Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 336. (Read 73540 times)

Three weeks ago, a Ukrainian Tochka-U missile flew into Donetsk, they managed to shoot it down, but there were still casualties. In Kramatorsk, they did not even try to shoot down the rocket and the cluster munition went off right in the thick of people at the station.

I think Ukraine just doesn't want civilians to leave Kramatorsk to the east, they want to keep using the tactic of hiding behind civilians as human shields. In this area, a blow to the positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from Russia is brewing, there are rumors that a fresh armored corps has been brought up from Kursk.

In your fantasies, you can debunk anything. It is quite easy to determine with great accuracy where the rocket came from, it was fired from a distance of 45 km southwest of Kramatorsk.

What kind of convoy could it be? Ukrainian forces in Belarus? Belarusian forces decided to paint "V" on their vehicles?


Ok then, one debunked lie at a time.


I don't think that's how missiles work, but if it's really the same then it was in possession of DNR, wasn't it?

Are you seriously? On the first link, some kind of convoy of troops is traveling through the territory of Belarus, on the second link from last year there is a link inside, which directly states that by the end of 2021 all Tochka-U missiles of this unit will be replaced with Iskanders. Some ridiculous attempts to attract false evidence of Russia's participation, when it is obvious that a Ukrainian missile was fired from the Ukrainian side. The same one that flew to Donetsk three weeks ago.

Those are not Belarusian missiles in the pictures. Nor are these: https://twitter.com/MotolkoHelp/status/1509099435262976000 or these: https://altyn73.livejournal.com/1458271.html

You are right, Tochka-U missiles are in service with the armed forces of Belarus. Russia removed Tochka-U from service several years ago, they were completely replaced by Iskanders, which are better in all respects.

Ukraine breaks another bottom in its fakes. Arestovich first stated that the blow was delivered by Iskander, but the tail section was preserved and it became clear from the plumage that this was the Ukrainian Tochka-U, which had flown in from the territory controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It's a shame for Ukraine to fire cluster munitions at civilians.

C+ for hitting the correct talking points, solid F for using easily disprovable bullshit.

https://twitter.com/MotolkoHelp/status/1504828927562424321


Let me guess, they were not planning to use them, just flying them to Belarus for no reason at all because they have nothing better to do during a war.

I think this is another provocation by Ukraine under a false flag, shortly after Bucha. Russia does not have Tochka-U missiles in service, and in the direction of the wreckage, it flew in from the southwest, from the territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
The operation had a chance to become fast, but very small. Ukraine is the largest country in Europe, after Russia, it is much larger than Germany or France. When 200 Russian paratroopers, supported by a tank battalion, landed in Gostomel and captured the airport 25 km from Kyiv, which, by the way, was guarded by an elite regiment of Ukraine, trained and equipped to the best NATO standards, with the support of armored vehicles, artillery and aircraft, this could become strong for Ukraine a demotivating factor and a reminder that Russians fight not by numbers, but by skill. But in general, even now events in Ukraine are developing quite quickly.

Fallujah was another 'marker point' for me on the road to complete demoralization about the state of 'my country'.  The 'enemy' made the mistake of hummiliating some of Rumsfeld's beloved Blackwater mercenaries.  If the enemy would have just stuck with killing plain old uniformed soldiers they would probably have been OK.

Again, to be perfectly honest, killing wounded POW's (or soon to be) is not tasteful, but also fairly typical in war-time, and for the functional reasons described if nothing else.  I would estimate that only the very top-of-the-line professional militaries would NOT do such a thing, and then only when they were winning handily and flush with resources (including fresh and motivated troops.)  So, not that big a deal in the scheme of things.

As I see it, the real war crimes which happened in Fallujah (and many other places to the point where they became more-or-less SOP) would be 'shake-n-bake' using WP (white phosphorous or 'willie pete') in areas with civilians, and 'double tap' operations where first responders are targeted.  The use of double-tap when one has just targeted a wedding party is pretty obscene.

Abu Ghraib was another such marker point.  I do blame (in part) 'thinkers' like the Neocons for the adoption of these methods mainly because they seem to have grown with the growth of the influence of the Neocon strategists and 'advisors'.

If only the glorious Russian army could man up and fight the real Ukrainian forces instead of killing unarmed civilians:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61036740

"Marines are trained that as we go past bodies on the ground we put a controlled pair into them to make sure they are dead.
Unless needed for interrogation, wounded enemies are just hassle."

Comment about some filmed incident from battle of Fallujah

It probably is. They shouldn't have bothered taking prisoners just to kill them unarmed.

We (professional U.S. soldiers in the late 1980's) were instructed that the Geneva Conventions prohibited shooting 50 cal rounds at enemy soldiers in combat.  Thus, we were to aim at their BDU and LBE gear.  (Battle Dress Uniform and Load Bearing Equipment (e.g., suspenders.))  Honestly, some of the Geneva Convention stuff was a little on the ridiculous side.

I was in uniform at the tail end of the 'Reagan buildup' since it was a good way for college drop-outs to make up for their lost scholarships and grants.  Based on my various observations since that time, I suspect that it was one of the most professional militaries in the history of the world.  That would be in 'peacetime' of course.  I don't doubt that the professionalism waned pretty quickly in combat conditions, or at least as fast as the civilian leadership wished it to.  Iraq-I was over so quickly that I don't think the troops really had time to turn characteristically evil, and in most segments that I (in a combat arms unit) was exposed to it just wouldn't have been very cool to most people to rape and murder civilians and that kind of thing.

From what I could determine, moral, spending, etc were way down for a good decade after Vietnam.  As much as I (might seem to) shit-talk the American military and more generally the American power structures, I have to say that the U.S. Army really did a fairly good job on a difficult task of getting things turned around in the 80's.  Could be that the Vietnam war damaged psychos were exiting by the early 80's enough to help, and it is also the case that the military could be (and generally were) at least a little bit selective about who they allowed in.

Later things got a little more 'Jewy' with the neocons infusing the upper policy ranks, and they seem to delight in goy performing atrocities against one another.  I doubt that professionalism is as much of a training target in today's U.S. military as it was when I was in.  I could be wrong, of course, because I have almost no exposure to these things now.

The Ukrainian forces don't seem to be too bothered by the Geneva convention either.Is this not classed as a "war crime"?
https://twitter.com/Rolando02660530/status/1511949674676035586
https://twitter.com/evanhill/status/1511760338743545858

The Russian troops suffered heavy losses in the direction of Kiev and Chernihiv, so they withdrew the remnants of their troops, but of course they did not forget to embellish everything, as if it was a good gesture related to the negotiations in Turkey. Now they are concentrating all possible troops to the eastern border of Ukraine in order to attack with everything they have. They are mobilizing the population in Donetsk, people don't want that. They mobilized my uncle from Debaltseve, he is a simple builder, he does not know how to fight and there are a lot of people like that. It looks like some sort of madness. The only thing the Russian army is capable of is to fire long-range missiles on the entire territory of Ukraine...

Ukraines army is about 240,000.  Russia already has 160,000 in Ukraine and they're rotating in new conscripts.

They have had to scale down their priorities and retreat from the west after losing several times more soldiers in just a month than the last Chechen war, which lasted 10 years.

Maybe Putin wasn't paying attention in "How to invade a country" class when they covered overwhelming force.  Russia is really good at fucking up and making what should be a quick invasion and turning it into a long drawn out blood bath.

Interesting confusion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbXx6Hcxejg

I think Russia plans to conduct this operation with limited personnel, emphasizing the dominant superiority in military equipment. For the Russian army, there are no problems with logistics, military plants are operating normally, the state defense order has been 100% stable for many years, Russia is well prepared not only for economic sanctions, but also for military operations on the territory of Ukraine. It is naive to believe that Russia will run out of money when Europe alone buys gas from Russia for a billion dollars a day. It is even more naive to believe that Russia will run out of food and weapons. Ukraine has not even really been bombed yet. I think the blow in the Donbass will not be the last, but rather the first really strong one.

Putin has an unlimited mandate for this operation, including the ability to make the entire territory of Ukraine west of the Dnieper uninhabitable for the next hundred years. The people of Russia will not forgive him only for abandoning his originally declared goals, and Putin knows this. But the mass genocide of Ukrainians due to a nuclear strike is not consistent with the current strategy of minimizing civilian casualties, so this alignment will be a technical victory for Russia, but an actual defeat for Putin, with long-term reputational losses in the eyes of history.
There is a saying in Russia, "war is bullshit, maneuvers are the main thing." The Ukrainian army is actually immobilized by the lack of fuel and air control, and is deprived of the ability to freely maneuver, while the Russian army is mobile and can create a local numerical advantage in different parts of the front. I think the tactics of the Russian generals is to deprive the army of the Armed Forces of Ukraine of general coordination and divide it into separate groups, this elephant needs to be eaten in parts.
Your concern for the prestige of Russia is very touching, thank you.

Sounds like a rhetorical question... obviously they don't "have" any such super-capabilities. The retreat from Kyiv, mobilization in DNR/LNR, and a few thousand troops from Karabakh and Osetia is all they can afford to throw at one last push in Donbas.

Other than that there's just nukes.

Seems like there's a decent chance one of the cliffs notes for this chapter of the Global History books will be about what corruption did to Russias Military and Putins miscalculation in relying on the reputation of his army rather than his actual army.

Maybe Putin will be the new Potemkin. 

Again, talking about rationalisation to justify an assassin, there is yours.

By the way, I am not sure who is "you" in your mind. I am myself, and have my own views.


As per the rules of war, any non-belligerent country can sell weapons to whoever they decide. As per the rules of international trade, any country can choose the terms in which they decide to trade with others. Some NATO countries are selling supplies to Ukraine and, to be honest, they could be selling much more dangerous equipment and are restraining from it.

About training "thousands of soldiers", that is a claim that would need substantiation, but still, the neutral countries can do so within their rights.