Russian special military operation in Ukraine #46

also needs to target NATO members

The US never bombed Wladiwostok or Poland despite all the support for Vietnam during that war.

two S-300 missiles

BS


Body count

Hole wrote:

costs the USA virtually nothing. 

Now they have to replace the stuff they send. For 10 times the price of the old stuff.

they had to do that anyway due to shelf life

I don't really consider the Crimean bridge attack an act of terror. Its an infrastructure target. Shame on Russia for not protecting it better with torpedo nets or something similar. The victims were just unlucky. RIP As I said, the longer the war is allowed to drag on, the more ways Ukraine will find to target Russia. They are not cavemen, they can build stuff and get stuff from NATO.

mnztr wrote:I don't really consider the Crimean bridge attack an act of terror. Its an infrastructure target. Shame on Russia for not protecting it better with torpedo nets or something similar. The victims were just unlucky. RIP As I said, the longer the war is allowed to drag on, the more ways Ukraine will find to target Russia. They are not cavemen, they can build stuff and get stuff from NATO.

You'd have to be a gullible moron if you think that the planners goal in the attack was done to hinder Russian military logistics. Is that what you think ?

Or do you think the planners goal of the attack was to make the Crimean ppl feel less secure, to cause civilian deaths, to attack a major Russian national symbol, and to get a positive headline in the news for the war effort ?

Just because it happens to be dual use infrastructure doesn't mean the planners main goal wasn't terrorism. And it wasn't Ukraine. It was the US and Nato. Who in Ukraine is happy about this ? The farmers ? The ppl manning command centers ? The civilians that are fleeing Kiev ? The Ukraine military ?

The Ukraine military probably has far better places to put drones and explosives like that to work, that could actually...... you know... hinder Russian logistics.

mnztr wrote:

Hole wrote:

costs the USA virtually nothing. 

Now they have to replace the stuff they send. For 10 times the price of the old stuff.

they had to do that anyway due to shelf life

Can't be arsed to really look up your discussion, I'll just assume it has to do with the fact that the U.S. and the rest of NATO/EU has gotten so deep into this s**t that they've by now nearly depleted their stocks of ammunition, stocks ostensibly meant to protect them. Wasted on supporting murderous jihadis in the Middle East and murderous fascists in Ukraine. Because geopolitics.

That's the thing, right? The shelf-life of these things is about half a century. Most of it wasn't scheduled for immediate replacement. Most of it was to be viable for another 30 years or so, they kept it running like that. It was topped-up incrementally as the oldest batches were continuously phased out.

Now it suddenly has to be replaced in BULK, like all of it at once, and this while the western MIC has been severely bloating over several decades. So what didn't cost a penny 30 years ago is plenty of pennies today, not to mention the cost of the bloated packaging. F**k me, have you seen the NLAW and Javelin things? Is it a joke or what? That ain't militarily sound, unless you just don't expect EVER to use them in war. If you don't, it makes sense. Neat stacking in a well-lit Apple store-looking kind of place. For presentation.

Worst thing about it, from the perspective of a European, is that they all very well know Russia isn't interested in ever attacking or even slightly bothering the EU or the U.S. They know that the "Ukraine affair" is the result of direct western provocation, that it was completely unnecessary. They know this, hell, some of the key figures even admitted as much. How they at the same time managed to convince some half-wits otherwise is a mystery, but they managed to. We're run by half-wits. All the "think tanks" and pundits that are knee deep in the MIC were thus given a shot to sell new, hideously overpriced junk, to replace everything thrown away at the Ukrainians and jihadis.

It's such a grift, man.

Backman wrote:First off, this was the US and Turkey full stop. Not Ukraine. It is important to distinguish that. This was a US govt terror attack on Russian civil infrastructure....

No it wasn't terror attack

The war is on, entire Russia is a military target

The waffle house in Sakhalin is as valid target as T-90 in Bakhmut

If Russians don't like it they should get off their asses and fight a war instead of whining like bitches

There is still a shitload of military equipment and soldiers in Crimea, if that bridge takes 2-3 months to repair than we definitely know russia has no interest in launching any major offensive before winter hits again. You can save more Russian lives if you launch an offensive from Crimea and Belarus forcing Ukraine to divide its forces than just launching an offensive from Belarus to Ukraine. Since I am already reassured there won't be any major Russian offensive in 2-3 months the next question is how much gas does Europe have for this winter?

thegopnik wrote:There is still a shitload of military equipment and soldiers in Crimea, if that bridge takes 2-3 months to repair than we definitely know russia has no interest in launching any major offensive before winter hits again. You can save more Russian lives if you launch an offensive from Crimea and Belarus forcing Ukraine to divide its forces than just launching an offensive from Belarus to Ukraine. Since I am already reassured there won't be any major Russian offensive in 2-3 months the next question is how much gas does Europe have for this winter?

There has always been fully operational ports on both sides. And roll on ferries. And train ferries.

PapaDragon wrote:

Backman wrote:First off, this was the US and Turkey full stop. Not Ukraine. It is important to distinguish that. This was a US govt terror attack on Russian civil infrastructure....

No it wasn't terror attack

The war is on, entire Russia is a military target

The waffle house in Sakhalin is as valid target as T-90 in Bakhmut

If Russians don't like it they should get off their asses and fight a war instead of whining like bitches

That could all be true. It doesn't change the fact that the US did it for terrorist purposes. If the goal was to hobble Russian military logistics, they would have found a different target.

In no way is using a civilian tanker to launch military attacks a legitimate attack

They don't have weapon systems deliverable from a military ship cus their whole navy was blown up in week 3 of the SMO

Ergo it's not a legit attack, as they don't have the military means to carry one out

And it's not a war, as Ukraine still hasn't declared war on the so called aggressor

We all know what it would mean, full conscripts use and 1 million man army steamrolling Ukraine

For now they get a peacetime army , working at half strength

just my two cents...

regarding the bridge discussion, It is the usual thing Kiev is known for.
Terrorism and killing civilians, exactly what it has been doing since grabbing power in 2014.

They can not win an engagement or an war, so this is all they can do.
assasination here, carbomb there, an Tochka on a city or trainstation, Butterfly mines dropped over towns/city's. etcetera.

None of this will change the course of how the war is going for Kiev.

And changing the game?....

*Me remembering all the footage of DPR/LPR/RF mauling the Ukrainian army for the last one and a half years, depopulating Ukraine and laying waste to NATO's resources in the process.*

https://ody.sh/ILDerh7PYO

Backman wrote:

mnztr wrote:I don't really consider the Crimean bridge attack an act of terror. Its an infrastructure target. Shame on Russia for not protecting it better with torpedo nets or something similar. The victims were just unlucky. RIP As I said, the longer the war is allowed to drag on, the more ways Ukraine will find to target Russia. They are not cavemen, they can build stuff and get stuff from NATO.

You'd have to be a gullible moron if you think that the planners goal in the attack was done to hinder Russian military logistics. Is that what you think ?

Or do you think the planners goal of the attack was to make the Crimean ppl feel less secure, to cause civilian deaths, to attack a major Russian national symbol, and to get a positive headline in the news for the war effort ?

Just because it happens to be dual use infrastructure doesn't mean the planners main goal wasn't terrorism. And it wasn't Ukraine. It was the US and Nato. Who in Ukraine is happy about this ? The farmers ? The ppl manning command centers ? The civilians that are fleeing Kiev ? The Ukraine military ?

The Ukraine military probably has far better places to put drones and explosives like that to work, that could actually...... you know... hinder Russian logistics.

The attack has several purposes. 1. Hinder logistics 2. tie up Russian resources to protect it. 3. Make Russia supply chains less efficient. 4. Of course propaganda is always a plus. There was never any prospect this attack was gonna kill a large number of people, so I doubt that was really the goal.

thegopnik wrote:There is still a shitload of military equipment and soldiers in Crimea, if that bridge takes 2-3 months to repair than we definitely know russia has no interest in launching any major offensive before winter hits again. You can save more Russian lives if you launch an offensive from Crimea and Belarus forcing Ukraine to divide its forces than just launching an offensive from Belarus to Ukraine. Since I am already reassured there won't be any major Russian offensive in 2-3 months the next question is how much gas does Europe have for this winter?

This road may have escaped your attention. There were recent pictures here of its phased upgrading to 4 lanes (2 each way).

Given its location this is probably rather more critical to Russian logistics than any Crimean bridge, just look at a map.

Be un-reassured

Arkanghelsk wrote:In no way is using a civilian tanker to launch military attacks a legitimate attack

They don't have weapon systems deliverable from a military ship cus their whole navy was blown up in week 3 of the SMO

Ergo it's not a legit attack, as they don't have the military means to carry one out

And it's not a war, as Ukraine still hasn't declared war on the so called aggressor

We all know what it would mean, full conscripts use and 1 million man army steamrolling Ukraine

For now they get a peacetime army , working at half strength

Since when is using a ship posing as a civilian vessel illegal. This has long been done in naval warfare. I am not on Ukraines side, but whining about being hit by them honestly sounds very much like their whining.

Lol, imagine if the Iraqi navy would have
paid off someone to secretly carry and launch a makeshift torpedo at some U.S. bridge back in 2003.

Would it be "as an American, I have no particular complaints. It is a legitimate target, we are countries at war after all, and some Humvee probably passed over it at some point"

or "TERROR! BLATANT VIOLATION of INTERNATIONAL LAW", which in this case would actually be the fair assessment, and to which all of Europe etc would agree.

Any third country that may or may not have helped would be at risk of getting some, too.

And nobody would bat an eye, even. Russia is not in this position, though. They can't play it the U.S. way.

If good or bad, dunno, but they have better karma thus far.

Anyway, regarding the bridge -- seems like the pummeling has begun.

And as I said would happen few hours ago, motor traffic re-opened too.

But yeah, some retaliatory stuff is indeed going on right now.

The attack has several purposes. 1. Hinder logistics 2. tie up Russian resources to protect it. 3. Make Russia supply chains less efficient. 4. Of course propaganda is always a plus. There was never any prospect this attack was gonna kill a large number of people, so I doubt that was really the goal.

Well I guess I over estimated you.

1,2,3)Logistics wasn't hindered at all because the rail line was untouched.

4) Whether you understand or not, the main goal of the attack was propaganda.

Since when is using a ship posing as a civilian vessel illegal.

 It is against the Genva convention and the laws of the sea.

but whining about being hit by them honestly sounds very much like their whining

I am not whining. Or trying to get sympathy points for Russia at all. It is just important to know what is really going on and why. Putin and the security council probably knew that there was a high chance of this. But they did it anyway for their own cold calculations.

Backman wrote:

The attack has several purposes. 1. Hinder logistics 2. tie up Russian resources to protect it. 3. Make Russia supply chains less efficient. 4. Of course propaganda is always a plus. There was never any prospect this attack was gonna kill a large number of people, so I doubt that was really the goal.

Well I guess I over estimated you.

1,2,3)Logistics wasn't hindered at all because the rail line was untouched.

4) Whether you understand or not, the main goal of the attack was propaganda.

Since when is using a ship posing as a civilian vessel illegal.

 It is against the Genva convention and the laws of the sea.

but whining about being hit by them honestly sounds very much like their whining

I am not whining. Or trying to get sympathy points for Russia at all. It is just important to know what is really going on and why. Putin and the security council probably knew that there was a high chance of this. But they did it anyway for their own cold calculations.

Well perhaps the attack was botched, Using a civilian ship is the same as using Mercs, Russia can now sink the entire fleet of Ukrainians civilian vessels as they have militrized their ships. They can say any ship that leaves port will be sunk. Use of Civilian vessels was widespread in WWII on all sides. Also unrestricted submarine warfare is illegal. Did that stop anyone?

JohninMK wrote:To this end, the EU proposes to invest more than 45 billion euros in Latin America and the Caribbean until 2027, said the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Funding will come from EU funds, contributions from Member States, development banks and the private sector.

So the EU proposes?

Sure. I can just see EU member states digging into their pockets to build schools in Barbados. We all know the unbounded generosity of "development banks and the private sector". Any "investment opportunity" in LatAm or the Caribbean will already have their slimy tentacles wrapped around it, but purely for extraction of profit, and not the welfare of the locals.

Ursula Fond of Lying is just doing more of what she (and the rest of "her" Eurocrats) is good at. Expelling useless hot air and making a mockery of what remains of the Eurotrash zones street cred...

ucmvulcan wrote:
Second, why should Putin risk nuclear war over a bridge that will be back up and running in a week.  

I've got the Crimean Bridge to sell you if you believe that the collective West will risk WW2 with Russia over some tiny, puny, insignificant Eurotrash stateless. There's no real unity among them when it comes to directly risking their own asses for someone else.
Heck, even the Britons would be sacrificed in a heartbeat if Russia were to dish out some pain to England. Murica wouldn't risk their own skin for someone living on the other side of the Atlantic.

The problem is that the more you tolerate such terrorist activities, the more they will become frequent in the future, and more Russian civilians will lose their lives.
Russia should've targeted the UkroNazi leadership and their families as revenge, so that they would think twice before daring to conduct any terror attack inside Russia. Putin's pussyfooting so far has only emboldened Nazi terrorism.