Russian Invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter Rage Racer
- 10,148 comments
- 614,046 views
- 4,076
- Tallinn
Another "military" object destroyed.
"On the morning of April 5, the Russians launched a missile attack on the Darnytsia Carriage Repair Plant in Kyiv. The journalists were shown the consequences of this shelling.
The journalists were shown that the rockets had destroyed a shop repairing grain wagons. There were no tanks in the workshop."
SOURCE
And another Russian general...
SOURCE
"On the morning of April 5, the Russians launched a missile attack on the Darnytsia Carriage Repair Plant in Kyiv. The journalists were shown the consequences of this shelling.
The journalists were shown that the rockets had destroyed a shop repairing grain wagons. There were no tanks in the workshop."
SOURCE
And another Russian general...
SOURCE
Last edited:
- 24,005
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Joey D
Premium
- 47,518
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Destroying food resources is only a "military" objective during total war, which frankly is the only type of war Russia is capable of winning.
That said, the US absolutely decimated the basic infrastructure of Iraq, including water distribution, which has stunted the country's ability to function and which it's still suffering from 20+ years later. That was highly unnecessary but we did it anyway.
- 4,076
- Tallinn
Yeah. Russia reported that tanks were being fixed there.
- 1,321
- Setúbal
- dacc10
To be honest, that's really not that big of a deal, as long it was free of civilians. It's open war, where multiple civilian infrastructure is being used by both sides for military purposes. A big warehouse can be used to repair tanks, store ammo, whatever it may be, which will make it a target. Ukrainian forces also attacked warehouses in Ukraine as russian forces used them as ammo storage for example.
Sure it's bad for the country being invaded having their infrastructure destroyed, but it's quite "normal". I don't think anyone expected that in a full scale war, anything that's civilian would remain untouched.
- 29,375
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Putin and Russia are full of 💩
Even Putin himself is struggling to stick to the 'it's NATO', 'it's Nazis' bull that he expects his own people to believe.
Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands
President draws parallel with tsar who waged war on Sweden and says campaign in Ukraine stems from ‘basic values’
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
Interesting to compare himself to ruler who was criticised throughout his reign for 'westernising' Russia and being a key figure in solidifying the power and wealth of the Czarist regime which, in turn, was eventually overthrown by a Communist revolution leading to the creation of the USSR, the very state in which Putin grew up and worked in and has always been very public about wanting to unify again.Putin and Russia are full of 💩
Even Putin himself is struggling to stick to the 'it's NATO', 'it's Nazis' bull that he expects his own people to believe.
Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands
President draws parallel with tsar who waged war on Sweden and says campaign in Ukraine stems from ‘basic values’www.theguardian.com
Or is he comparing himself to someone who preferred the ruling elite to have all the land and wealth by keeping the peasant majority in violent submission? Sounds familiar.
Putin doesn't do irony, does he.
Last edited:
- 4,076
- Tallinn
He even mentions Narva, a border city in Estonia with highest russian-speaking population in the country... sighPutin and Russia are full of 💩
Even Putin himself is struggling to stick to the 'it's NATO', 'it's Nazis' bull that he expects his own people to believe.
Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands
President draws parallel with tsar who waged war on Sweden and says campaign in Ukraine stems from ‘basic values’
Russia, the biggest country in the world is still hungry for more land...
link
- 27
- United Kingdom
It’s a very thin line a lot of countries are walking,everyone is talking about Putin being crazy and unpredictable,but still SOME countries are openly supplying arms and equipment to defend Ukraine,I think this is quite an unprecedented response against Russia and one I wholeheartedly support.To prevent an escalation with Nato and Russia ,it must be taking some people many many hours to help avoid..I understand frustration tho with letting Russia get away with what they are. doing and really do understand the minefield this whole discussion evokes.Yes it is quite odd we talk about Nato as a whole, but when it comes to supplying weapons to Ukraine the same countries names appear,with quite a few absentees.So yes I think you have a point their.
Last edited:
- 5,670
- Ulricehamn
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
- 29,375
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This is the big problem with Russia having taking the initiative and invaded Ukraine with the threat of nuclear war if anyone intervenes. Russia are banking on the fact that, in order to stop them, someone (i.e. NATO) will basically have to call their bluff and go all in with the threat of nuclear annihilation if Russia do threaten or attack a NATO member state - but Putin probably figures correctly that no NATO member would want to be the one who 'starts WW3'... as such, Russia may well feel that NATO, while not powerless to stop Russia, will not exercise that power. Russia have turned the nuclear deterrence doctrine of 'mutually assured destruction' on its head by basically telling NATO (and indeed everyone else for that matter) that the only way to stop Russia is to commit to a global nuclear holocaust.
I figure that Western strategists have long known that this was a possibility and have probably always feared that a Russian leader would not only figure this out, but actually do it - and indeed, alas, that appears to be exactly what is happening now. While some (if not most) of what Putin and his odious regime are saying is likely designed to antagonise, alarm, divide and generally cause panic without there being much likelihood of it being true, Putin likely also knows that it is impossible for his opponents to separate his true intentions from his deliberately false ones, making it very difficult to plan ahead or predict where Russia are truly going with this. One thing is for sure, however - what Putin and Russia have already done is unforgivable, but in the absence of a credible threat to deter them from going further, why would they stop?
- 13,078
- United Kingdom
@Dennisch
The problem facing NATO with joining in the war is: "What is the aim of this war?"
Do they jump in with just the aim of forcing the Russians back to their borders and protecting Ukrainian sovereignty? Do that and what happens once they succeed? Get to the borders and sit there waiting, or continue past and try to expand Ukrainian territory.
Is the plan to oust Putin? He seems to be doing great propaganda in terms of brainwashing the populace, so any form of assassination or full on invasion or air strike on Moscow would just cause more pain than good.
And Russia itself is really difficult to invade. Ignoring the whole MAD issue, there is a lot of territory to cover, most of which is either impassable marshland or frozen wasteland for 75% of the year. Add to that the fact that Russia's military is well equipped and designed for internal defense (which is part of the reason it's so poor for invading), you're just looking at a long and bloody stalemate.
As we have seen also with the Chernobyl attack, Putin doesn't really care about the people he throws at the enemy as long as it gets an answer. If a NATO force, for example, lands in Mariupol to reliberate the city and move towards Donetsk, what's to stop Putin Nuking Mariupol and the NATO forces, then doing what he's always done in this war and claim the other side has done the warcrime his people have just commited?
Hell, if NATO decided to invade back, I can see him nuking Belgorod if they make it that far and telling the Russian People that NATO have thrown the nuke to get mass voluntary conscription going. Nuclear Scorched Earth is a tactic that could be very effective.
No NATO country wants to be the one that first joins in the war officially. If Poland joins in, you just know that all Nukes will be pointing towards Warsaw within minutes.
Chernobyl is a great place to throw a Nuke at too. Not many immediate kills, but he just needs to time it right with wind direction and all of Central and Western Europe is screwed. Belarus basically at that point becomes a Sacrifice Lord Farquaad is willing to make.
The problem facing NATO with joining in the war is: "What is the aim of this war?"
Do they jump in with just the aim of forcing the Russians back to their borders and protecting Ukrainian sovereignty? Do that and what happens once they succeed? Get to the borders and sit there waiting, or continue past and try to expand Ukrainian territory.
Is the plan to oust Putin? He seems to be doing great propaganda in terms of brainwashing the populace, so any form of assassination or full on invasion or air strike on Moscow would just cause more pain than good.
And Russia itself is really difficult to invade. Ignoring the whole MAD issue, there is a lot of territory to cover, most of which is either impassable marshland or frozen wasteland for 75% of the year. Add to that the fact that Russia's military is well equipped and designed for internal defense (which is part of the reason it's so poor for invading), you're just looking at a long and bloody stalemate.
As we have seen also with the Chernobyl attack, Putin doesn't really care about the people he throws at the enemy as long as it gets an answer. If a NATO force, for example, lands in Mariupol to reliberate the city and move towards Donetsk, what's to stop Putin Nuking Mariupol and the NATO forces, then doing what he's always done in this war and claim the other side has done the warcrime his people have just commited?
Hell, if NATO decided to invade back, I can see him nuking Belgorod if they make it that far and telling the Russian People that NATO have thrown the nuke to get mass voluntary conscription going. Nuclear Scorched Earth is a tactic that could be very effective.
No NATO country wants to be the one that first joins in the war officially. If Poland joins in, you just know that all Nukes will be pointing towards Warsaw within minutes.
Chernobyl is a great place to throw a Nuke at too. Not many immediate kills, but he just needs to time it right with wind direction and all of Central and Western Europe is screwed. Belarus basically at that point becomes a Sacrifice Lord Farquaad is willing to make.
- 20,995
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Which means Poland and Finland are next as well with Georgia soon to follow. If NATO doesn't act at all if one of the members are attacked, the alliance is meaningless and there's nothing to stop Putin from trying to go establish a land border with Germany (other than running out of money or soldiers).
On top of this, if Putin indeed only has a few years left, why should he care who survives and dies a nuclear Holocaust, he'll be dead in a few years so might as well take out as many people as he can to die with him.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
