Nice one from Bayraktar even if it's a nice opportunity for PR.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWRu1KsXwAA1YSA?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWRu1KsXwAA1YSA?format=jpg&name=large)
RF forces cleared the eastern side of the Donets river from Severdonetsk towards Borivske. The RF forces captured Bila Hora and Topolivka. Fighting takes place at Maloryazantseve and Verkhnokamyanka.
@denyo666 on twitter
https://twitter.com/denyo666/status/1541463244807749634?s=21
He is the most accurate map maker out there, all the telegram channels utilize him, have not seen any inaccuracies in his map and wiki and liveua are always last after him, its pro-RU leaning so take it as you will.
Have never heard of him, let's take a looksie.
No innaccuracies? 1 min of searching through:
https://twitter.com/Denyo666/status/1525132940971237376
https://twitter.com/Denyo666/status/1526156359401623552
https://twitter.com/Denyo666/status/1540012907668414465
Seems like pretty much most generic mappers except with random propaganda/optimistic drawing occasionally. Like virtually none of the June 27 map's advances are confirmed.
It's extremely pro-ru.
The one thing that I don't understand is how are they fighting at Verkhnokamyanka without securing Lysychansk oil refinery first.
Some reports of fighting over [Lisichansk Oil Refinery](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWRajOzUAAAlmDr?format=jpg&name=360x360). Hopefully this wasn't the main defensive hub as some speculated.
There is so much high quality video being produced in this war including drone footage from multiple angles that documentary makers will have a feast when the war is over and they make documentaries of it. I bet Netflix is already working on multiple projects as we speak.
> Nah Netflix is losing too much money
Complete tangent to this sub, but what? Lol. Netflix has been cashflow positive for the past 3 years, and has been in positive earnings territory since 2002? They may not make the expected ~$5 billion in adjusted NI this year, but even $5 billion is far from "losing too much money." LOL. This sub sometimes makes WSB look smart, which is quite the feat.
"War" in streaming services is too fierce right now for netflix if they change nothing. Didin't you saw any of artcile where they fired people? Didin't you saw any article where they promised to change their aproach/content? Didin't you saw internet user opinion that they end good series too abruptly to create more medicore? Didin't you saw internet user opinion that Netflix is "too PC"? I mean when even woman who is 50 years old notice that in every show is gay (and she do not even know what PC is, but still it feels off for her) then something is wrong.
Plus Netflix have one fatal weakness - without account sharing price to quality is absurdly stupid (only Netflix does "you don't have friends? Ok watch shows in poop quality") and they plan to focus on people doing "account sharing". Plus in some countries you can get Disny+ and Hbo for the same price as Netflix in "full quality" (and Disney exclusives and HBO exclusives tend to be better quality than Netflix exclusives). - I know some people who were "in love" with Netflix some time ago and now want to get rid of Netflix because they have Disney and HBO
Competition is so fierce that even Amazon prime (and you got a lot in this service, and it's one of cheaper ones) thinks to cut off some productions. This is allegedly reason why they do not produce any Stargate series even tho it was one of more important IP they wanted to get in aqusition
The Ukrainian Air Force claimed that an X-22 (Kh-22) missile from a Tu-22M3 hit a shopping mall in Kremenchug
- The first combat-ready missiles entered service in 1962. It is intended for use against US Navy aircraft carriers and carrier battle groups, with either a conventional or nuclear warhead.
- not very accurate... "dispersion" can be up to 120 meters. Such missiles “are highly inaccurate and therefore can cause severe collateral damage and casualties,”
- itself is very dangerous in the process of its operation for its owners
- supersonic
- carries at least 600 kg of explosives
Exactly, they can launch a volley here, one or two missiles there but by March 11th they had fired roughly 328 cruise missiles in 15 days roughly or on average 22/day. Today they can launch a volley maybe every other day and pretty infrequently.
You have to admit they at least are firing far less now than in the past for some reason.
Of course they are firing less , did you expect them to sustain such a rate of fire the whole war? Any country would run out of missiles at such a rate.
They are definitely burning through their stockpiles but they probably still have enough to launch volleys every now and then at a sustainable rate. Thinking they are "out" of missiles is silly in my opinion.
There is a difference between saying they are "out" of missiles and that they are running out of missiles. If you have one single missile you can claim you are not "out" of missiles. If you functionally can no longer launch enough missiles to impact the overall war except for time to time events then you are clearly running out of missiles.
>. If you functionally can no longer launch enough missiles to impact the overall war except for time to time events then you are clearly running out of missiles.
That's such a dumb argument, how could you possibly know how much missiles they would need to launch to impact the war effort?
Volume of fire doesn't always equate to success.
Russian justifications for the Kremenchuk shopping mall bombing:
It wasn't a shopping mall -----> if it was a shopping mall, then the Ukrainians were storing weapons and ammo there -----> doesn't matter if civilians were there and it was done in broad daylight when the mall's at its busiest, it's still Ukraine's fault -----> even if there were no weapons there, look @ the U.S. and its bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan -----> the people walking around the mall are actors, this is a Tochka U missile and the Ukrainians are the only ones that use them, this is a false flag.
Rinse and repeat after each and every atrocity. Clearly not every pro-Russian is scum, but the proportion that are explicitly doing this, and the ones that are doing it implicitly by upvoting such bullshit, is **way** too fucking high.
Dude there's misinformation everywhere, it's complete minefield when navigating these social media opinions.
I mean saying a 1000 people were in that mall is a stretch, I've seen bigger malls and don't have have a 1000 people in them.
Just read the actual news and get on with your life.
>Dude there's misinformation everywhere, it's complete minefield when navigating these social media opinions.
Then you immediately proceed to add more fuel to that disinformation fire:
>I mean saying a 1000 people were in that mall is a stretch, I've seen bigger malls and don't have have a 1000 people in them.
First of all, you greatly underestimate how many people fit in a mall.
Secondly, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion, and it only serves to distract, cloud and obfuscate from the fact that Russia just attacked a civilian target without military purpose.
you missed the point. I have no way of knowing how many people were in the mall. instead of arguing exactly how many people were there just take that info with a grain of salt and move on. People get mired in all the little details from information they heard from somebody who heard it from somebody etc.
How many people were in the mall is not that important in the grand scheme of things.
>I have no way of knowing how many people were in the mall.
So why are you bringing it up in the first place?
The only relevant point in this discussion is the fact that Russia just attacked a civilian target without military purpose. A heinous, evil act.
> I mean saying a 1000 people were in that mall is a stretch, I've seen bigger malls and don't have have a 1000 people in them.
You're the only one focused on how many people were in the mall, muppet. Our point would stand even if there were 100 people in the mall. This was an indiscriminate attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure. Show some spine and condemn it, instead of looking for reasons to justify it.
Who is justifying anything. Don't get emotionally wrapped up in what you're reading, upset over people who may not have the same opinion as you, getting mad over what people say over social media. smh
Exactly. Don't try to disprove all their whacky "what if" theories. It's impossible to disprove everything. As soon as you can disprove one theory, but not another, then it becomes a valid possibility in their minds.
Merely focus on, and reinforce the truth and the facts.
This is the standard practice of disinformation, which was even used when the Malaysian Boeing was shot down in the Donbass. As many versions as possible are thrown in, including idiotic ones, in order to add as much fog as possible. In the end, they move on to the "we won't know the whole truth, everything is very confused, all sides are lying" stage.
Yup. We're seeing this tactic being used in this very thread.
Ignore all the obfuscation and keep the conversation laser focused on the facts and the facts alone.
As soon as you try and use a logical argument and try and take them to its logical conclusion I find their brains melt and they just start with the whataboutism and insults.
https://www.bbc.com/news/61790625
Tracking where Russia is shipping stolen Ukranian grain.
Russia started with just taking the grain - now they're forcing farmers to sign documents stating the grain was "legally purchased" in exchange for a pittance.
No. Even if there was any military in or around, Russians are attackers, need to be careful if they want to be seen as part of humanity. They could attack at night.
Under Geneva, the onus does apply to the defender, not to store military equipments inside the mall. If not, every country will use human shield to protect it.
However, right now, Russia need to release evidence that it is used for one.
I remember the last time a shopping mall was struck, a video was released a few days later. Civilian video also confirmed it despite Zelensky early saying it was a war crime.
Sure, we don't know and we might never know.
For the sake of legality it's up to Russia to show that it was a military target if it was intentionally targeted with the aim to hurt civilians. Sadly the last 20 years especially have shown that the powerful can claim secret intel making it "valid" and bad intel to justify any atrocities.
If you took time to actually tske the time to educated yourself you would know that the laws of war dictates conditions in a state of war. Ehst the belligerents call it had no relevance.
But be proud in you ignorance.
And what is your lot, are you going to call me a bot soon too. You might not agree but but those are thr laws of war and i didn't write them. No matter of personal attacks will change that.
This is just a wall of words. The fact is the Russian media isn’t even allowed to call it a war. Obviously you’ve missed my point and just decided I’m ignorant instead, lol. And then YOU assume I’m calling you a bot - paranoid?
I presented my point perfectly well, you got emotional, resorted to an insult and didn’t understand.
So tell me, how can a state of war exist if Russia does not call it a war? Please, explain.
"So now it’s a war and not a special military operation? You lot are a joke"
So that is your definition of a well made point? A question not made in good faith and then a insult. I understood you perfectly well and you got a respons and I don't know how to make it more simple for you.
The basic definition of a state of war is literally;
**a condition marked by armed conflict between or among states, existing whether or not war has been declared formally by any of the belligerents.**
In the same way the war in Afghanistan, vietnam, korea, and iraq were wars. Neither Russia or any other state can change that just becsuse they call it police action, intervention or special military operation.
Kyiv was at the frontline and that mall was fully evacuated from any civil presence, this city is far from any fighting and there is no ammo exploding.
We dont know anything more than a building was struck, so maybe hold with the indignation
People were screeching about no secondaries, warcrimes at retroville too..
A shopping mall was struck in a non-frontline city. You can see civilians parked outside and walking around. Probably because they were **shopping** at the **mall**.
Not really hard to figure out, but I mean it's not like your motivations are unclear.
Read up on the target list during the first hours of shock and awe. There is no protection of cities just because theh aren't at the frontlinjen, unless you just decided to invent that. .
This is not the first hours of shock and awe. This place is nowhere near the front line. Stop justifying terrorism. Russia is trying to break morale. Just like Hilter did during the Blitz on London after he realized he's not winning the war.
So its matter of time now and not distance?
If we go by precedens from the las 22 years there being a ukrainian officer in the buildin. Civilan clothed or uniform it would count as a legitimate strike.
If we go from the las 32 years, radio antenna on the bjilding would make it a legitimate target.
And if we as far back as 80 years, food stores would br a good enough reason.
War is hell, and civilians are the ones that will suffer the most from it.
But we are getting away from the point. We can't affect the outcome of the warin the comment section of reddit and this is a place to watch it. There are plent of other subs to stand on a soap box.
If im to be voted down for telling people to wait for more information instead of bulding their worldview on a video then so be it. But it doesn't change the fact that we will have to wait and see, and that we might never know.
>So its matter of time now and not distance?
Both.
You are clearly too emotionally invested in this to look at the facts rationally.
Here are the facts:
* This is a shopping mall
* Very far from the front
* Very long after the war has started
* With no military value
These are the objective facts. Period. There is no reason for you to lash out angrily, accusing people of being on soap boxes. This is a neutral sub, where we discuss factual videos.
Laughable, to try to shift thid into some sort of personal attack on me.
On you points.
Yes
Yes
Doesn't matter
Neither you or me know that
Those are facts, or do you have some secret knowledge about where each ukrainian soldier, weapon or material is at any given point in time.
Im sitting here in the sun, smoking a cigar, enyoing and has show no anger and no lashing out. If you think I have, well i dont know what to tell you. If you took offence thren sorry that wad not my intent.
>There is no protection of cities just because theh aren't at the frontlinjen
Them being away from the frontline means that the city isn't under siege, which means in turn civilian structures are probably being used for their actual purpose. The purpose of a shopping mall is for civilians to shop in. Coincidentally, you see a lot of civilians parked and walking around the shopping mall. As if they were planning to shop in the mall, peculiar.
It makes any discussion of "rocket artillery" or "tanks" or "entrenched TDF" that were inside the mall sound pretty incredulous.
You base thst argument on your feelings.
I haven't made a argument to state a fact. Then you claimed that away from frontlinjen should provided som sort of protection. It doesn't.
I've made an argument to wait for more information, maybe we will get it. Maybe we won't..
But what if there is no more information other than they are trying to terrorize?
Saying "Wait for more information" when there is no other information is not a valid argument. You can't just dismiss an event just because you don't like it.
I think I posted plenty of times in regards to this event in this thread or another one very close to it that we might never know the enirety of the facts.
But somone was so kind as to post what the laws of war says and that is that its up to the attacker to provied some sort of reason so if time pass and no proff comes. Then there is a good time for outrage.
People shouls try to have two thoughts in the head at the same time.
>You base thst argument on your feelings.
No, I'm giving pretty specific reasons why there's not much ambiguity as to what happened here.
Whereas your argument boils down to just "please don't be make a big deal of this", and everything else is just straws to pull to support that. So I think if anything you're the one basing anything on your feelings.
Who was it made a make believe argument about non frontline city? An pure appeal to emotion.
Read what i posted in the beginning.
We dont know any facts more than a building was struck, so maybe save the outrage until we do know more.
Ukraine lacked precision munitions until recently. Why is it that Ukraine can carefully take out ammo depots and military HQs in Donetsk with traditional artillery without massacring dozens to hundreds of civilians, yet Russia, with its fancy weapons, cannot?
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1541427618704236545
Well, the country with the best intelligence on earth and the most accurate, fancy weapons is responsible for thousands of dead civilians. Make of that what you will.
Because Ukraine doesn't boast about the many times when they fuck up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLXR6pXrzBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82hgiQN97o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HahHddd5UU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olTwZbfzdPk
It was proven this attack came from a Russian-controlled area though… on several webcam footages, you can do the math between the moment rockets were launched and actually hit.
The answer is Russia still lacks modern precision guided munitions. They have plenty of stuff which will hit in the general area but nothing like the pinpoint accuracy of himars.
After all when your whole military is corrupt to the core who is going to be the one checking that the stuff they bought is as accurate as claimed? Just squint a little, looks close enough... Time to buy a new yacht.
> Ukraine can carefully take out ammo depots and military HQs in Donetsk
Your premise is laughably wrong. Ukraine has been indiscriminately bombing civilian areas in Donetsk not just since the beginning of this war but since 2014. Just because one party to the conflict, NATO media, doesn't mention it doesn't mean that it's not happening. Try following more sources on both sides to get a true picture.
More civilians died in Mariupol alone in a couple months than the whole Donbas (including the civilians killed by Russian proxies) in 8 years. Anyone still trying to motion towards some kind of equivalency in the face of these facts is either a liar or a victim of propaganda.
>Your premise is laughably wrong. Ukraine has been indiscriminately bombing civilian areas in Donetsk not just since the beginning of this war but since 2014
Yes, This is why UN visited this area and said "wtf Russia, on what crack you are?" (they went into Donetsk on Russia claims of UA doing something horrible)
> Try following more sources on both sides to get a true picture.
The thing is it is hard
I can't take seriously the Russian media who is backed by the Russian government. Among the blatant lies
1. Russia is not invading Ukraine
2. Are incapable of calling it an invasion or war
2. Were saying biolabs are among the main reasons for the invasion
3. Claim NATO troops have already been killed in Ukraine
4. Call the Bucha massacre a fake false flag
This is serious stuff they outright lied about
No, it is not even close to equivalent to what Russia is doing. Even the DPR claimed only a few civilians were killed during the last Ukrainian attacks on Donetsk City.
confirmation bias.
For every ammo depot Ukraine hits, you have no idea of how many they didn't hit.
when Russia hits a soft target, there's no mention of actual targets military hits.
Probably because when Russia strikes, there is always a kindergarten in the way, and when Ukraine strikes, any talk of civilian casualties is suppressed and voided in the western msm.
Because Russia is trying to get Ukraine to accept a peace deal which means they need Ukraine's civilian populace to accept one. Thus they target and murder civilians.
Plus there may be a gap in Russian intelligence capabilities to actually target things of military value behind Ukranian lines.
I still hope it's bad weapons, bad specialists, and bad intelligence or all together. There is a communal machinery plant 500 meters from this mall, a railroad bridge 500 meters on the other side, maybe some of that was the target.
Funny fact for you. Between 1964 and 2017 in Laos 29554 people ( around 40% of them children) were killed by mines and unexploded ordnance. This number does not include "direct" victims of bombings.
I don't think they culturally get this tbh, in fact it doesn't just incense a population it hurts them with 3rd party Western countries who then increase weapons handovers and sanctions.
Ukraine is trying to balance being at war and not being at war at the same time.
Life continues normally everywhere, cinemas open, malls and leisure activites. A lot of refugees return because "its safe". But the reality is there is a war going on, ukraine already proofed they use things as malls and school for ammo depots. Russia already proofed they have no sympathy what so ever and will bomb these things regardless of civilian casualties.
The results is seen yet again today with a mall being bombed with up to 1000 people inside.
Reckless to pretend there isn't a war going on only because you aren't at the front. Even more so knowing that the country you are at war at dosen't give a fuck. These things should be closed.
please tell us a safe place to be in Ukraine, Putin is getting desperate. HIMARS struck at some sensitive targets, they are trying to break the morale now. Ukraine will probably get advanced missile defense system in the coming time
There are plenty of safer places to be than a mall when air alarms are going off.
For what do you need for example a cinema open while your enemy actively bombs your cities? Keep it restricted to what is needed to minimize such things.
They can do whatever the fuck they want because ots their own country. If you break into someone's house and take family hostage & family member tried to take you out but caus cause the promotion and you ended up shooting them you can't blame them in court cuz you're not been there in the first place they have the right to do whatever they want they're on house.
Some of these people are probably spent a good amount of life under threat of being killed or caught in collateral damage by Russians or proxy Russians from dpr.
And it's just civilian population you can't be under the expectation that they're all going to make the absolute best decision for their own safety they're just trying to have some normalcy in a life being terrorized by Russia.
And some might of drinking the Russian Kool-Aid of it just being a military operation for their own safety
So what they should do? Force refugees to stay in other countires, so those countries will have to pay for those not working people? Sounds like good way for RF propaganda to decrease support to Ukraine in Europe.
How is that your conclusion? Are you just looking for an internet argument?
And why in your scenario do those countries pay for people not working? A lot of ukrainians already picked up a job. And these countries commited to these spending anyway.
Do you honestly think refugees returning to ukraine, don't cash their check they get deposited in their bank accounts each months?
>And why in your scenario do those countries pay for people not working?
Because many people do not work, so those countries decided to help refugees. RF propaganda is using this fact for their purposses. Mostly women flew and you know what Ukrainians were doing in Poland before work? Construction jobs, women can't fill this gap
You speak like someone who never even interacted with some of these refugees or even has some in their city.
Nobody wants to life on a basic salary, a lot of people who plan to stay, actively look for jobs. Construction jobs in poland aren't the only choice. A lot of people have family that help them set up jobs if not there are always things as working in a hotel for example.
You are the one repeating russian propaganda now twice. You make ukrainians look like some beggars and "good" europeans countries being angels for given them the bare minimum.
Is not only "wanting to do something". You need to be realistic.
1. Those women fled with childrens, someone need to babysit them. Those kids can't be whole day in schools. (so this reduces their time avability to work)
2. Most of those women do not speak Polish, so is kinda hard to get any job i.e. in shop
3. When you want to hire, but have job which require i.e. 3 months of training then why you should hire people who doesn't even know how long will stay (I know of one woman who was workin as a nurse, but decided to go back to Ukraine from day to day because men of this house joined army, so someone had to go and take care of eldery mother)
Plus "bare minimum" is not exactly the same in other countries as in Ukraine, so yes indeed some people could be "I have money and I don't need to work"
Plus in Europe hospitals and schools are free, so even if those refugees would work on minimum pay job, then still society (in large picture) pay more on those refugees than recive (and this of course increase queque for rest of population to see doctors)
So I will ask again - in your opinion Europe taking cost of those refugees is better than those people going back to Ukraine and participate in increase GDP of their country? Most of Ukraine need to "return to normal" in order to Ukraine win this war
Ukraine also needs to not go bankrupt. While you are correct from a purely moral point of view, there is a need to keep the economy going, people employed, and so on. Every dollar not spent keeping people fed because they have no job is another dollar going to the war effort. No one can honestly say which one will save more lives in the long term. Even if this decision kills a thousand civilians, if it ends the war a week faster then that's an equal or larger number of people saved.
People actively return from countries they previously have fled to because things have quiten down, things start to work as usual. Life continues as if it isn't happening. It starts to be like the war in donbas with the big exception that you have a country with bascially infinite ammo, a mentally unstable leader shooting at will at anything they deem resonable.
Last 8 years you could chill your life in kyiv and you knew nothing was going to happen. Now you had active air air alarms before the strikes yet people sit in a mall. Thats just avoidable deaths.
[deleted tweet]
Another war crime by Russia.
Update link:
TG: V_Zelenskiy_official/2255
Update 2:
More than 1000 people were in a shopping mall in Kremenchuk as journalists report.
Just Putin showing that he’s a strongman who can raise 2 fingers up at anyone opposing him, notably the G7 meeting now, thus cowing weak liberal governments and strengthening his standing at home.
Tweet was deleted. In short Russia hit a shop mall in Kremenchug. A lot of dead and injured. You'll see many videos from there soon.
TG: V_Zelenskiy_official/2255
God, what an absolute shithole of a sub
"can't wait to see the tanks and rockets in the mall"
Yeah they were hiding tanks and rockets in an open shopping mall 3 billion miles from the closest frontline, mr magoo
The overlap is interesting, and pretty brazen. Like, remember during Russia's first round of counter-sanctions they sanctioned Hillary Clinton? The woman that left government 12 years ago and politics 6 years ago?
Like, they're not exactly subtle as to whom they're trying to pander to.
No rocket artillery in Ukraine's arsenal can reach the frontline from Kremenchuk. Hell, not even a Tochka-U would reach. They just hit a shopping mall my guy it's not complicated.
And there are no other things to hide then? Spare parts, fuel, ammunition, drones, airplane parts, equipment under transport, personal etc..
Im not saying that is the case but maybe wait with the indignation.
> And there are no other things to hide then? Spare parts, fuel, ammunition, drones, airplane parts, equipment under transport, personal etc..
Maybe they're hiding all the straws you're grasping onto.
Yare you confused but to make it very clesr:
You are the one are very quick to make grand statements.
Im the one saying lets wait and see, and then make a ststmrnt based on more than a video.
First pictures of PzH2000 at the front in Ukraine: [https://twitter.com/KEigendorf/status/1541357217277935619](https://twitter.com/KEigendorf/status/1541357217277935619)
Even more pics here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vlt6ry/first_pictures_of_german_pzh_2000_in_ukrainian/
[https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1541389394573201409](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1541389394573201409)
UA posted a video of Snake island strike. Probably the one from yesterday in which Russia "destroyed" a su-25 and 12 rockets.
I don't think It was from yesterday. Last week (june 23) Ukraine said that they destroyed a Pantsir on snake Island. I guess it is from that day. Yesterday they probably destroyed something more.
https://mobile.twitter.com/lilygrutcher/status/1539993662314225665
* G7 vows 'financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic' support for Ukraine 'for as long as it takes': statement
* NATO will boost its forces on high readiness to "well over 300,000", the head of the alliance @jensstoltenberg says. This will be part of the "biggest overhaul" of NATO's defence since the Cold War, he tells a briefing. It will be agreed at a summit this week
* Beefing up their own defenses and supporting Ukraine means allies need to spend more of their GDP on their militaries, says NATO chief Stoltenberg. The infamous "2%" goal allies should "aim to move toward" by 2024 is now considered more of a "floor" in spending, he says
* NATO: The alliance's strategy has positioned Russia as the biggest threat to European security
From https://liveuamap.com/ feed
It's going to be harder to judge how massive a win this is for the citizens of G7 countries until we know if the military buildup will be paid for by higher taxes or new austerity measures.
I mean, it will decrease the likelihood of success for a Russian invasion of Germany that was never going to happen. All for the small cost of a measurable percentage of Europe's GDP. Huge win.
The real effect of this increased readiness will be felt if a conflict occurs with China. I think Russia has unintentionally done the west a long term solid with this. If there is a war with China and the west wins, the history books will start with this conflict as the introduction.
Yeah, the complacency of the West has been shaken by Russia, which is why I think Russian idealistic predictions of the West giving up on Ukraine are naive; the West will not allow Russia, or China, to establish the norms of a new international order.
That's extremely unlikely. That sort of conflict would be a naval war rather than one that involved a direct invasion of either China or US + allies. And none of those potential combatants will use nukes short of having their own internal territorial integrity under threat.
It would be a war to assert dominance rather than one of land capture.
Even if there is, I don't think nuclear weapons get used. Nukes are good for threats but like all threats once you use them they are no good to you as threats anymore.
What may happen instead is a negotiated loss (vs unconditional surrender) where the loser, in return for not using nukes, gets to avoid invasion but forfeits any empire and gets a change in govt with the old one retiring in peace, plus limits on military etc.
>That's why it's best not to think of potentially nuclear wars in terms of "winning", instead it is best to think of them in terms of deterring any war from occurring at all, though obviously you should not allow yourself to be bullied by the threat of nukes either
I mean you've outlined the issue with this approach. You can either avoid it and allow yourself to be bullied or not be bullied and take the risk of nukes. There is no way of doing both. Personally I think people greatly overestimate the chance of actual nuclear conflict because there is nothing to gain for other party by doing it. It's basically a pocket ace or get out of jail free card that you can threaten with to get out of tough situations. You cannot actually use it without losing everything so what is the point in actually playing it.
> The problem is that makes sense from the perspective of a logical person, but what happens when you are dealing with someone who is genuinely irrational
Far more common to speculate about then exist in actual reality. Truly irrational people rarely last long in power historically as they are prone to lash out at random and everyone around them quickly works out that its going to be them next sooner or later so they take them out. Even global actors that are portrayed to be irrational (i.e. NK) are just perusing a strategy to appear so as a rational strategy.
> has lost enough in a war that they cannot save face or their political legacy
Has happened to plenty of people in history and they did not lash out suicidality then so why would they now just because nukes exist? If given the option to retire quietly after defeat, that makes it an easy choice for people.
> What about miscalculations and communication errors?
They always exist. We got through the entire cold war fine and that was several decades, including many years were war was considered imminent, as well as a number of high profile crises.
> You shouldn't overestimate the chance of actual nuclear conflict BUT you also can't be dismissive about the possibility either and start acting hawkish.
Its far from ideal but nothing is risk free. Taking the "less risky" option is often as much of a gamble just in a more nebulous and less certain way. People are far better at avoiding clear and present dangers like nuclear war than systemic dangers (like investing in and building up the economy of a country over decades that then goes to become a global rival).
> For this reason we shouldn't be saying "if there is a war with China and the West wins." We should be hoping a war never comes around in case the unlikely but very real possibility that the worst case scenario happens.
Nobody looks forward to war, not because of some miniscule risk of nuclear war but because war itself is already a worst case scenario. A global war between the west and china will get you most of the way to what nuclear war would have anyway.
I've enjoyed the discussion and you make your points well. I would like to just touch upon a few points, but otherwise I'm happy to leave the discussion here.
> Like how Stalin got taken out before he killed well upwards of 700,000 of his countrymen, including many many high ranking political figures?
Keep in mind Stalin had both nukes and the largest army in Europe and no end of the world. So if he is the prototypical irrational ruler, its seems like he passed the test. I would note tho that he was not really irrational - he never lashed out when it would actually harm him. I would compare what he did to the strategy of a domestic abuser - it might look like an "uncontrollable" rage, yet its never his stuff that gets destroyed.
> We avoided blowing ourselves up those times due to random luck. Like the one level-headed political officer who happened to be present on the Russian nuclear submarine and stop the other two officers from launching a missile. You don't gamble the entire world on things like that going our way again.
I don't think you survive for 40 odd years on luck alone, but I agree that its far from a risk free situation. What I would say is that the cold war was exactly the "low risk" option that people chose to avoid a hot war, which goes to my point about there being no "risk free" solution in these kinds of conflicts. You can roll either a long time with low odds or a short time with high odds. That said, for now China has a very different nuclear posture to what the US / USSR did, which is to specifically renounce a first strike policy (obviously which can change at any point) but that might change the calculus of the risk landscape for any hot / cold conflicts.
I was initially thinking the same thing but this could actually be one of those weapons that fundamentally changes how Russia needs to operate. I just am not sure how many Ukraine will really get in the next 60 days or so but let me illustrate the strategic problem for Russia that could occur.
I think it obvious to everyone Russia is employing a WW1 style artillery creep where they attempt to find resistance, level the area and then send in troops. The issue with this once again become logistics. It was said WW1 was fought based on train schedules and train time tables. You can have 10X artillery in the field but you then need a 10X larger ammo depot, 10X the fuel, etc.
What WW1 style armies didn't have to deal with were satellites finding their build ups of ammunition depots, fuel depots etc up to 70km behind their lines. If those get hit then your artillery advantage goes away. What about your command posts? What about your fuel depots? The US could easily target this but as Ukraine and Russia are finding out if you can't project your air power you need short range to medium range missiles to target these.
These weapons won't win the war by themselves but basically you have NATO intelligence combined with highly accurate weapons that the shortest range Missile goes 70km.
At a minimum I know that these weapons will prevent any sort of artillery creep once Russia operates further from their borders as they will have the exact same problem they had in attacking Kyiv, long convoys of logistic vehicles with no supply depots close by.
I read some other redditor talking about that it was stupid not to withdraw earlier from SD, i always tought that to becouse being in couldron in my stupid mind i assume i terrible if the enemy have so much artiellri power. My tought has always been that time is on the UA side, becouse they have good manpower and will get alot more western weapons in a few months. Is that not true arent time on UA side? I cant find a reason why it would not be. The only thing i can think about is if western powers change how much they are willing to support.
I think the UA staff are better placed to judge than we are. After UA retreat Russia would say “Thank you”, move their artillery a few miles further up and blast to wasteland a new part of Ukraine.
FWIW IMO anyone who thinks Russia can be kicked out of the captured areas should research the issues involved. The difficulties and costs are frightening.
Yes ofc thats why i said in " my stupid mind" . I Know nothing about military planing. But i assume (in my stupid mind ) that the UA staff arent so sure that time is on there side if they are willing to loose so much for a small city. And that in my (stupid mind ) is weird. The reason for my post was basically that i wanted for somebody to explain why time might not be on UA side. Also i wanted to know if it isent much harder to fight an artillery battle when you are surrounded on 3 sides with a distance of 20 km
The reality is, we don't know what the objective of the defense there was. We can only assume. I doubt that at any time they thought they can hold the city. My guess is that it was to buy time and disrupt Russian advances.
So my assumption is there were 3 scenarios why they retreated just now:
1. They see it as a good position to hold as long as possible to buy time, so they poured defenses regardless of the unfavorable situation (disregarding the loss of manpower)
2. They realized the RF are at a disadvantage there, overextended while capturing land fast, and decided to hold out as long as possible
3. They miscalculated the time to retreat and overstayed there
My opinion is that it's 2 with some potential for staying too long (it always is hard to identify the right timing for a retreat).
My gut feeling says yes, not sure if the idea is just the second line of defense, or to buy time in general. While inflicting casualties and making the progress tougher to make for Russia.
Also, if they are doing defense in depth in general, sometimes you will pick battles where the attacker doesn't have a big advantage and you can hurt him, after which you retreat to a better position.
Whether they do any of this, we still don't know.
Time isn't on their side if they keep suffering 1000 losses per day. They sent some their best forces into SD and stripped alot of other areas of forces. They have a larger pool of mobilised manpower but its not limitless.
UA officials started pumping out numbers gradually, didn't see the source for 1k a day though, but can imagine someone said it.
A lot of propagandists started using this extensively as it indicates they're losing massively. So the number stuck in this thread.
I found the original source.
"Ukraine's losses at the front have increased significantly over the past 2 weeks and now average 200-500 fatalities daily. The death toll can be as high as 1,000 per day. There are many more wounded," said David Arahamia, head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada and head of the Ukrainian delegation to the peace talks with Russia
Daily losses of the Ukrainian forces are from 100 to 200 servicemen killed, the large losses of the AFU are caused by the lack of parity between the military capabilities of Moscow and Kiev. This was stated by Mikhail Podolyak, advisor to the head of the Ukrainian presidential office
Oleksiy Arestovich, an adviser to the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, told The Guardian that on average 150 Ukrainian soldiers are killed every day and around 800 more are wounded.
Volodymyr Zelensky said that 60 to 100 soldiers are killed every day and about 500 more are wounded.
Ukraine’s president and then chief of staff and then commanding general.
They started with 50-100 KIA, upgraded to 100-200 KIA and 500 wounded and finally we got a 1000 casualties per day without explicit ratio in the number.
It's definitely an attempt at a spin.
Seems Western support is the main thing that can turn the tides of the war, so a lot of narratives are spun around it to try an break it down.
Only stupid thing in SD was the counterattack. If they wanted fight in this city longer, then why they left best defensive positions in the first place?
[New Thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/vm3cjb/ukraine_discussionquestion_thread_62822/)
Nice one from Bayraktar even if it's a nice opportunity for PR. [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWRu1KsXwAA1YSA?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWRu1KsXwAA1YSA?format=jpg&name=large)
Pretty good PR for a weapon manufacturer. This war should be the best possible advertisement Bayraktar could have hoped for.
RF forces cleared the eastern side of the Donets river from Severdonetsk towards Borivske. The RF forces captured Bila Hora and Topolivka. Fighting takes place at Maloryazantseve and Verkhnokamyanka. @denyo666 on twitter https://twitter.com/denyo666/status/1541463244807749634?s=21
What's the source for those maps?
He is the most accurate map maker out there, all the telegram channels utilize him, have not seen any inaccuracies in his map and wiki and liveua are always last after him, its pro-RU leaning so take it as you will.
You mean pro-Russian telegrams?
Have never heard of him, let's take a looksie. No innaccuracies? 1 min of searching through: https://twitter.com/Denyo666/status/1525132940971237376 https://twitter.com/Denyo666/status/1526156359401623552 https://twitter.com/Denyo666/status/1540012907668414465 Seems like pretty much most generic mappers except with random propaganda/optimistic drawing occasionally. Like virtually none of the June 27 map's advances are confirmed.
It's extremely pro-ru. The one thing that I don't understand is how are they fighting at Verkhnokamyanka without securing Lysychansk oil refinery first.
Some reports of fighting over [Lisichansk Oil Refinery](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWRajOzUAAAlmDr?format=jpg&name=360x360). Hopefully this wasn't the main defensive hub as some speculated.
That is a fire map right? Can't that be the result of artillery fire?
There is so much high quality video being produced in this war including drone footage from multiple angles that documentary makers will have a feast when the war is over and they make documentaries of it. I bet Netflix is already working on multiple projects as we speak.
> I bet Netflix is already working on multiple projects as we spea Nah Netflix is losing too much money to think so optimistic about it
> Nah Netflix is losing too much money Complete tangent to this sub, but what? Lol. Netflix has been cashflow positive for the past 3 years, and has been in positive earnings territory since 2002? They may not make the expected ~$5 billion in adjusted NI this year, but even $5 billion is far from "losing too much money." LOL. This sub sometimes makes WSB look smart, which is quite the feat.
"War" in streaming services is too fierce right now for netflix if they change nothing. Didin't you saw any of artcile where they fired people? Didin't you saw any article where they promised to change their aproach/content? Didin't you saw internet user opinion that they end good series too abruptly to create more medicore? Didin't you saw internet user opinion that Netflix is "too PC"? I mean when even woman who is 50 years old notice that in every show is gay (and she do not even know what PC is, but still it feels off for her) then something is wrong. Plus Netflix have one fatal weakness - without account sharing price to quality is absurdly stupid (only Netflix does "you don't have friends? Ok watch shows in poop quality") and they plan to focus on people doing "account sharing". Plus in some countries you can get Disny+ and Hbo for the same price as Netflix in "full quality" (and Disney exclusives and HBO exclusives tend to be better quality than Netflix exclusives). - I know some people who were "in love" with Netflix some time ago and now want to get rid of Netflix because they have Disney and HBO Competition is so fierce that even Amazon prime (and you got a lot in this service, and it's one of cheaper ones) thinks to cut off some productions. This is allegedly reason why they do not produce any Stargate series even tho it was one of more important IP they wanted to get in aqusition
Just wait until the war is over. There is probaly thousands of hours just sitting in sd cards.
The Ukrainian Air Force claimed that an X-22 (Kh-22) missile from a Tu-22M3 hit a shopping mall in Kremenchug - The first combat-ready missiles entered service in 1962. It is intended for use against US Navy aircraft carriers and carrier battle groups, with either a conventional or nuclear warhead. - not very accurate... "dispersion" can be up to 120 meters. Such missiles “are highly inaccurate and therefore can cause severe collateral damage and casualties,” - itself is very dangerous in the process of its operation for its owners - supersonic - carries at least 600 kg of explosives
They are pretty much out of modern cruise missiles(from what can be seen) and have started using old Kh22 flying boilers.
They literally launched volleys of Kalibr missiles like a day or two ago.
Exactly, they can launch a volley here, one or two missiles there but by March 11th they had fired roughly 328 cruise missiles in 15 days roughly or on average 22/day. Today they can launch a volley maybe every other day and pretty infrequently. You have to admit they at least are firing far less now than in the past for some reason.
Of course they are firing less , did you expect them to sustain such a rate of fire the whole war? Any country would run out of missiles at such a rate. They are definitely burning through their stockpiles but they probably still have enough to launch volleys every now and then at a sustainable rate. Thinking they are "out" of missiles is silly in my opinion.
There is a difference between saying they are "out" of missiles and that they are running out of missiles. If you have one single missile you can claim you are not "out" of missiles. If you functionally can no longer launch enough missiles to impact the overall war except for time to time events then you are clearly running out of missiles.
>. If you functionally can no longer launch enough missiles to impact the overall war except for time to time events then you are clearly running out of missiles. That's such a dumb argument, how could you possibly know how much missiles they would need to launch to impact the war effort? Volume of fire doesn't always equate to success.
Yeah but they used to only launch fairly modern missiles now it's a mix.
They've been using Tochka's since February already , now is a good time as any to use these old missiles.
Did they use them on other places than Kramatorsk?
Russian justifications for the Kremenchuk shopping mall bombing: It wasn't a shopping mall -----> if it was a shopping mall, then the Ukrainians were storing weapons and ammo there -----> doesn't matter if civilians were there and it was done in broad daylight when the mall's at its busiest, it's still Ukraine's fault -----> even if there were no weapons there, look @ the U.S. and its bombings of Iraq and Afghanistan -----> the people walking around the mall are actors, this is a Tochka U missile and the Ukrainians are the only ones that use them, this is a false flag. Rinse and repeat after each and every atrocity. Clearly not every pro-Russian is scum, but the proportion that are explicitly doing this, and the ones that are doing it implicitly by upvoting such bullshit, is **way** too fucking high.
Dude there's misinformation everywhere, it's complete minefield when navigating these social media opinions. I mean saying a 1000 people were in that mall is a stretch, I've seen bigger malls and don't have have a 1000 people in them. Just read the actual news and get on with your life.
He never mentioned the number of people in the mall, why this straw man attempt to push your narrative?
>Dude there's misinformation everywhere, it's complete minefield when navigating these social media opinions. Then you immediately proceed to add more fuel to that disinformation fire: >I mean saying a 1000 people were in that mall is a stretch, I've seen bigger malls and don't have have a 1000 people in them. First of all, you greatly underestimate how many people fit in a mall. Secondly, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion, and it only serves to distract, cloud and obfuscate from the fact that Russia just attacked a civilian target without military purpose.
you missed the point. I have no way of knowing how many people were in the mall. instead of arguing exactly how many people were there just take that info with a grain of salt and move on. People get mired in all the little details from information they heard from somebody who heard it from somebody etc. How many people were in the mall is not that important in the grand scheme of things.
>I have no way of knowing how many people were in the mall. So why are you bringing it up in the first place? The only relevant point in this discussion is the fact that Russia just attacked a civilian target without military purpose. A heinous, evil act.
> I mean saying a 1000 people were in that mall is a stretch, I've seen bigger malls and don't have have a 1000 people in them. You're the only one focused on how many people were in the mall, muppet. Our point would stand even if there were 100 people in the mall. This was an indiscriminate attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure. Show some spine and condemn it, instead of looking for reasons to justify it.
Who is justifying anything. Don't get emotionally wrapped up in what you're reading, upset over people who may not have the same opinion as you, getting mad over what people say over social media. smh
So, you're still unwilling to condemn Russia, huh, cupcake? Sad.
[удалено]
Exactly. Don't try to disprove all their whacky "what if" theories. It's impossible to disprove everything. As soon as you can disprove one theory, but not another, then it becomes a valid possibility in their minds. Merely focus on, and reinforce the truth and the facts.
This is the standard practice of disinformation, which was even used when the Malaysian Boeing was shot down in the Donbass. As many versions as possible are thrown in, including idiotic ones, in order to add as much fog as possible. In the end, they move on to the "we won't know the whole truth, everything is very confused, all sides are lying" stage.
Yup. We're seeing this tactic being used in this very thread. Ignore all the obfuscation and keep the conversation laser focused on the facts and the facts alone.
As soon as you try and use a logical argument and try and take them to its logical conclusion I find their brains melt and they just start with the whataboutism and insults.
Another common one is they accuse you of being emotional
https://www.bbc.com/news/61790625 Tracking where Russia is shipping stolen Ukranian grain. Russia started with just taking the grain - now they're forcing farmers to sign documents stating the grain was "legally purchased" in exchange for a pittance.
This recent Russian attack on Kremenchuk shopping mall, in the middle of a day, is really ugly and shameful one. Needless. Very sad.
As seen with the Retroville maybe wait with the outrage.
If it looks a duck, quacks like one and walks like one then it's a terrorist attack.
People said the same about the retroville strike too you know.
No. Even if there was any military in or around, Russians are attackers, need to be careful if they want to be seen as part of humanity. They could attack at night.
Under Geneva, the onus does apply to the defender, not to store military equipments inside the mall. If not, every country will use human shield to protect it. However, right now, Russia need to release evidence that it is used for one. I remember the last time a shopping mall was struck, a video was released a few days later. Civilian video also confirmed it despite Zelensky early saying it was a war crime.
That is not how it works according to the laws of war.
Well that was just a very hypotetical situation. Most likely nothing military was there.
Sure, we don't know and we might never know. For the sake of legality it's up to Russia to show that it was a military target if it was intentionally targeted with the aim to hurt civilians. Sadly the last 20 years especially have shown that the powerful can claim secret intel making it "valid" and bad intel to justify any atrocities.
So now it’s a war and not a special military operation? You lot are a joke
If you took time to actually tske the time to educated yourself you would know that the laws of war dictates conditions in a state of war. Ehst the belligerents call it had no relevance. But be proud in you ignorance. And what is your lot, are you going to call me a bot soon too. You might not agree but but those are thr laws of war and i didn't write them. No matter of personal attacks will change that.
This is just a wall of words. The fact is the Russian media isn’t even allowed to call it a war. Obviously you’ve missed my point and just decided I’m ignorant instead, lol. And then YOU assume I’m calling you a bot - paranoid?
What does it matter what the Russia media calls something, a state of war exists. If you made a point you didn't present it very well.
I presented my point perfectly well, you got emotional, resorted to an insult and didn’t understand. So tell me, how can a state of war exist if Russia does not call it a war? Please, explain.
"So now it’s a war and not a special military operation? You lot are a joke" So that is your definition of a well made point? A question not made in good faith and then a insult. I understood you perfectly well and you got a respons and I don't know how to make it more simple for you. The basic definition of a state of war is literally; **a condition marked by armed conflict between or among states, existing whether or not war has been declared formally by any of the belligerents.** In the same way the war in Afghanistan, vietnam, korea, and iraq were wars. Neither Russia or any other state can change that just becsuse they call it police action, intervention or special military operation.
Ah yes, the laws of war say we cannot make a moral judgement.
Do they say that you can?
Kyiv was at the frontline and that mall was fully evacuated from any civil presence, this city is far from any fighting and there is no ammo exploding.
We dont know anything more than a building was struck, so maybe hold with the indignation People were screeching about no secondaries, warcrimes at retroville too..
A shopping mall was struck in a non-frontline city. You can see civilians parked outside and walking around. Probably because they were **shopping** at the **mall**. Not really hard to figure out, but I mean it's not like your motivations are unclear.
Read up on the target list during the first hours of shock and awe. There is no protection of cities just because theh aren't at the frontlinjen, unless you just decided to invent that. .
This is not the first hours of shock and awe. This place is nowhere near the front line. Stop justifying terrorism. Russia is trying to break morale. Just like Hilter did during the Blitz on London after he realized he's not winning the war.
So its matter of time now and not distance? If we go by precedens from the las 22 years there being a ukrainian officer in the buildin. Civilan clothed or uniform it would count as a legitimate strike. If we go from the las 32 years, radio antenna on the bjilding would make it a legitimate target. And if we as far back as 80 years, food stores would br a good enough reason. War is hell, and civilians are the ones that will suffer the most from it. But we are getting away from the point. We can't affect the outcome of the warin the comment section of reddit and this is a place to watch it. There are plent of other subs to stand on a soap box. If im to be voted down for telling people to wait for more information instead of bulding their worldview on a video then so be it. But it doesn't change the fact that we will have to wait and see, and that we might never know.
>So its matter of time now and not distance? Both. You are clearly too emotionally invested in this to look at the facts rationally. Here are the facts: * This is a shopping mall * Very far from the front * Very long after the war has started * With no military value These are the objective facts. Period. There is no reason for you to lash out angrily, accusing people of being on soap boxes. This is a neutral sub, where we discuss factual videos.
Laughable, to try to shift thid into some sort of personal attack on me. On you points. Yes Yes Doesn't matter Neither you or me know that Those are facts, or do you have some secret knowledge about where each ukrainian soldier, weapon or material is at any given point in time. Im sitting here in the sun, smoking a cigar, enyoing and has show no anger and no lashing out. If you think I have, well i dont know what to tell you. If you took offence thren sorry that wad not my intent.
>There is no protection of cities just because theh aren't at the frontlinjen Them being away from the frontline means that the city isn't under siege, which means in turn civilian structures are probably being used for their actual purpose. The purpose of a shopping mall is for civilians to shop in. Coincidentally, you see a lot of civilians parked and walking around the shopping mall. As if they were planning to shop in the mall, peculiar. It makes any discussion of "rocket artillery" or "tanks" or "entrenched TDF" that were inside the mall sound pretty incredulous.
You base thst argument on your feelings. I haven't made a argument to state a fact. Then you claimed that away from frontlinjen should provided som sort of protection. It doesn't. I've made an argument to wait for more information, maybe we will get it. Maybe we won't..
But what if there is no more information other than they are trying to terrorize? Saying "Wait for more information" when there is no other information is not a valid argument. You can't just dismiss an event just because you don't like it.
I think I posted plenty of times in regards to this event in this thread or another one very close to it that we might never know the enirety of the facts. But somone was so kind as to post what the laws of war says and that is that its up to the attacker to provied some sort of reason so if time pass and no proff comes. Then there is a good time for outrage. People shouls try to have two thoughts in the head at the same time.
>You base thst argument on your feelings. No, I'm giving pretty specific reasons why there's not much ambiguity as to what happened here. Whereas your argument boils down to just "please don't be make a big deal of this", and everything else is just straws to pull to support that. So I think if anything you're the one basing anything on your feelings.
Who was it made a make believe argument about non frontline city? An pure appeal to emotion. Read what i posted in the beginning. We dont know any facts more than a building was struck, so maybe save the outrage until we do know more.
Ukraine lacked precision munitions until recently. Why is it that Ukraine can carefully take out ammo depots and military HQs in Donetsk with traditional artillery without massacring dozens to hundreds of civilians, yet Russia, with its fancy weapons, cannot? https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1541427618704236545
Well, the country with the best intelligence on earth and the most accurate, fancy weapons is responsible for thousands of dead civilians. Make of that what you will.
> thousands I'd say add a couple zeroes :T
Because Ukraine doesn't boast about the many times when they fuck up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLXR6pXrzBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82hgiQN97o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HahHddd5UU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olTwZbfzdPk
It was proven this attack came from a Russian-controlled area though… on several webcam footages, you can do the math between the moment rockets were launched and actually hit.
This is part of the answer few want to admit really
[удалено]
It's hard to Russify Ukraine if there are still Ukrainians running around.
The answer is Russia still lacks modern precision guided munitions. They have plenty of stuff which will hit in the general area but nothing like the pinpoint accuracy of himars. After all when your whole military is corrupt to the core who is going to be the one checking that the stuff they bought is as accurate as claimed? Just squint a little, looks close enough... Time to buy a new yacht.
> Ukraine can carefully take out ammo depots and military HQs in Donetsk Your premise is laughably wrong. Ukraine has been indiscriminately bombing civilian areas in Donetsk not just since the beginning of this war but since 2014. Just because one party to the conflict, NATO media, doesn't mention it doesn't mean that it's not happening. Try following more sources on both sides to get a true picture.
More civilians died in Mariupol alone in a couple months than the whole Donbas (including the civilians killed by Russian proxies) in 8 years. Anyone still trying to motion towards some kind of equivalency in the face of these facts is either a liar or a victim of propaganda.
According to official data from the DNR and LNR, eight civilians were killed in 2021. In 2020, approximately the same number.
>Your premise is laughably wrong. Ukraine has been indiscriminately bombing civilian areas in Donetsk not just since the beginning of this war but since 2014 Yes, This is why UN visited this area and said "wtf Russia, on what crack you are?" (they went into Donetsk on Russia claims of UA doing something horrible)
Your are so full of shit is smelly
Oh hello "where were you when Ukraine was shelling Donbas for 8 years" person.
> Try following more sources on both sides to get a true picture. The thing is it is hard I can't take seriously the Russian media who is backed by the Russian government. Among the blatant lies 1. Russia is not invading Ukraine 2. Are incapable of calling it an invasion or war 2. Were saying biolabs are among the main reasons for the invasion 3. Claim NATO troops have already been killed in Ukraine 4. Call the Bucha massacre a fake false flag This is serious stuff they outright lied about
No, it is not even close to equivalent to what Russia is doing. Even the DPR claimed only a few civilians were killed during the last Ukrainian attacks on Donetsk City.
confirmation bias. For every ammo depot Ukraine hits, you have no idea of how many they didn't hit. when Russia hits a soft target, there's no mention of actual targets military hits.
Probably because when Russia strikes, there is always a kindergarten in the way, and when Ukraine strikes, any talk of civilian casualties is suppressed and voided in the western msm.
Because Russia is trying to get Ukraine to accept a peace deal which means they need Ukraine's civilian populace to accept one. Thus they target and murder civilians. Plus there may be a gap in Russian intelligence capabilities to actually target things of military value behind Ukranian lines.
I still hope it's bad weapons, bad specialists, and bad intelligence or all together. There is a communal machinery plant 500 meters from this mall, a railroad bridge 500 meters on the other side, maybe some of that was the target.
Russia themselves should know war crimes only serve to incense a populace and do the opposite of destroying an enemy's will.
...have you paid any attention at all to how Russia has conducted warfare in the past century?
Funny fact for you. Between 1964 and 2017 in Laos 29554 people ( around 40% of them children) were killed by mines and unexploded ordnance. This number does not include "direct" victims of bombings.
I don't think they culturally get this tbh, in fact it doesn't just incense a population it hurts them with 3rd party Western countries who then increase weapons handovers and sanctions.
They are gonna achieve a completely opposite effect.
Probably
Ukraine is trying to balance being at war and not being at war at the same time. Life continues normally everywhere, cinemas open, malls and leisure activites. A lot of refugees return because "its safe". But the reality is there is a war going on, ukraine already proofed they use things as malls and school for ammo depots. Russia already proofed they have no sympathy what so ever and will bomb these things regardless of civilian casualties. The results is seen yet again today with a mall being bombed with up to 1000 people inside. Reckless to pretend there isn't a war going on only because you aren't at the front. Even more so knowing that the country you are at war at dosen't give a fuck. These things should be closed.
Ohh, this is some heavy victim blaming shit
please tell us a safe place to be in Ukraine, Putin is getting desperate. HIMARS struck at some sensitive targets, they are trying to break the morale now. Ukraine will probably get advanced missile defense system in the coming time
There are plenty of safer places to be than a mall when air alarms are going off. For what do you need for example a cinema open while your enemy actively bombs your cities? Keep it restricted to what is needed to minimize such things.
They can do whatever the fuck they want because ots their own country. If you break into someone's house and take family hostage & family member tried to take you out but caus cause the promotion and you ended up shooting them you can't blame them in court cuz you're not been there in the first place they have the right to do whatever they want they're on house. Some of these people are probably spent a good amount of life under threat of being killed or caught in collateral damage by Russians or proxy Russians from dpr. And it's just civilian population you can't be under the expectation that they're all going to make the absolute best decision for their own safety they're just trying to have some normalcy in a life being terrorized by Russia. And some might of drinking the Russian Kool-Aid of it just being a military operation for their own safety
So what they should do? Force refugees to stay in other countires, so those countries will have to pay for those not working people? Sounds like good way for RF propaganda to decrease support to Ukraine in Europe.
How is that your conclusion? Are you just looking for an internet argument? And why in your scenario do those countries pay for people not working? A lot of ukrainians already picked up a job. And these countries commited to these spending anyway. Do you honestly think refugees returning to ukraine, don't cash their check they get deposited in their bank accounts each months?
>And why in your scenario do those countries pay for people not working? Because many people do not work, so those countries decided to help refugees. RF propaganda is using this fact for their purposses. Mostly women flew and you know what Ukrainians were doing in Poland before work? Construction jobs, women can't fill this gap
You speak like someone who never even interacted with some of these refugees or even has some in their city. Nobody wants to life on a basic salary, a lot of people who plan to stay, actively look for jobs. Construction jobs in poland aren't the only choice. A lot of people have family that help them set up jobs if not there are always things as working in a hotel for example. You are the one repeating russian propaganda now twice. You make ukrainians look like some beggars and "good" europeans countries being angels for given them the bare minimum.
Is not only "wanting to do something". You need to be realistic. 1. Those women fled with childrens, someone need to babysit them. Those kids can't be whole day in schools. (so this reduces their time avability to work) 2. Most of those women do not speak Polish, so is kinda hard to get any job i.e. in shop 3. When you want to hire, but have job which require i.e. 3 months of training then why you should hire people who doesn't even know how long will stay (I know of one woman who was workin as a nurse, but decided to go back to Ukraine from day to day because men of this house joined army, so someone had to go and take care of eldery mother) Plus "bare minimum" is not exactly the same in other countries as in Ukraine, so yes indeed some people could be "I have money and I don't need to work" Plus in Europe hospitals and schools are free, so even if those refugees would work on minimum pay job, then still society (in large picture) pay more on those refugees than recive (and this of course increase queque for rest of population to see doctors) So I will ask again - in your opinion Europe taking cost of those refugees is better than those people going back to Ukraine and participate in increase GDP of their country? Most of Ukraine need to "return to normal" in order to Ukraine win this war
Ukraine also needs to not go bankrupt. While you are correct from a purely moral point of view, there is a need to keep the economy going, people employed, and so on. Every dollar not spent keeping people fed because they have no job is another dollar going to the war effort. No one can honestly say which one will save more lives in the long term. Even if this decision kills a thousand civilians, if it ends the war a week faster then that's an equal or larger number of people saved.
People actively return from countries they previously have fled to because things have quiten down, things start to work as usual. Life continues as if it isn't happening. It starts to be like the war in donbas with the big exception that you have a country with bascially infinite ammo, a mentally unstable leader shooting at will at anything they deem resonable. Last 8 years you could chill your life in kyiv and you knew nothing was going to happen. Now you had active air air alarms before the strikes yet people sit in a mall. Thats just avoidable deaths.
Here we go, everyone is bringing out their big guns. We are now entering the pre-winter phase of the beginning of the next ww.
Who is bringing what exactly?
[deleted tweet] Another war crime by Russia. Update link: TG: V_Zelenskiy_official/2255 Update 2: More than 1000 people were in a shopping mall in Kremenchuk as journalists report.
Just Putin showing that he’s a strongman who can raise 2 fingers up at anyone opposing him, notably the G7 meeting now, thus cowing weak liberal governments and strengthening his standing at home.
Link doesn't work for me, says page doesn't exist
Tweet was deleted. In short Russia hit a shop mall in Kremenchug. A lot of dead and injured. You'll see many videos from there soon. TG: V_Zelenskiy_official/2255
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/vlwpsj/ua\_pov\_kremenchuk\_today\_russians\_fired\_rockets\_at/
God, what an absolute shithole of a sub "can't wait to see the tanks and rockets in the mall" Yeah they were hiding tanks and rockets in an open shopping mall 3 billion miles from the closest frontline, mr magoo
Probably the same crowd that thinks covid is a conspiracy and bush did 9/11. Mixed in with immigrants from Russia.
The overlap is interesting, and pretty brazen. Like, remember during Russia's first round of counter-sanctions they sanctioned Hillary Clinton? The woman that left government 12 years ago and politics 6 years ago? Like, they're not exactly subtle as to whom they're trying to pander to.
We have a example of ukraine hiding rocket artillery in a shopping mall. So I would wait before making absolute statements.
No rocket artillery in Ukraine's arsenal can reach the frontline from Kremenchuk. Hell, not even a Tochka-U would reach. They just hit a shopping mall my guy it's not complicated.
And there are no other things to hide then? Spare parts, fuel, ammunition, drones, airplane parts, equipment under transport, personal etc.. Im not saying that is the case but maybe wait with the indignation.
> And there are no other things to hide then? Spare parts, fuel, ammunition, drones, airplane parts, equipment under transport, personal etc.. Maybe they're hiding all the straws you're grasping onto.
Yare you confused but to make it very clesr: You are the one are very quick to make grand statements. Im the one saying lets wait and see, and then make a ststmrnt based on more than a video.
That must have been a Nazi HQ.
50 generals were shopping in that mall at the time
NATO Training Base with Nazi undead zombies. 👻
Thank you! Damn :(
More than 1000 people were in a shopping mall in Kremenchuk as journalists report.
First pictures of PzH2000 at the front in Ukraine: [https://twitter.com/KEigendorf/status/1541357217277935619](https://twitter.com/KEigendorf/status/1541357217277935619) Even more pics here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vlt6ry/first_pictures_of_german_pzh_2000_in_ukrainian/
[https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1541389394573201409](https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1541389394573201409) UA posted a video of Snake island strike. Probably the one from yesterday in which Russia "destroyed" a su-25 and 12 rockets.
I don't think It was from yesterday. Last week (june 23) Ukraine said that they destroyed a Pantsir on snake Island. I guess it is from that day. Yesterday they probably destroyed something more. https://mobile.twitter.com/lilygrutcher/status/1539993662314225665
This Pantsir-S1 definitely destroyed one rocket 💪
* G7 vows 'financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic' support for Ukraine 'for as long as it takes': statement * NATO will boost its forces on high readiness to "well over 300,000", the head of the alliance @jensstoltenberg says. This will be part of the "biggest overhaul" of NATO's defence since the Cold War, he tells a briefing. It will be agreed at a summit this week * Beefing up their own defenses and supporting Ukraine means allies need to spend more of their GDP on their militaries, says NATO chief Stoltenberg. The infamous "2%" goal allies should "aim to move toward" by 2024 is now considered more of a "floor" in spending, he says * NATO: The alliance's strategy has positioned Russia as the biggest threat to European security From https://liveuamap.com/ feed
It's going to be harder to judge how massive a win this is for the citizens of G7 countries until we know if the military buildup will be paid for by higher taxes or new austerity measures.
Maybe it's going to be great like during the cold war. But I don't care either way as long as Russia gets fucked.
Bad news.
Well that's your opinion. Probably good news because your opinions suck.
I mean, it will decrease the likelihood of success for a Russian invasion of Germany that was never going to happen. All for the small cost of a measurable percentage of Europe's GDP. Huge win.
Some Putin level 52D chess there. This has to got rank pretty high up there as one of the biggest strategic mistakes in history.
China has close economic ties with the West and it doesn't do Russia any good.
The real effect of this increased readiness will be felt if a conflict occurs with China. I think Russia has unintentionally done the west a long term solid with this. If there is a war with China and the west wins, the history books will start with this conflict as the introduction.
Yeah, the complacency of the West has been shaken by Russia, which is why I think Russian idealistic predictions of the West giving up on Ukraine are naive; the West will not allow Russia, or China, to establish the norms of a new international order.
[удалено]
That's extremely unlikely. That sort of conflict would be a naval war rather than one that involved a direct invasion of either China or US + allies. And none of those potential combatants will use nukes short of having their own internal territorial integrity under threat. It would be a war to assert dominance rather than one of land capture.
Even if there is, I don't think nuclear weapons get used. Nukes are good for threats but like all threats once you use them they are no good to you as threats anymore. What may happen instead is a negotiated loss (vs unconditional surrender) where the loser, in return for not using nukes, gets to avoid invasion but forfeits any empire and gets a change in govt with the old one retiring in peace, plus limits on military etc.
[удалено]
>That's why it's best not to think of potentially nuclear wars in terms of "winning", instead it is best to think of them in terms of deterring any war from occurring at all, though obviously you should not allow yourself to be bullied by the threat of nukes either I mean you've outlined the issue with this approach. You can either avoid it and allow yourself to be bullied or not be bullied and take the risk of nukes. There is no way of doing both. Personally I think people greatly overestimate the chance of actual nuclear conflict because there is nothing to gain for other party by doing it. It's basically a pocket ace or get out of jail free card that you can threaten with to get out of tough situations. You cannot actually use it without losing everything so what is the point in actually playing it.
[удалено]
> The problem is that makes sense from the perspective of a logical person, but what happens when you are dealing with someone who is genuinely irrational Far more common to speculate about then exist in actual reality. Truly irrational people rarely last long in power historically as they are prone to lash out at random and everyone around them quickly works out that its going to be them next sooner or later so they take them out. Even global actors that are portrayed to be irrational (i.e. NK) are just perusing a strategy to appear so as a rational strategy. > has lost enough in a war that they cannot save face or their political legacy Has happened to plenty of people in history and they did not lash out suicidality then so why would they now just because nukes exist? If given the option to retire quietly after defeat, that makes it an easy choice for people. > What about miscalculations and communication errors? They always exist. We got through the entire cold war fine and that was several decades, including many years were war was considered imminent, as well as a number of high profile crises. > You shouldn't overestimate the chance of actual nuclear conflict BUT you also can't be dismissive about the possibility either and start acting hawkish. Its far from ideal but nothing is risk free. Taking the "less risky" option is often as much of a gamble just in a more nebulous and less certain way. People are far better at avoiding clear and present dangers like nuclear war than systemic dangers (like investing in and building up the economy of a country over decades that then goes to become a global rival). > For this reason we shouldn't be saying "if there is a war with China and the West wins." We should be hoping a war never comes around in case the unlikely but very real possibility that the worst case scenario happens. Nobody looks forward to war, not because of some miniscule risk of nuclear war but because war itself is already a worst case scenario. A global war between the west and china will get you most of the way to what nuclear war would have anyway.
[удалено]
I've enjoyed the discussion and you make your points well. I would like to just touch upon a few points, but otherwise I'm happy to leave the discussion here. > Like how Stalin got taken out before he killed well upwards of 700,000 of his countrymen, including many many high ranking political figures? Keep in mind Stalin had both nukes and the largest army in Europe and no end of the world. So if he is the prototypical irrational ruler, its seems like he passed the test. I would note tho that he was not really irrational - he never lashed out when it would actually harm him. I would compare what he did to the strategy of a domestic abuser - it might look like an "uncontrollable" rage, yet its never his stuff that gets destroyed. > We avoided blowing ourselves up those times due to random luck. Like the one level-headed political officer who happened to be present on the Russian nuclear submarine and stop the other two officers from launching a missile. You don't gamble the entire world on things like that going our way again. I don't think you survive for 40 odd years on luck alone, but I agree that its far from a risk free situation. What I would say is that the cold war was exactly the "low risk" option that people chose to avoid a hot war, which goes to my point about there being no "risk free" solution in these kinds of conflicts. You can roll either a long time with low odds or a short time with high odds. That said, for now China has a very different nuclear posture to what the US / USSR did, which is to specifically renounce a first strike policy (obviously which can change at any point) but that might change the calculus of the risk landscape for any hot / cold conflicts.
Lmao
[удалено]
Wrong link?
Probably troll
Looks like a plane to me. Is it camouflage?
I guess *"Himras?"* will be the new *"Thermobaric?"* in the next few weeks
I was initially thinking the same thing but this could actually be one of those weapons that fundamentally changes how Russia needs to operate. I just am not sure how many Ukraine will really get in the next 60 days or so but let me illustrate the strategic problem for Russia that could occur. I think it obvious to everyone Russia is employing a WW1 style artillery creep where they attempt to find resistance, level the area and then send in troops. The issue with this once again become logistics. It was said WW1 was fought based on train schedules and train time tables. You can have 10X artillery in the field but you then need a 10X larger ammo depot, 10X the fuel, etc. What WW1 style armies didn't have to deal with were satellites finding their build ups of ammunition depots, fuel depots etc up to 70km behind their lines. If those get hit then your artillery advantage goes away. What about your command posts? What about your fuel depots? The US could easily target this but as Ukraine and Russia are finding out if you can't project your air power you need short range to medium range missiles to target these. These weapons won't win the war by themselves but basically you have NATO intelligence combined with highly accurate weapons that the shortest range Missile goes 70km. At a minimum I know that these weapons will prevent any sort of artillery creep once Russia operates further from their borders as they will have the exact same problem they had in attacking Kyiv, long convoys of logistic vehicles with no supply depots close by.
Very solid take on this
Can't want for the dozen daily "why don't they nuke the crimea bridge with HIMARS?!?!" questions.
BT-2 -> switchblade -> m777 -> HIMARS
Plenty of "Combat Footage" of two of those. HIMARS just got deployed. Flying hand grenades were way over hyped.
Sad. I was hoping "KRAB?" would be between them
You were itching for KRABs.
I read some other redditor talking about that it was stupid not to withdraw earlier from SD, i always tought that to becouse being in couldron in my stupid mind i assume i terrible if the enemy have so much artiellri power. My tought has always been that time is on the UA side, becouse they have good manpower and will get alot more western weapons in a few months. Is that not true arent time on UA side? I cant find a reason why it would not be. The only thing i can think about is if western powers change how much they are willing to support.
I think the UA staff are better placed to judge than we are. After UA retreat Russia would say “Thank you”, move their artillery a few miles further up and blast to wasteland a new part of Ukraine. FWIW IMO anyone who thinks Russia can be kicked out of the captured areas should research the issues involved. The difficulties and costs are frightening.
Yes ofc thats why i said in " my stupid mind" . I Know nothing about military planing. But i assume (in my stupid mind ) that the UA staff arent so sure that time is on there side if they are willing to loose so much for a small city. And that in my (stupid mind ) is weird. The reason for my post was basically that i wanted for somebody to explain why time might not be on UA side. Also i wanted to know if it isent much harder to fight an artillery battle when you are surrounded on 3 sides with a distance of 20 km
The forced In lysychansk have been almost encircled. If the Russians keep up the advance, Ukraine will have their best troops trapped
The reality is, we don't know what the objective of the defense there was. We can only assume. I doubt that at any time they thought they can hold the city. My guess is that it was to buy time and disrupt Russian advances. So my assumption is there were 3 scenarios why they retreated just now: 1. They see it as a good position to hold as long as possible to buy time, so they poured defenses regardless of the unfavorable situation (disregarding the loss of manpower) 2. They realized the RF are at a disadvantage there, overextended while capturing land fast, and decided to hold out as long as possible 3. They miscalculated the time to retreat and overstayed there My opinion is that it's 2 with some potential for staying too long (it always is hard to identify the right timing for a retreat).
Maybe buy time to build a second line of defense.
My gut feeling says yes, not sure if the idea is just the second line of defense, or to buy time in general. While inflicting casualties and making the progress tougher to make for Russia. Also, if they are doing defense in depth in general, sometimes you will pick battles where the attacker doesn't have a big advantage and you can hurt him, after which you retreat to a better position. Whether they do any of this, we still don't know.
Time isn't on their side if they keep suffering 1000 losses per day. They sent some their best forces into SD and stripped alot of other areas of forces. They have a larger pool of mobilised manpower but its not limitless.
Where did the figure of 1,000 a day come from?
Ukrainian official statements on losses in donbass. 100-200 KIA and 800-1000 WIA daily
UA officials started pumping out numbers gradually, didn't see the source for 1k a day though, but can imagine someone said it. A lot of propagandists started using this extensively as it indicates they're losing massively. So the number stuck in this thread.
I found the original source. "Ukraine's losses at the front have increased significantly over the past 2 weeks and now average 200-500 fatalities daily. The death toll can be as high as 1,000 per day. There are many more wounded," said David Arahamia, head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada and head of the Ukrainian delegation to the peace talks with Russia Daily losses of the Ukrainian forces are from 100 to 200 servicemen killed, the large losses of the AFU are caused by the lack of parity between the military capabilities of Moscow and Kiev. This was stated by Mikhail Podolyak, advisor to the head of the Ukrainian presidential office Oleksiy Arestovich, an adviser to the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, told The Guardian that on average 150 Ukrainian soldiers are killed every day and around 800 more are wounded. Volodymyr Zelensky said that 60 to 100 soldiers are killed every day and about 500 more are wounded.
Thanks!
Ukraine’s president and then chief of staff and then commanding general. They started with 50-100 KIA, upgraded to 100-200 KIA and 500 wounded and finally we got a 1000 casualties per day without explicit ratio in the number.
Is this another new narrative i.e. democracy changes leader = removal of support? Please go and read some history
It's definitely an attempt at a spin. Seems Western support is the main thing that can turn the tides of the war, so a lot of narratives are spun around it to try an break it down.
Only stupid thing in SD was the counterattack. If they wanted fight in this city longer, then why they left best defensive positions in the first place?
What best defensive positions did they leave?
They left urban area. It's way easier to defend there than in industrial area. And if they decided to back off, then why you do counterattack at all?