Ukraine invasion

[counter_violent]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1546587981951238145

Ukraine claims arms depot attack in occupied Kherson with Himars rockets

Kyiv hails another strike by the Himars system, but Russian-backed officials say civilians were involved.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[counter_violent]

All making sense now.

Putin the nazi is continuing the long tradition of purging the Jews within the Russian sphere of influence.

As with everything Russian, believe the opposite of what they tell you.

History of the Jews in Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[timsk]

As with everything Russian, believe the opposite of what they tell you.

Excellent advice c_v.
Hopefully, from now on, you apply this fine principle to what you watch, read and hear on the BBC and other MSM!

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Russian Gains, Ukrainian Losses and Belorussian Fighters In Donbass

DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK : MONERO (XMR): 84eCJf22Yz39rHwoz6vf3hdcWmbCY336eAUoLXpSj1Q3boP8crzKdDq3R5f72RjFmTJBctSH6DFRuPmEaWiQP59mBzoG2sN BITCOIN (BTC): bc1qctv99yh0ewg6x5r9fy5e7lqm28t9rza4h4cy4k BITCOIN...

southfront.org

 

[CavaliereVerde]

 

[Atilla]

John Bolton says he ‘helped plan coups d’etat’ in other countries

Former national security adviser to Donald Trump says US Capitol attack was not a coup because it was not carefully planned

www.theguardian.com

What a surprise as if no body knew!

Cavalier, waiting for your democracy speech???

 

[CavaliereVerde]

US are not promoters of democracy, they promote their friends.
BTW I am not an expert about Venezuela.
Is Maduro behaving in a democratic way?

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

they promote their friends.

Not their friends, but their colonies where citizens are fooled about the necessarity while the U.S. elites is trying to make as much money as possible with this war.

US, allies understand costs of sanctions on Russia but accept them â US State Department

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Erik Woodhouse conceded "the United States has borne some of those costs" but said European countries face a "more intense situation"

tass.com

 

[timsk]

John Bolton says he ‘helped plan coups d’etat’ in other countries

Former national security adviser to Donald Trump says US Capitol attack was not a coup because it was not carefully planned

www.theguardian.com

What a surprise as if no body knew!

. . . John Bolton Says the Quiet Part Out Loud​

 

[Atilla]

Somebody bring me the sick bucket on western democracy duplicity n hypocrisy.

 

[Atilla]

US are not promoters of democracy, they promote their friends.
BTW I am not an expert about Venezuela.
Is Maduro behaving in a democratic way?

That's it?

Is that all?

Weren't you the one who said they represent the free democratic world?

No they do not. They protect their interest as the mafiozies who protect theirs with any means at their disposal.

It's just biziness.

 

[Atilla]

Nato and EU sound alarm over risk of Ukraine weapons smuggling

Nato and EU sound alarm over risk of Ukraine weapons smuggling

Countries call for greater tracking of arms to stop sales to Europe’s black market

www.ft.com

Financial Times writes about weapons "smuggling" in Ukraine, corrects the headline later

The British Financial Times wrote about weapons "smuggling" in Ukraine, and later corrected the headline by adding the word "risk." Media expert Dmytro Zolotukhin pointed this out. He posted screenshots of what the headline looked like before and

imi.org.ua

This is not a risk. If this article was written before supplies or arms were sent to Ukraine then it would be fair to call it a risk.

The risk has materialised, already occurred. It now is an issue to be dealt with.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Weren't you the one who said they represent the free democratic world?

Where have I said that?
I think the free democratic world is better represented by EU.
I don't like US lobbycracy but I prefer that to russian kleptocracy.

 

[Atilla]

I used to watch these kinds of stuff but now I see them for what they are.

They are simply the editor's choice cuts to present a limited and finite views to influence whoever is watching into forming an opinion.

I didn't hear one mention of NATO or about what has been perpetrated in the Donbas region. Do those peeps have a freaking clue about the why, the red lines that were protested over so many years by Russia?

If one did have a desire to capture public opinion then a sample would need to be drawn up that was representative of the population wrt age and geography amongst other considerations like education, public role and background etc.

It's a science in it self to conduct these polls. Even the crafting of the question entails some serious thought and psychological impact.

So when you talk about propoganda. That to me indeed is a propoganda production. I watch it on the BBC all the time.


You guys need to get real.

 

[timsk]

This is not a risk. If this article was written before supplies or arms were sent to Ukraine then it would be fair to call it a risk.
The risk has materialised, already occurred. It now is an issue to be dealt with.

Spot on At'.
All the weapons being sent by the west to Ukraine and paid for with money U.K. and U.S. taxpayers don't have will end up either:
1. Being sold on the black market and never used in the current conflict. Or . . .
2. Being destroyed by Russian forces - along with the Ukrainian solders using them.

Yes, the Himars rocket launchers are phenomenally destructive pieces of kit and will inflict damage on Russian forces. However, one by one they'll be taken out, with the inevitable consequences of more needless loss of life and £$millions spunked up the wall. At best - that's worth repeating - at best, all these western supplied weapons will do is to prolong the war which, of course, is the real objective of Biden, BoJo and Co. who couldn't give two hoots about Ukraine or its people. Both are expendable. Why those (on here and elsewhere) who know and understand this perfectly well - yet claim to be supporters of Ukraine - aren't demanding an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful resolution at the negotiating table is utterly bewildering to me. Beyond comprehension.

Tim.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

They are simply the editor's choice cuts to present a limited and finite views to influence whoever is watching into forming an opinion.

I am the guilty, it is my choice of many interviews by 1420.
There are many others about war where NATO is mentioned.
There is no statistical value, I just want to show that russians know what is going on and thay can also express their view as long as they don't gather to protest.

It seems that you proirity is blaming US/NATO/BBC .
My priority is understandig what is going on.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Yes, the Himars rocket launchers are phenomenally destructive pieces of kit and will inflict damage on Russian forces. However, one by one they'll be taken out, with the inevitable consequences of more needless loss of life and £$millions spunked up the wall.

They are not invulnerable, they call it war.
It is a matter of risk and reward, if a himars can destroy 10 ammo depots before being destroyed it is worth deploying.
What I see is that they are making the difference and US has hundreds of them.

 

[Atilla]

I am the guilty, it is my choice of many interviews by 1420.
There are many others about war where NATO is mentioned.
There is no statistical value, I just want to show that russians know what is going on and thay can also express their view as long as they don't gather to protest.

It seems that you proirity is blaming US/NATO/BBC .
My priority is understandig what is going on.

Oh pleaaaseeeee...

So 1470 interviews, why did we not see one support or reference to NATO, Donbas region or the troubles in the last 8 years?

Even the first guy speels up loadsa tosh to set the agenda and the other nits just follow on. You are like a bull led by the ring on that nose of yours.

Selective editing. You can see it. Know exactly what I'm talking about and your desire to understand what is going on leaves me speechless.

 

[timsk]

They are not invulnerable, they call it war.

CV,
Yes, they work well when part of a coordinated military strategy and protected by artillery fire and control of the airspace. Russia has both; Ukraine has relatively little of either. Additionally, they require logistic support, e.g. trucks carrying rockets, fuel, trained personnel inc. engineers, ] IT and maintenance experts. Ukraine can't provide any of that in the quantity and speed required. That's why they're vulnerable and will be taken out.

It is a matter of risk and reward, if a himars can destroy 10 ammo depots before being destroyed it is worth deploying.

Yes, they will inflict some damage along these lines. However, as I/we keep saying (and you keep ignoring), it's all small fry stuff - the odd arms depot here and there - that will merely slow the advance of the Russians. It can't - and won't - stop them. It'll merely delay the inevitable loss and, in the meantime, more people die unnecessarily, more needless destruction takes place and more taxpayers money is wasted.

What I see is that they are making the difference and US has hundreds of them.

Unless you can provide evidence to support your claim, the difference is minimal. If they were making any real difference then the area coloured red on the military maps (in the east of Ukraine indicating areas under Russian control) would be getting smaller. That's not happening. On the contrary, the red areas are getting bigger, indicating that Russia is making steady progress westwards. As for the quantity the U.S. sends - that also makes no difference. Ukraine can't keep up with the attrition rate of lost personnel and kit. Ditto for the logistic support. Sending loads of these systems will only make a difference if they can be used effectively by trained soldiers on the battlefield as part of a coordinated military strategy and protected by artillery fire and control of the airspace. Ukraine simply can't do that. Surely you understand CV that if your army, its weapons and ammo are all reducing at a rate faster than you can replace them - then you're going to end up with nothing and lose everything? It's really that simple.
Tim.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

I dont' see any russian progress after Lysichansk.
I could be wrong but IMO the tide changed with the "gesture of goodwill" at Snake Island.
In your opinion blowing 10 ammo depots doesn't make any difference, time will tell...
It is certain that Russia will destroy some himars, if US sends 4 per week and Russia destoys 1 per week you can do the math.
Their goal is to disable russian artillery leaving it short of ammo.
Tryaing to destroy every sigle russian artillery doesn' make sense, you have to work on their weak point: supply lines and command&control.
What you say about traning is true and I think it is the reason we have not seen himars before.
Let's guess one month ago they sent 300 men to be trained for 100 himars, some of them will stay behind as trainers.
The same happened before with m777 artillery but while I can't say if m777 made some difference himars are certainly making, like Javelin in phase 1.
So if Ukraine today still exists at 80% is thanx to NATO weapons.