Ukraine

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

I try to avoid blaming the little people for this. It would be the equivalent of Iraqis hating you or me for what happened 20 years ago.

 

The fact is that we can't begin to imagine the grip that Putin has on the media and the narrative. There'll be people in Russia who genuinely believe Ukraine has attacked them. 

Ever stoppped at a hotel on holiday with the "little people", bunch of greedy, self important, big mouthed gypos, and the men are even worse!

[Captain...]

When you see something like this dam being partially destroyed I can't help wondering about the awesome power of nature, how on earth do you fix something like that? How did they build it in the first place (I know water levels would have been lower). It's just such a monumental feat of engineering, and it gets blown up. All because of some little tyrant.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

When you see something like this dam being partially destroyed I can't help wondering about the awesome power of nature, how on earth do you fix something like that? How did they build it in the first place (I know water levels would have been lower). It's just such a monumental feat of engineering, and it gets blown up. All because of some little tyrant.

You dig a little trench around where you want your dam then fill it in.  Holidays in Skeggy taught me that. Just seen this image that was taken 2 hours before the claimed explosion which show damage to the dam, maybe caused by a missile, which could then have triggered the dam to collapse (maybe the Russians weren't lying). Also read that the dam wall isn't completly destroyed, only the upper section and that the water level will end up being at the summer level, right now it's at winter level from all the snow etc.

Edited 6 June 2023 by yorkie1999

[Foxxed]

I'm not sure who benefits.

 

The Russian-controlled lower lands (And Ukraine-controlled Kherson) are difficult to capture (and defend) now.

 

The Ukraine-controlled upper lands will suffer drought.

 

It seems unlikely that Ukraine could use this whole area in their counter-attack.

 

In years time this will affect Crimea.

 

The area of conflict will shrink, helping whoever is on the defensive.

 

Ukraine, the west, (and potentially Russia if they control it) will suffer from having a decreased amount of grain available for export in a time of decreasing arable land.

 

 

Edited 7 June 2023 by Foxxed

[Foxxed]

I'm unsure how well these dams are protected from missile strikes and drones either. One would assume they are one of the toughest pieces of infrastructure going.

[LiberalFox]

I find it incredibly unlikely this is anything other than a deliberate act by the Russians. Ukraine appears to gave started the offensive and suddenly a dam occupied by Russia is destroyed.

[Dunge]

Does anyone seriously believe this wasn’t Russia?
Of course it was Russia.

[Lionator]

4 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Does anyone seriously believe this wasn’t Russia?
Of course it was Russia.

The other potential hypothesis is that it simply collapsed given it had the most amount of water it ever had behind it. However that is still Russia's fault. So yes it was Russia.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

I'm not sure who benefits.

 

The Russian-controlled lower lands (And Ukraine-controlled Kherson) are difficult to capture (and defend) now.

 

The Ukraine-controlled upper lands will suffer drought.

 

It seems unlikely that Ukraine could use this whole area in their counter-attack.

 

In years time this will affect Crimea.

 

The area of conflict will shrink, helping whoever is on the defensive.

 

Ukraine, the west, (and potentially Russia if they control it) will suffer from having a decreased amount of grain available for export in a time of decreasing arable land.

 

 

 

sounds to me like you’ve listed every reason why Russia would do this..

[MPH]

41 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The other potential hypothesis is that it simply collapsed given it had the most amount of water it ever had behind it. However that is still Russia's fault. So yes it was Russia.

 

sounds too coincidental in timing for it to be anything other than Russian Sabotage to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive.. sounds all a little bit too tin hatty to see Ukraine would benefit from this in any way whatsoever…

Edited 7 June 2023 by MPH

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Foxxed said:

Ukraine, the west, (and potentially Russia if they control it) will suffer from having a decreased amount of grain available for export in a time of decreasing arable land.

If you recall, a year ago Russia attempted to blockade exports of grain via the Black Sea and failed and "allowed" them to go ahead under direct  international pressure . This is a much more direct way of stopping grain being exported.

[Lionator]

30 minutes ago, Parafox said:

If you recall, a year ago Russia attempted to blockade exports of grain via the Black Sea and failed and "allowed" them to go ahead under direct  international pressure . This is a much more direct way of stopping grain being exported.

Doesn’t the grain come out of Odessa? 

[Countryfox]

Wow ..  I can’t believe anyone here thinks this wasn’t an obvious decision by the Ruskies to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive in that area.  And they can’t give a flying fvck as usual of the devastation and loss of life it will mean to thousands of people and animals .. 

[MPH]

 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Doesn’t the grain come out of Odessa? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

If you recall, a year ago Russia attempted to blockade exports of grain via the Black Sea and failed and "allowed" them to go ahead under direct  international pressure . This is a much more direct way of stopping grain being exported.

 

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Doesn’t the grain come out of Odessa? 

 

The Port of Odesa or Odesa Sea Port located near Odesa, is the largest Ukrainian seaport and one of the largest ports in the Black Sea basin, ...

[Leeds Fox]

6 hours ago, Foxxed said:

I'm unsure how well these dams are protected from missile strikes and drones either. One would assume they are one of the toughest pieces of infrastructure going.

You’re probably right regarding their structure, that’s not a subject I have much knowledge on. 
 

What I do know is, depending what the payload of a missile is, the destruction can be huge. Especially if the same spot is targeted numerous times (I know that is probably obvious). The impact of a missile strike is something that is hard to describe unless it’s been experienced, it’s absolutely terrifying, even if you’re not on the receiving end. 

[foxile5]

How long until Putin decides to do the unthinkable. Surely the staunch and admirable Ukrainian resistance is beginning to push him.

 

[leicsmac]

Interesting discussion here. Balance of probability says the Russians destroyed the dam, but I reckon it's going to be one of those things that "everyone knows" but wouldn't hold up under burden of proof in a court of law.

 

21 hours ago, foxile5 said:

How long until Putin decides to do the unthinkable. Surely the staunch and admirable Ukrainian resistance is beginning to push him.

 

That doesn't get him what he wants, unless what he wants is destroying most of human civilisation in a fit of pique.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

NATO are all fart but no smell atm.

 

 

supplying munitions and equipment is their strongest hand..

Which is exactly the right move at this point in time imo. There's no logical reason to escalate beyond that.

[Lionator]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Which is exactly the right move at this point in time imo. There's no logical reason to escalate beyond that.

Nato members may send troops to Ukraine, warns former alliance chief | Nato | The Guardian

 

Some hawks disagree. Although I can't be alone in thinking this would be a cataclysmically bad idea. 

 

You'd imagine those countries would instantly lose their article 5 defence pact rights, would probably immediately trigger Turkey, Hungary, maybe even France and Germany leaving NATO and would also basically prove Putin right, or at least in the eyes of the Russian people. 

 

10 hours ago, foxile5 said:

How long until Putin decides to do the unthinkable. Surely the staunch and admirable Ukrainian resistance is beginning to push him.

 

I think he only does if NATO directly intervenes. He's said on multiple occasions that there'd be no point, and he clearly only uses them as a deterrent against NATO.

[turlo]

18 hours ago, Lionator said:

The other potential hypothesis is that it simply collapsed given it had the most amount of water it ever had behind it. However that is still Russia's fault. So yes it was Russia.

One of the theories going around was the structure was  already weakened when Russian forces destroyed the road across the Dam last winter to stop Ukrainian forces advancing further when they took Kherson. That coupled with poor maintenance while under Russian control since then + they kept the gates shut so the water built up to the highest levels in years could've caused the structure to fail.   Just a theory doing the rounds although the timing is very suspicious when the early phases of counter offensive have just got underway, with the knowledge that Russian forces blew up other dams during last years Kherson offensive to flood the pontoon bridges that Ukraine had built across the Inuhlets River. Read a few articles from structural engineers yesterday saying it would be very unlikely that a missile strike could've caused the damage it did and the mostly likely cause was from an internal damage/explosion. 
 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Nato members may send troops to Ukraine, warns former alliance chief | Nato | The Guardian

 

Some hawks disagree. Although I can't be alone in thinking this would be a cataclysmically bad idea. 

 

You'd imagine those countries would instantly lose their article 5 defence pact rights, would probably immediately trigger Turkey, Hungary, maybe even France and Germany leaving NATO and would also basically prove Putin right, or at least in the eyes of the Russian people. 

 

I think he only does if NATO directly intervenes. He's said on multiple occasions that there'd be no point, and he clearly only uses them as a deterrent against NATO.

I think anyone possessed of a modicum of sanity would think it would be a cataclysmically bad idea, tbh. The cataclysm in question happening shortly after such an incredibly foolhardy decision was made. The outcome you describe in your third paragraph here would be about as good an outcome as might happen - it could be much, much worse.

[Lionator]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think anyone possessed of a modicum of sanity would think it would be a cataclysmically bad idea, tbh. The cataclysm in question happening shortly after such an incredibly foolhardy decision was made. The outcome you describe in your third paragraph here would be about as good an outcome as might happen - it could be much, much worse.

Would like to see Stoltenberg shoot this down fast tbh. Although the Russian response to this article seems to be that this is just some self-promotion from Rasmussen. 

 

I've just seen that Kuleba has said that this wont be happening. Somebody needs to lock Rasmussen far away from the media as possible.

Edited 8 June 2023 by Lionator

[Lionator]

Despite the talk around the nuclear weapons in Belarus thing being an escalation, given that Putin at this moment still uses nukes as a deterrent, is it simply just a ploy to ensure that Belarus doesn't fall out of Russia's grip if Lukashenko died/got ousted?

[MPH]

Interesting development…. Russia are trying to take control of Wagner group but pugface isnt having any of it…

 

 

Ukraine war: Russia moves to take direct control of Wagner Group https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65871232

Edited 11 June 2023 by MPH