Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 146. (Read 77398 times)

In the beginning, it wasn't Russia's goal to defeat. They were simply attempting to bring freedom to Russians and Ukrainians in the Donbas area and other nearby areas. Russia wasn't against the Ukrainian people freely making up their own mind. What they were against was the Ukrainian government using military means to destroy the freedom of the people, many of whom were Russians.

Now that the US has made a big deal about conquering Russia through Ukraine, things have changed. But one of the major things that has not changed is that Russia still doesn't want to do more than bring peace by taking out the evil Ukrainian government and military.

The point is, if both militaries killed each other off 1 person to 1 person, the Ukraine military would be long gone, and the land would be free to Russian takeover. As it is, in general, it's 6 or 7 Ukrainian soldiers (or whomever else they are getting from Nato) that are dying for every 1 Russian soldier.

Riiiiiight. So how come Putin's glorious armed forces using the best-in-the-world soviet military equipment couldn't defeat Ukrainian forces that had very little Western equipment at the beginning, and still can't defeat Ukrainians with more Western equipment (albeit inferior if we were to believe your story). Something not adding up.

If some nato nations put their own soldiers into Ukraine independently,how do you think Russia would respond?I doubt this would happen but politicans in some countries can be unpredictable but I would like to know the opinion of a Russian person.
Also in your opinion do you think this war could escalate into a nuclear confrontation and what might be the cause of such an escalation?

Bradley may be replaced, and probably even quickly, but the Leopards .. they will also be replaced, but instead of 2A6 it will be the ancient 1A5, after they are restored to a sane state. So, Ukraine should not rely too much on Western tanks, especially since Kiev has already become disillusioned with them, they say the old Soviet ones are better, easier to operate and live longer on the battlefield. But the main problem of Ukraine now imo is not in this. The Offensive Guard, trained at NATO's European training grounds, has a serious defect in the NATO training format itself. I'm not sure if my English is good enough to accurately articulate this idea, but I'll try. What Western instructors are so proud of, and what is called a "mission command" in Western military science, has played a cruel joke on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The offensive guard was trained according to the tactics of the work of special forces units, which operate autonomously in small groups. Otherwise, NATO instructors simply do not know how to train soldiers. And as a result, all attempts at a large-scale offensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine so far look extremely uncoordinated.

I have already said and I will repeat again - the most critical problem of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not armored vehicles and not the number of personnel, but heavy losses in sergeants and junior officers, which cannot be quickly replenished and compensated neither by mass mobilization, nor by the supply of Western weapons.

Oh, a Bradley destroyed... oh well, I think the US has over 6000 of these, kind of leftovers from here and there. They are very likely to be replaced... over and over.

The footage I have seen from the dam, looks 1 explosion, looks internal and looks clearly intentioned to cause "the right damage" which, in the short term is favourable to the RF because they can concentrate forces in Zapo. Looks like a cat, meows like a cat and catches mice... Nothing 100%, but...

Maybe you will provide this evidence, if it really exists? I could only find an article in the New York Times subtitled "U.S. spy agencies still do not have any solid evidence to determine who caused the destruction, the senior administration official said". There is also a report in a Norwegian source stating that an explosion with a magnitude between 1 and 2 was recorded, and updating from below that "Based on new analysis, we have also observed weak signals from an earlier seismic event from approximately 02:35 (local time in Ukraine) originating from the direction of the Kakhovka Dam". That is, there were not one but several explosions? In any case, none of the sources indicate that Russia did it.

ps Video of collecting trophies in the Zaporozhye direction. In the frame, the American Bradley A2 with a running engine and the German Leopard 2A6 also seem to be in quite good condition. I think this technique will be towed to the rear for a detailed study.

Thanks for showing us how 9/11 was an inside demolition job.

A himars hit that occurred more than 6 months ago is not a direct evidence against Ukraine. You don't seem to know what a direct evidence is, so I'll help you with that.
When someone gets murdered and that person was attacked some time before, this is not direct evidence against that former attacker. The fact that he tried to do it a year before doesn't mean he did it again and succeeded. A direct evidence would be if you had a murder weapon with his fingerprints or you'd found victims blood on his clothes.

That hit in 2022, or any other existing plans for it did not blow up the dam. Planted explosive devices did. Ukraine doesn't have a single missile capable of such destruction. It would require multiple hits to level the dam and there's evidence for a single explosion.


It used to be direct evidence and now it's more than zero. Your confidence seems to be decreasing with time.
Again, a test hit 6 months ago is not an evidence against Ukraine.

If you carefully read my previous posts on this subject, you will find that I am not blaming Ukraine for the destruction of the dam at the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station, I am just saying that there is more evidence against Ukraine than against Russia. Even one test hit and a frank admission of it is much more than zero.

At your request, I brought you a dozen links from Russian-language resources and one from an English-language resource. Give me as a counterargument at least some evidence that Russia did this and we will be able to continue this dialogue in a constructive and meaningful way. If you plan to continue the empty accusation tactics, then the cheap propaganda shit is in your head.

When you posted so many links, I already expected that it will be something serious. But again, I got disappointed. From all links, there is maybe 2 photos or videos which MIGHT show arrival to the dam. Rest is cheap propaganda shit, which proves nothing. If Ukraine really systematically bombed dam, there would be much more noise
I see that you catched this interview from WP and using it as strong evidence. Even if it's true what was told it, it contradicts to your acussations. You're talking about systematical attacks on dam, but in article they're talking about one test hit.

The main thing is that this does not apply to the dam of the Kyiv hydroelectric power station, which is located a few kilometers from Kyiv upstream of the Dnieper.

- Ukraine did not systematically bombard anything.
- The theory of material fatigue is from outside this world. Fatigue is a completely different phenomenon.
- Leaving the dam there leaves a crossing path. RF thinking = better destroyed, just in case - it is not Moscow so it is ok to destroy.
- While the area is flooded and probably in the next weeks (when the RF needs all troops in Zapo) the terrain will be unsuitable for operations. I think that RF is only worried with the short-term = saving their ass during the next month.
- Destroying the dam follows a pattern of destroying critical infrastructure, like missiles on electrical infrastructure, like destroying schools and hospitals, like flattening cities... is just the way the RF army does war. They go a shoe, they throw the shoe to your face.

Probably according to your sources the counteroffensive would be impossible, because everything that is being used was previously destroyed by your precision-posting. I am sure there will be many loses, that is what happens when you fight. Again, there are videos "proving" that more Leopards have been destroyed than the ones actually sent to the front for now.

I think the RF government has Dam-phobia.

Now they have crashed this dam. What does it mean for nuclear power plant Saporischischja? A second meltdown happened in Ukraine?

The nature of the destruction of the dam directly hints that it was an accident. Something in the style of Ukraine long and systematically bombarded the dam, so material fatigue accumulated and partial destruction occurred due to increased water pressure, when upstream Ukraine opened the floodgates to raise the water level in the Kakhovka reservoir. An accident with evidence pointing to the fault of Ukraine.

But I don’t really believe in accidents that happen right at the last moment before the counter-offensive of Ukraine and confuse her with all the plans to capture Energodar and the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, as well as to build crossings across the Dnieper, for which the Armed Forces of Ukraine were also actively preparing, judging by the supply of pontoon equipment from the West.

Meanwhile, minesweepers were found about the absence of which, during a recent attempt to break through in the Orekhovskoye direction, I was surprised by several messages above. Judging by these frames, the Armed Forces of Ukraine simultaneously lost all three Leopard 2R HMBV heavy BMRs delivered from Finland, as well as the only Bergepanzer 3 Buffel ARV delivered from Canada. Video

In total, according to my information, the Armed Forces of Ukraine had six such demining machines, and four of them were lost in one attack. This proves the seriousness of the breakout attempt on June 8th. The current statements about the capture of several villages in the Vremievsky ledge are just informational noise to fill the vacuum that has arisen due to the strange voluntary silence of Ukraine about its counteroffensive. Minefields have become a serious problem for the Armed Forces of Ukraine and it is not clear how to solve it. Here we see the work of the newest system "Agriculture". That is, even partially made gaps in the minefield are filled back up and everything needs to be done again.

I think they're destroying dams to wash away their own minefields and strongholds, to make it easier for Ukrainians to advance
Sounds westPRlogical

It was possible not to destroy the dam at all and simply open the floodgates - and the end result would have been the same, the shallowing of the Kakhovka reservoir and the flooding of the valley downstream. There is a difference between complete and partial destruction of the dam, and it is significant. All Soviet-built dams (or maybe all of them) have a special design architecture that provides for a set of “weak” points that are well protected from the outside, where you can lay a little explosive from the inside and, if necessary, completely destroy the dam relatively easily and quickly. And on the Kakhovka dam, we see a different nature of destruction, which is why I emphasized that complete destruction did not occur. But of course I'll look at your pictogram with interest if you're an expert on dams.

Pretty much unverifiable and one-sided sources. Ukraine has not regularly shelled the dam.  However, right now the RF is effectively destroying dams along the path of the Ukrainian advances near Makarivka, in Zapo region, just in case anyone could hold a doubt about this being a "modus operandi".

Curious how the propaganda machine is so disconnected from the RF Army.

I have collected for you links from Russian-language resources in chronological order with Russia's statements about the shelling of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power station by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

link1
link2
link3
link4
link5
link6
link7
link8
link9
link10
link11
link12
link13

But as far as I understand, the only evidence that has weight for you is the confession of Major General Andrey Kovalchuk, who at that time commanded the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kherson region, made by him in an interview with the Washington Post.

Do you want to say that the Armed Forces of Ukraine systematically and regularly shelled this dam from expensive Western weapons for almost a year, without any intention and opportunity to destroy it? Just wasting charges for Himars? Sounds a little stupid. Try telling this theory to your US sponsors.

While Russians are still ejaculating on videos about few destroyed or damaged Leopard and Bradley's, it looks that Ukraine made some progress in Zaporizhia and Donbas directions, liberating several small villages
https://twitter.com/Azovsouth/status/1667832335427829760
https://twitter.com/blinzka/status/1667948837619507203
But it's difficult to expect fast and easy progress like we saw in Kharkiv counteroffensive. Mainly because Russia had prepared strong fortifications and several defense lines. But things doesn't goes that bad as it may looked few days ago. Though, we must understand that this operation will cost Ukraine lot of human power and equipment. But increased number of videos and photos of destroyed Russian military equipment from front line give positive meotions.
EDIT Makarivka is also under control of Ukraine now
https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/status/1667969907332448257

It wouldf be interesting to see some links showing these arrivals to dam. Maybe I don't follow Russian telegram channels enough and maybe I missed it, but I don't remember such complaints from Russian side
Still, destroying such dam with HIMARS, Storm Shadow or any other equipment that Ukraine have sounds unrealistic. If we talk about destroying it from outside, maybe FAB aviation bomn would be enough to blow it

You're grasping at straws here. Does it really matter if he said that it was a "complete destruction" and it in fact was a partial destruction, where 60% of it was destroyed . It's enough to render the dam completely inoperable and flood the whole area with water.

It's like if we had a car accident where one of the cars had lost the whole front section, including the engine, and someone said that the car is completely destroyed and you came, as the wise guy that you are, and said that it's not completely destroyed because only 30% of the car was damaged and the whole rear part is intact.
Can you see the stupidity of what you're saying here, or do I have to draw you a pictogram?