear weapons. Each time it turned out to be hot air. If you haven't figured it out yet, its a Russian Psyop

This would drastically change if NATO supplied weapons were destroying the capital or other significant areas of Russia on a daily basis, of this I have no doubt at all.

So yes just send the long range missiles and stop hobbling the Ukrainian's. It's absolutely nuts that Russia can fire whatever missiles into Ukraine it wants but Ukraine has to agree to range restrictions. Talk about fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

Almost sounds like you're actually taking the Biden administration's position on the war.

I agree, it's not ideal, and there is no quick fix here.......but you just want to send all these NATO long range missiles that could hit anywhere in Russia, at anytime, which would then give Putin the perfect reason and opportunity to start targeting NATO troops or bases in NATO occupied territory.

In my opinion as long as they are valid military targets, by all means fire away.

So, if you could right now, would you send a NATO supplied long range missile directly to where Putin is, to kill him.

He is obviously a military target, so would you take him out right now with a long range NATO missile if it meant sending it directly into Moscow

Hold up here. Ukraine does not attack civilians targets on purpose. Have their attacks killed Russian civilians? yes they have but not on purpose and in this type of war it's unavoidable. Russia on the other hand does deliberately targeted Ukrainian civilian targets. Ukraine have gone out of their way to abide by restrictions placed upon them, they have shown remarkable constraint. I've no doubt if they had access to longer range missiles they would be used against genuine military targets, Ukraine doesn't have the resources to waste terrorising civilians.

This is only your opinion, there is nothing at all factual in this statement here regarding the Ukranian purposes behind all their strikes, however, I would like to think and believe that Ukraine would not delberately do what the Russians have done, and mostly what they have done so far would align with that belief.

Putin is legitimate target. He's the man who instigated this illegal and unprovoked war and is the ultimate head of the army that's prosecuting that war. He's tried to kill Zelensky on more than occasion. But I doubt Ukraine would actual use the missiles to launch such an attack, partly because I really doubt they know where he is and partly because I doubt it would be effective. Putin is reported not to spend a great deal of time in Moscow and has access to numerous residencies and secure locations across Russia. A long range missile like would still take some time to reach the target in Moscow, a Tomahawk fired from Ukraine would take something close to an hour, so if you fire the missile first you need to know were Putin is, how long he would be there, hope the missile isn't intercepted or that he's not given advanced warning and moved to a secure location. Probably better to use it on a fixed in place high value strategic target. A weapons production, ammunition storage etc.

So... if you had the knoweldge of where Putin was, the ability to get to him..... and have the opportunity to send a few NATO supplied long range missile, to kill Putin today, would you do it and just accept and deal with the consequences later?

DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
17 Jul 2025, 09:13
#30
17 Jul 2025, 09:13#30

Our resident Fool has bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Only a fool will swallow their BS....it ain't going to happen

Yeah, and only a tremendously stupid idiot would believe all this and deliberately put most of the world at risk..... on a hunch that "It ain't going to happen"

DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
17 Jul 2025, 09:24
#31
17 Jul 2025, 09:24#31

No moron, it's not a hunch......it is based on reason. Why don't you get off your melodramatic self important horse just for a moment and re-read my post.

Man you are incredibly dumb!

DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
17 Jul 2025, 10:30
#32
17 Jul 2025, 10:30#32

No moron, it's not a hunch......it is based on reason

I re-read your post

However, I seldom see much logical reason in so many of your posts... and this one is no different

Everyone and their dog knows that the West / NATO has superior nuclear capability compared to Russia ..... so you are not exactly providing any new reasons with this particular fact.

All I see from you is.... "Only a fool wiil swallow their BS" .... "Putin wouldn't dare"..."it aint going to happen"

So in your own words, anyone who even remotely thinks that Russia could do anything other than just the usual conventional war, is swallowing Russia's BS..... yeah ok.


ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
17 Jul 2025, 11:09
#33
17 Jul 2025, 11:09#33

Out of everything you have just mentioned here, there is nothing here that could attack Moscow, so I'm not sure why you mentioned them all.... and I'm also not sure who said that doing all this above would end up with the war going nuclear, because it wasn't me.


Because the Russian's have hinted or implied those actions could potentially lead to nuclear war.


Yes, hypothetically Moscow could get hit with a Storm Shadow missile, but only if it was sent from the very north of Ukraine, however.....always keep in mind that this missile and all the other NATO supplied missile's have had their software locked by Western partners to prevent unauthorised range extensions or target programming, which is precisely why nothing like this has yet happened, because if it did, we would both be thinking differently about where this war ended up.

I guarantee you right now, that if multiple Storm Shadow missiles or other NATO supplied missiles had already been launched and hit Moscow, or other high profile targets in Russia, then the escalation of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and NATO would be the highest it has ever been.


Again Putin won't use nukes. What does using a nuke get Putin. Most analysts reckon that if Putin used a nuke in Ukraine (say a tactical Nuke) it wouldn't significantly change that much on the front line, but what it would almost certainly do is obligate NATO to enter the war in some manner on Ukraine's behalf. Now it's unlikely to result in NATO using nuclear weapons, but responding conventionally likely with the goal of expelling Russia from Ukraine and given Russia's difficult in beat Ukraine on it's own's it would stand no chance against the combined weight of NATO. If Putin considered using a nuke against a NATO country then he's pretty much signing his own death warrant.


This would drastically change if NATO supplied weapons were destroying the capital or other significant areas of Russia on a daily basis, of this I have no doubt at all.


When you say destroyed what do you mean because it comes across much like when people say the west is forcing Ukraine to fight to the last man, its a hyperbolic and disingenuous statement. As I've said Ukraine has shown no desire to "destroy" any Russian city or significant area, but they are willing to hit valid military targets any where in Russia. Even if they wanted too they couldn't because NATO couldn't possibly supply them with enough missiles to destroy a target the size of Moscow. Russia can't even destroy Kyiv with missiles and drones alone, yes they can do damage, but destroy it, not even close. The only cities destroyed so far in this war, are cities Russia reached on the ground and spent many months pummelling with tubed artillery and glide bombs, followed by ground assaults.


Again if issued with long range missiles Ukraine will likely stick to hitting military targets and I suspect they would target things like airbases, logistics hubs etc that are beyond their current range but are that most critical to Russia's activities directly in Ukraine.


So, if you could right now, would you send a NATO supplied long range missile directly to where Putin is, to kill him.

He is obviously a military target, so would you take him out right now with a long range NATO missile if it meant sending it directly into Moscow


In principal I've no issue with it with Ukraine using a NATO missile to do that, but in reality I don't think the Ukrainian's ever would because it's extremely unlikely to succeed. It's not like say in Israel/Palestine/Iran were intelligence on ground leads to aircraft firing fast moving missiles at relatively short range, giving the target little warning to move. But again even if NATO did give such missiles to Ukraine, their still could be terms and conditions attached that prevented such an operation and so far Ukraine has abided by them.


I agree, it's not ideal, and there is no quick fix here.......but you just want to send all these NATO long range missiles that could hit anywhere in Russia, at anytime, which would then give Putin the perfect reason and opportunity to start targeting NATO troops or bases in NATO occupied territory.


Really does sound like your saying Biden escalation management policy on Ukraine was the right one. Putin deliberately targeting NATO troops would be an act of madness for a person who is not an idiot is actually quit risk averse and has never shown himself to be suicidal.


As for NATO occupied territory...WTF...you do know all countries in NATO willing joined the organisation of their own free will. I hope that's a slip.


This is only your opinion, there is nothing at all factual in this statement here regarding the Ukranian purposes behind all their strikes, however, I would like to think and believe that Ukraine would not delberately do what the Russians have done, and mostly what they have done so far would align with that belief.


When you say Ukraine isn't entirely innocent when it comes to unnecessary additional casualties your also leaving the land of factuality and also implying at least partial equivalence between Russia and Ukraine. There is no evidence of Ukraine deliberately targeting Russian civilian targets. International law doesn't prohibit attacking military targets in civilians area's. There normally has to be an assessment done on whether the risk to civilians outweighs the military benefits of taking out such a target. Yes there has been Russian civilians causalities but nothing to suggest they not inevitable and unavoidable causalities that come with launching such operations.


So... if you had the knoweldge of where Putin was, the ability to get to him..... and have the opportunity to send a few NATO supplied long range missile, to kill Putin today, would you do it and just accept and deal with the consequences later?


Yes if Ukraine had the weapons regardless of where they came from and knew they could get him then sure, but it's purely hypothetical, because I don't think it's a realistic or practical option for Ukraine.


What your talking about is not a realistic use case scenario or best case use of such weapon systems. Most likely Ukraine would be hitting targets that are directly targeting Ukraine or supporting Russian's ground war in Ukraine that are beyond Ukraine's current strike range .






DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
17 Jul 2025, 12:49
#34
17 Jul 2025, 12:49#34

Because the Russian's have hinted or implied those actions could potentially lead to nuclear war.

Perhaps, but that does not mean that everyone believes it, which is what your initial response alluded to, although I agree that a lot of people could think it's a possibility.

Again Putin won't use nukes. What does using a nuke get Putin

Another assumption, nothing more

When you say destroyed what do you mean because it comes across much like when people say the west is forcing Ukraine to fight to the last man, its a hyperbolic and disingenuous statement. As I've said Ukraine has shown no desire to "destroy" any Russian city or significant area, but they are willing to hit valid military targets any where in Russia

In simplistic but hypothetical terms, let's say that Ukraine know exactly where Putin is in Moscow right now, so they decide to rain down a parade of NATO supplied long range missiles, to a large but also confined area of Moscow ... thats what I mean.... so no, I didn't mean a huge massive area ...I mean whatever they did hit, would be completely destroyed.

Again if issued with long range missiles Ukraine will likely stick to hitting military targets and I suspect they would target things like airbases, logistics hubs etc that are beyond their current range but are that most critical to Russia's activities directly in Ukraine.

I would agree here, but again, these are only both assumptions on our part

Zelensky is so determined to make a statement to the rest of the world that Ukraine are so capable, that it would not surprise me at all if he did something incredibly stupid with these long range missiles, even if it meant risking continued support from the West.... just my opinion on him.

But again even if NATO did give such missiles to Ukraine, their still could be terms and conditions attached that prevented such an operation and so far Ukraine has abided by them.

Which is precisely why I have already said that it's the reason why it has not happened yet, but once those restrictions came off, thats another story.... otherwise why bother sending the long range missiles anyway.

As for NATO occupied territory...WTF...you do know all countries in NATO willing joined the organisation of their own free will. I hope that's a slip.

Obviously, I mean NATO allies with active NATO boots on the ground in that country, or military bases

When you say Ukraine isn't entirely innocent when it comes to unnecessary additional casualties your also leaving the land of factuality and also implying at least partial equivalence between Russia and Ukraine.

No I'm not, in fact it's not even close

Yes if Ukraine had the weapons regardless of where they came from and knew they could get him then sure, but it's purely hypothetical, because I don't think it's a realistic or practical option for Ukraine.

What your talking about is not a realistic use case scenario or best case use of such weapon systems. Most likely Ukraine would be hitting targets that are directly targeting Ukraine or supporting Russian's ground war in Ukraine that are beyond Ukraine's current strike range .

Yes it is, and you would be suicidal in doing this

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
17 Jul 2025, 16:54
#35
17 Jul 2025, 16:54#35

Escalating the war can only be to Ukraine’s disadvantage. Russia will never back off because of military setbacks, they will only escalate. There is a a level of discomfort that might eventually get Russia to the negotiating table….which is basically captured by resolute defense. Make it embarrassing and we go to the next level.


I’m 100% on Ukrainian people’s side in all of this, and that will be served by ending the war. Trump may not succeed as I suggested right at the start, but unlike Biden he has done everything he could to get a resolution….including not denigrating Putin. Embarrass Putin and there’s no chance of a peace.


The arm chair critics on this Board should think about one of their heroes, John Kennedy. Did he attack Cuba a threat literally right off the US coast? No he respected the threat that Soviet nukes represented and handled the crisis in a measured way so that any conflict could be avoided.


And thankfully there are still a few adults around who understand that lesson.



CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Jul 2025, 17:50
#36
17 Jul 2025, 17:50#36

There will b millions more killed if the site warmongers have their way. Trump wants tos ave lives - they want t cotinue ith an exxpanded war program. Attack Moscow the last looniw ho tried that was Napoleon and it is not going to be accpetable to ALL the Russians,


There is no chance that the USA will send troops to Ukraine to fight in a war against Rusia butit could end up in a nuclear war that could easily lead to WW3 and we know who used Niclear Bombs in WW2,


Peace negotiations is really what is needed and I think over the next month thstt wold be restarted.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 Jul 2025, 01:48
#37
18 Jul 2025, 01:48#37

Only Hysteria thought that America is going to send troops to fight against Russia

ST
Stavanger1Pro4,532 posts
18 Jul 2025, 11:59
#38
18 Jul 2025, 11:59#38

Escalating the war can only be to Ukraine’s disadvantage. Russia will never back off because of military setbacks, they will only escalate.


How would giving Ukraine the tools needed to degrade Russia's ability to attack them, a disadvantage to Ukraine. If Russia never back's off after military setbacks, explain their surrender in World War I, or their withdrawal from Afghanistan or the First Chechan War. As for escalation how exactly, it's number of new recruits into the army has fallen below the causality rate it's presently sustaining. As for weapons production like missiles, it's producing as many as it can already and while I'm sure they are trying to increase production capacity have no doubt they would be doing that regardless of whether Ukraine gets longer range missiles or not.


There is a a level of discomfort that might eventually get Russia to the negotiating table….which is basically captured by resolute defense. Make it embarrassing and we go to the next level.


If Russia's economy tanks and it can no longer support the war effort in Ukraine, it may be forced to come to the negotiating table with realistic expectations. As for embarrassing, Russia should already be massively embarrassed by the whole debacle. The vaunted 2nd strongest army in the world has turned into a paper tiger, it's Black Sea fleet sent scampering back to bases in Russia, humbled by an country without a navy. It's military hardware has been shown to have been of poor quality and it was powerless to intervene in Syria, Iran and Nagorno-Karabakh losing allies and influence. not to mention Putin was almost toppled from power in a coup attempt by an ex-chef.


I’m 100% on Ukrainian people’s side in all of this, and that will be served by ending the war. Trump may not succeed as I suggested right at the start, but unlike Biden he has done everything he could to get a resolution….including not denigrating Putin. Embarrass Putin and there’s no chance of a peace.


Your not. Anyone that just blindly supports Trump's efforts to end the war are not on Ukraine's side. Trump's efforts up till the recent announcement of additional Patriot missiles to Ukraine was to place the pressure almost entirely on Ukraine to sign a deal with Russia. All throughout that period Russia/Putin never dropped any of their demands, which include the demobilisation of the Ukrainian army and the cessation of western military aid to Ukraine. That's what the Russian's were and still are demanding. They were defacto surrender terms. That's in effect what you're advocating Ukraine should do. Of course the Ukrainian people want the war to end but as you know well, its not peace under any terms and no before any suggests it, Ukraine is not being unreasonable here, they have already stated they are willing to make enormous concessions in any peace deal acknowledging that the presently occupied territories of Ukraine will remain in Russian hand's for the foreseeable future.


As for Trump doing everything in his power, absolute nonsense, why was at least not equal pressure applied to Russia. Stop throwing out this nonsense about embarrassing Putin, it's just a made up excuse so you can uncritical support Trump's methods.


It's all very well talking about peace, but when one side has no interest in peace, its all rather academic.


The arm chair critics on this Board should think about one of their heroes, John Kennedy. Did he attack Cuba a threat literally right off the US coast? No he respected the threat that Soviet nukes represented and handled the crisis in a measured way so that any conflict could be avoided.


What the arm chair Chamberlains should think about, (other than wrongly assume Kennedy is a hero of the people arguing the opposite point) is yes he respected the threat of the Soviet Nukes, but the Soviets also respected the threat of American nukes, knowing neither side could win a nuclear war. Has something changed since?


So far the west has taken a measured approach and it if it chooses it could continue to do, it could give Ukraine missiles and stipulate say do not attack targets in cities with them or stick to targets within a certain range (which would be greater than what Ukraine can currently target).


However you simply can't get round the problem that if your position is that an arrangement must be reached no matter how unfavourable because of the threat of nuclear weapons, your sending a message out to the world to all dictators and rogue states, get Nukes, you can act aggressively as you want to whoever you want and you won't face significant consequences. Russia could simply attack another country in a few years time and rattle the nuclear sabre again...then what... better give them what they want again?.


And thankfully there are still a few adults around who understand that lesson.


Very few adults in the Trump administration.



MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 Jul 2025, 18:15
#39
18 Jul 2025, 18:15#39

Oh sure the Administration is less informed than a bunch of clowns with TDS syndrome. You have statements like sure Putin has nukes but we have more nukes. Obviously the fool who wrote this never read On the Beach even though he lives in Oz.


Escalation will not help the Ukraine and with their nuclear arsenal Russia will not be defeated..,what we don’t want to do is drive them to the point where they even seriously contemplate using tactical nukes. The world doesn’t need that precedent. And if they do, what do we do, start a nuclear exchange?


Getting a reasonable peace was the best solution and if the Russians weren’t ready to do that, grinding defense is the next best option. Send in long range missiles that hit Moscow and every Ukranian city will get the response.


And Russia isn’t ‘simply going to attack another country’ after what they have already experienced….they aren’t stupid, they are actually very shrewd.

PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
18 Jul 2025, 18:20
#40
18 Jul 2025, 18:20#40

The idea that restraint encourages nuclear proliferation ignores reality...countries seek nukes for regime survival, not because the West hesitated once.


Giving Ukraine longer-range missiles risks direct escalation with a nuclear power now—not hypothetically. Deterrence isn’t about looking tough; it’s about not sleepwalking into wars nobody can control. The lesson for the world isn’t “nukes work”, it’s that nuclear war is unwinnable, and rational actors don’t play brinkmanship with extinction.


And that's something that West should have been making sure that Russians heard numerous times per day. Because as much as the average person in the West doesn't want to be nuked, neither do average Russians.


That narrative could have been drilled into people minds so heavily over this period that, by now, Russians would detest the idea of a leader that might bring about their fears.


I still maintain that the West didn't have to turn all Russians against Putin. Just enough that somebody capitalised and ousted him.


↓ LOAD MORE (page 2 of 2)

More from Mikes Gripes