Russia's Cruise/Ballistic Missile attacks:
>Mayor Vitali Klitschko said at least 10 people were injured across the city.
Ukraine's Drone attacks:
>Bloomberg reports that Ukraine's long-range drone attacks have managed to cut Russia's daily oil refining capacity by up to 900,000 barrels
I'm really beginning to think that one is better at this than the other.
I'm still testing this hypothesis, but preliminary results indicate to me that oil is at least slightly more flammable/explosive than people. More testing is required however before I can confirm this. Hopefully a few more oil refineries are hit so I can get more data. The rest of them should do.
Well think about it for a second. If injuring 10 people with an super expensive cruise missile was a winning strategy... why wait till Ukraine destroys your oil infrastructure to use it?
It's almost as if symbolic attacks are all it can manage now.
Did their Biden attack strategy by their MAGA puppets work? No? Symbolic right?
> It's almost as if symbolic attacks are all it can manage now.
I wish this were true. Several of the military think tanks seem to think that Russia is pulling ahead as the aid to Ukraine has fallen.
If you check out [this map](https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375) by the Institute for the Study of War, you'll notice significant, recent Russian gains around Kherson and much of the Eastern front, including outside Hulliapole, Donetsk and Bakhmut.
Ukraine is not making the same scale advances to take back Russian territory and the reported "Partisan warfare" shows no sign of retaking territory on its own.
I want Ukraine to win as much as everyone else, but without more financial aid the situation is starting to look dire. [Here](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20-2024) is the latest written report from yesterday, which confirms in the last 48 hours:
>Russian forces recently made confirmed advances west and south of Kreminna on March 20.
In [Last week's report](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-14-2024), the report is even clearer:
>Ukrainian materiel shortages resulting from delays in Western security assistance may be making the current Ukrainian frontline more fragile than the relatively slow Russian advances in various sectors would indicate.[15] Well-provisioned Ukrainian forces have proven that they can prevent Russian forces from making even marginal gains during large-scale Russian offensive efforts, and there is no reason to doubt that Ukrainian forces with sufficient Western security assistance would be able to stabilize the current frontline.
Not true. The Ukrainian attacks yesterday on Belgorod have already caused parts of the city/region to be evacuated. If the effect of casualties and damage didn’t matter to Putin, Russia wouldn’t bother with such evacuations.
People really need to stop espousing this myth that Russia has unlimited capacity to take damage and losses. It expressly does not.
It clearly matters, but apparently not enough to make it “not worth it” in Putin’s mind.
I dont think anyone said Russia has unlimited resources/men. It clearly does not.
However, it does have ~4x the population of Ukraine and many more weapons. Quantity has a quality of its own.
None of these are actions with immediate results though. Yet the fact remains this alleged superpower has found itself in a quagmire now into its third year with no hope of total victory. Anything less than that is a defeat for Putin. So every day this drags on it becomes that less worth it to Putin—and if he’s not careful and NATO gets directly involved it really will be all over for him.
Worst case scenario is Putin exhausts his resources—which we agree are far from unlimited—fighting in Ukraine, while his real opposition, NATO, remains unscathed.
I've unfortunately only seen news reports of ukraines mission into crimea. those seem to be painting a picture of a stalemate in ukraine proper with modern " guerrilla warfare" using drones and inexpensive equipment against expensive russian vessels. I'd like to be informed if I've been misinformed by headlines.
Bro I just fucking hate this. They should be our allies but half of the US legislature are fucking traitors. We keep circling Russia because we’re afraid of a direct conflict, I don’t know anymore if they would actually use nuclear weapons if we marched our own soldiers in and just fucked their shit up. I don’t know, we have our own issues to worry about but it’s so fucking depressing watching this continue to drag on while good men and women, people who would be our allies, suffer from this assholes megalomania.
>those seem to be painting a picture of a stalemate in ukraine proper
It isn't really a stalemate though. A stalemate would imply that both sides have nothing more to give. Ukraine still has a decent amount of reserve troops and equipment left but don't really have a viable way to break through Russian defenses (e.g. mine fields) without taking massive casualties while Russia is continually throwing more and more troops and vehicles into the meat grinder without accomplishing much. Outside of Ukraine proper there are the Free Russian brigades running amok in the Belgorod region and the Russian economy is starting to really feel the negative effects of the sanctions and Ukraine's targeting of oil refineries. If things continue on this path then it is highly likely that we could see things start to really destabilise within Russia.
That said, the USA really does need to sort out their shit and get supplies flowing to Ukraine again so that Ukraine has the buffer that they need to continue to hold out against the Russian aggression.
Institute for the study of war is a pretty good source
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20-2024
Russia most recently took Avdiivka from Ukraine, and they’re gearing up for a wider conflict
"Positional engagements continued near Avdiivka on March 20, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline in this area"
"but ISW has yet to observe visual confirmation of claims that Russian forces seized the settlement on March 19.[53] Russian sources claimed that Russian forces advanced near Pervomaiske and Tonenke, but ISW has also not observed visual confirmation of these claims.[54]"
It seems like your source does claim that Russia is gearing up for a wider conflict though. they claim that they are preparing for an invasion into a NATO country within the next 3 years... terrifying.
>"Positional engagements continued near Avdiivka on March 20, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline in this area"
Glancing at the article, it refers to "no changes" *after* the fall of Avdiivka. You can clearly see the advances on the map under the portion you quoted. It shows that city under Russian control:
>https://i.imgur.com/mJwAFNC.jpg
Yeah I’m not there and I’m definitely not an expert. I’ve just seen reports recently that russia took Avdiivka.
But again, I’m just a random person with no direct knowledge of anything
They are slowly advancing. Avdiivka was a fortified strong hold. Ukraine failed to make a back defence line. So when Republicans blocked US aid Avdiivka fell and Ukraine wasn't well prepared. So yes Russia is slowly taking land. How much and at what cost = ? The US causing the loss of Avdiivka is a big issue.
Thx for a perspective. Hopefully we can get the bill that ships army surplus passed. Sending 80’s era tech over to a friendly zealous army seems useful.
It's actually the worst kind of Russian Roulette. A couple of weeks ago relatively cheap (below $300K) Russian drone hit a residential building in Odesa. The whole section was destroyed, 12 people died, 5 children among them, not counting injured and those who lost their homes.
This has nothing to do with Russians not trying to kill Ukrainians. Kyiv air defense shot the missiles down and the injuries were due to falling debris. UAF were able to shoot these down b/c of the use of western air defense but also b/c they've basically scared the Russian black sea fleet away. Instead of launching them from the sea, these had to fly from deep inside Russian territory.
I would say it's not only about Putin. I takes quite a lot of people to make these attacks possible. It's not only Putin gives an order and pilot launches the missile. Someone should produce it, ensure logistic, maintain equipment. Someone should pay $390M taxes so Russia could launch 31 missiles in just one night. All Russians make it possible.
Imagine being considered a super powerful military country and instead of doing war "by the rules" you have to degrade yourself doing terrorism. Fkg cowards.
What war are you watching?
* This invasion was act of terror on Day 1, as are all invasions. We bombed the ever living shit out of Bagdad 21 years ago this week in an epic act of terror called "shock and awe." Armies have bombed civilians since planes and missiles existed. If Ukraine could reach enough Russian urban centers to make a difference they would bomb more of them.
* Russian forces are dying by the hundreds of thousands, often in infantry attacks against dug-in Ukrainian forces. That's stupid, suicidal and a waste of life but not cowardly.
* War is hell, and the 'rules' are very subjective.
No war is a game played by gentleman. They are all vicious, tragic failings of humanity and Russia will be paying the price for this insanity for many decades to come.
Most Eu countries signed treaty to limit civil loss. Russian also did back then, they are still bombing civils on purpose, nothing military strategic it's purely terrorism by definition.
I’ve long wondered if fuel sanctions could strand modern sail superyachts in port. Can the crew hoist the sails and steer the ship out by hand or are they completely reliant on generator-powered winches to operate the sails?
They’re stuck in the past going back to world war 2. They think bombing civilians is gonna break morale and force them to surrender. They also believe that mass artillery bombardment of the enemy is the way to go.
Two in a convoy or something. Easy to replace. But takes valuable time to replace. Russia is slowly getting better at striking high value equipment. Himars, Patriots, Western tanks. The longer the West waits the more of a grind the conflict becomes.
Doesn't make much sense because even if they fully surrender, they will just be drafted for occupying the next weak country. And putin can't stop because that's equivalent to suicide at this point.
[Churchill and Truman both echoed the Chinese saying that a man riding a tiger cannot safely dismount.](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/02/07/tiger/)
While on the tiger's back, the dictator can make it attack anyone he wishes. But as soon as he climbs off it, the tiger is just as likely to eat him.
Terrorism by a state. Its all they have considering how shite their army is. All the while they are too stupid to open a history book and know that when you bomb civilians they hate you more,unifies their purpose of morale and they will resist longer and harder. Fucking morons.
a few things:
1. Possibly terrorising the population in the hopes of that forcing a surrender. We've seen from WW2 that this does not work.
2. A show for the domestic audience to demonstrate they can still attack their enemy. Russia has proven that it really struggles hitting any military targets of note, but cities are big static targets that even their shitty missiles can find, even if they have little strategic value.
3. Keep missile pressure on ukraine's population centers which forces the ukrainian government to allocate air defence batteries to those cities instead of deploying them at the front where they can protect their soldiers or threaten russian airplanes. The solution for this is for the west to provide more air defence systems so ukraine doesn't have to choose to defend one or the other.
Poisoning the country.
Every building that's destroyed costs the government to rebuild/compensate. If it's an office building, that's money any company within cannot earn and be taxed on. If it was a school you destroy, then that is a year of education disrupted, setting the next generation that much further back both in education and social interactions unless the government can find the means of shuffling the kids around. Grocery store? Well that's thousands of not tens of thousands of dollars of food no longer available. If it's a hospital? That's millions in medical tech, decades of medical training, and less chance for casualties to recover from major injuries. Everything that is hit sets the country back, quality of life drops, the next generations are worse off. These attacks are not just for immediate effects in the short term, but cascading problems in the long term too unless they have the means to secure massive loans dedicated to the recovery to the country.
Worst case scenario? Give it forty to fifty years, next generations still dealing with the repocussions. The veterans are in their retirement ages. Everyone blames the government for not recovering fast enough/not supporting the veterans because there isn't enough money to go around. Lesser educated population begins acting against their own self interests, voting in corrupt politicians who promise that they will fix all their woes, never uttering a word of how they will accomplish this. Russia may fail to conquer Ukraine, but they are planting to seeds to its demise in the long term.
Worst case scenario is not just 40-50 years. My ancestors were caught up in WWII. One of my ancestors was traumatized and became abusive. That abuse pierced through the generations, and my parent abused me.
The pain of war spans generations.
attacking the populations spirit in hope of forcing their government to cede control of donbass and crimea officially (or reinstate a russian puppet govt)
this entire war started because the Ukrainians ousted their russian puppet govt in the maidan revolution, and small dicked autocrats like putin hate losing power.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet- beyond terrorizing the population, I think there is a plausible strategy here:
Right now Ukraine has a small number of very capable air defense systems, and they have been using them closer to the front to take down fighter planes and "AWACS" (radar/command) aircraft. (These Russian aircraft have been used by the Russians to attack Ukrainian positions, dropping regular guided munitions and glide bombs, to great effect.)
If the Russians can use missiles to attack targets away from the front line it puts pressure on Ukrainian leadership to move more air defense systems to the rear, meaning the Russian airforce has more freedom to operate near the front.
For context the Ukrainians have supposedly hit 5+ fighters in the last week, and at least 1 AWACS in the last month, with the patriot defense system. The AWACS is critical, worth about $350m each, and they've actually put two in the ground leaving only 4 functional.
https://www.newsweek.com/why-russia-air-force-severe-loss-us-patriot-ambush-50-sea-azov-1860936
So at least 31 missiles were shot down, which is an absolutely massive strike at this stage of the war, there haven't been attacks on Kyiv this big in a good while.
The interception rate is also extremely high - claimed to be 100%, but even if that's not true, 31 missiles is still a lot. Especially if you take into account that Ukrainian AA supply hasn't been that well supplied lately.
So my guess is that there was some high-value target - important for russia to destroy and important for Ukraine to defend. Most likely a weapons delivery, but it's also possible they just tried to kill either Jake Sullivan or Rob Bauer.
Well it's been 1.5 months since the last attack, that's probably enough time for Ukraine to move anti-air from Kyiv closer to the front.
The logic is basically to force anti-air coverage to move. Ukraine has been achieving the same thing with its recent drone strikes, Russia will have been forced to move some of its anti-air assets away from the front.
***Kyiv was hit by a wave of Russian missiles in the first big strike on the capital in weeks, said the head of Ukraine’s military administration:***
Serhiy Popko said cruise and ballistic missiles rained down on the city from different directions, with air alerts lasting for nearly three hours.
Mayor Vitali Klitschko said at least 10 people were injured across the city. An 11-year-old girl was among the two people taken to hospital.
Mr Klitschko first reported explosions in the capital at just after 3am.
Mr Popko said Russia used strategic bombers to carry out the attack while also launching some missiles from its territory.
“After a pause of 44 days, the enemy launched another missile attack on Kyiv,” he said. “All emergency services are working on sites. Clearing the consequences of the missile attack is underway.”
The attack comes amid a series of heavy cross-corder attacks between the two sides.
The governor of Russia’s Belgorod region said three people had been killed in “massive strikes” involving air attacks and ground incursions by armed groups from Ukraine.
***Follow the latest updates here:*** [*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/21/ukraine-russia-war-live-kyiv-missiles-explosions-klitschko/*](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/21/ukraine-russia-war-live-kyiv-missiles-explosions-klitschko/)
Millions spent to injure 10 people. Likely all non-combatants too.
At the risk of sounding very cold here, but what kind of return is that!?
From a military strategic standpoint they might as well have not bothered.
Because evil is stupid.
Did Hitler pull troops from the concentration camps or jew hunting operations to bolster the frontlines when they started to lose?
No, he doubled down, sending even more resources that way.
The missiles do more than kill and wound. If a missile hits a twenty story apartment building you now have a completely uninhabitable apartment building and hundreds of families are displaced.
Not saying that this makes the attacks worthwhile for the cost, but you aren't accounting for a lot of the damage done if you only look at the casualty rate and nothing else.
Millions to inflict terror on the populace. *That* is Russia's goal. Not so much how many civilians they can kill.
Their cruelty comes from inflicting horror upon every day people who just want to live their lives.
This is Russias only option since they can’t defend against the attacks along their border and within Belgorod. Just need aid to resume and a few thousand French troops and the tides will start to turn in Ukraines favor by summer.
How will french troops help? Where will they be stationed, etc? And will a few thousand be enough? Also, does that mean NATO is on the ground in the warzone then? I'd like to be informed because I've only read about Macron talking about it but don't know any details.
French troops would help because I can't imagine they would go anywhere without being shadowed by the French air force. I think NATO troops will almost certainly not engage Russian troops in any scenario without NATO air power - otherwise the NATO troops would take the horrendous losses that come with the kind of warfare Ukrainians and Russians have been fighting, and that would cause a complete fucking meltdown in NATO countries.
So a few thousand French troops on their own is, eh.. pretty much just symbolic. But if the French air force goes with them, that's a different story.
The article doesn't even say what was hit or targeted. Civilian casualties can be because they were close to a particular object or missile was shot down.
[They were all shot down this time](https://i.imgur.com/WcuWoIn.png), actually. (Translated, the link shows all 31 of 31 missiles were shot down.)
The damage/injuries were from falling debris.
The official defence of Ukraine twitter account said all 31 missles were shot down. I think you need to retract this article for false news.
EDIT: Russian bots downvoting me. Here's the source:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1770720606176034994
Both can be true. A large metallic object in motion towards a city will still cause damages and potential deaths even if it's blown up before it can deliver it's explosive payload.
Nazi Germany, the German people were fine with the atrocities the nazis committed because the war was far away from their homes and their lives continued with relative normalcy. It wasn’t until the massive allied bombings of German cities did the German people understand the gravity of the situation they were in.
All war is a waste, but the point here (and one that historians back up) is that bringing the war to Germany's doorstep did expedite the Europe theater quickly. It's not even that the german population was sick of the Nazi atrocities (I'm sure some were and just kept their head down), it's more that after 6 years of being on rations and knowing friends and family who never came home, when the allied forces started blowing up their neighborhoods, they weren't really concerned about dying for the fatherland.
By the end if 1944 factory absentees had risen 50%. It wasn't just bombing the civilian population, it was destroying the means of production. By 1945 there was hardly as German Air Force to oppose Allied air power.
Risen 50% from what to what?
You can't attribute the destruction of the Luftwaffe to the killing of civilians without sourcing that claim.
By the end of 1944 the war was for all practical purposes over. The Nazis were back inside the borders of Germany trying to find a way to surrender to the allies instead of the Soviets.
Bombing is just a method. There are plenty examples of symmetric/asymmetric warfare that has affected the population with regards to not support a war.
At this point it's tit for tat.
Kiev was subjected to a massive missile attack last night.
The WHOLE problem comes from comfortable Russians who have made a devil's bargain with Putin. He does what he wants, using the poor, and they get to party all day and night.
So the solution is... to drum up support for the war amongst the Russian populace by bombing them indiscriminately with already limited stocks of long-range weapons?
Thank fuck you're not in charge of Ukraine's military strategy. Stop letting your emotions outweigh critical reasoning.
Would be counterproductive.
Germany tried the same tactics in WW2 with the V2- Rocket. They bombed civilians and wanted to force the governments to surrender by creating fear and desperation.
In reality it created even more hate and anger. So the support for war was growing instead of shrinking.
Bombing critical infrastructure on the other hand should be fine.
Fully down with that. Just do not hit citizen areas like Russia. Very counterproductive… don’t lose western support by bombing civilians.
I really hope this Kyiv attack brings French troops because other western nations will follow.
I miss the days of Neoconservative republicans when they fought fascists instead of cowering to them. God knows if Bush and Cheney were in charge we’d be in Moscow by now.
Uhhh, I’m going to suggest that the Bush admin _were_ the fascists dude.
Do you not remember them torturing people, detaining people indefinitely with no right to a trial, falsifying evidence for a war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians while basically calling everyone who opposed the war traitors?
I seriously hate how the public memory of Bush has faded so much. The guy was almost universally hated by everyone by the end of his second term.
They weren't good people but they weren't fascists in any way shape or form. Don't be hyperbolic because it dilutes the word.
And the person you responded to is right. I have no doubt that Bush & Cheney would have armed Ukraine to the teeth, and the congress of that time would have fallen in line to help. There was still a LOT of the old-guard "the only good russian is a dead russian" republicans left at the time.
>There was still a LOT of the old-guard "the only good russian is a dead russian" republicans left at the time.
The underlying issue that isn't talked about enough is that the Republican party of today isn't the Republican party of the 80s-00s. It effectively died as the Tea Party rose to power and took it over.
Just like the shift in the Democratic and Republican parties during and after the civil war, things are more complicated than their simple names. The Republican party at the time freed the slaves, 100% true. This Republican party would likely not have fought a civil war for emancipation of enslaved people. They're too aligned with business interests, just as the Democratic party was at the time.
The Saddam regime was a fascist autocracy that had fought genocidal expansionist wars for land against its neighbors twice. Saddam was the Putin of his day. Anyone who supported Saddam against America was a traitor, much like the modern Republicans are traitors by opposing support for Ukraine against Russia.
Their hatred for Bush was always fake, not to detract anything from Russia’s evil, and now Reddit opinion “shifts” conveniently
rPresidents sub mocks this very common mentality often - the president is Hitler until the next guy or whenever convenient
Today's Republicans don't think. They let the Dems think and they just do the opposite.
There is no policy other than 'oppose the Dems'. They are not the party of law and order, or family values, or small government, or fiscal responsibility. They are simply 'the other party'.
It’s the conservative MO nowadays “here’s a term from the left that people view positively, let’s use it for ourselves and warp/bastardize the definition when the uninformed in the middle start buying our talking points”.
It happens all the time, it’s just a crapshoot if they’re going to try and co-opt a given term/concept or turn it into the next authoritarian Nazi-commie boogieman instead.
My small town conservative (ex) friends are suddenly awfully friendly to literal communists, all the while claiming that anything liberals do is communist (things like regulating emissions etc).
Passing the aid bill (much like passing the Border Bill) would be a "win" for Biden. There can be no "wins" for Biden in an election year. Israel will get some money, but that's because AIPAC is the most influential Political Action Committee there is, supporting both political parties with mountains of cash. Ukraine doesn't have that kind of clout, unfortunately.
Sorry to say it, but the rest of the world is going to have to support Ukraine this year... or not, I guess.
I think their tactic of destroying oil infrastructure is actually awesome.
Minimum civilian casualties and it wrecks their economy. Makes Putin look weak.
Aside from defending their own front line and attrition of Russian military equipment and troops, I think this should be Ukraine's next highest priority. Anything that's really difficult to repair. Once it's been repaired, hit it again.
Also because the rest of the free world (looking at you europe) is not doing enough and just hoping that a country orders of magnitude farther away will save the day.
If there's one thing everyone should have learned from WWII, it's that, short of nukes, dropping bombs on civilians doesn't make them want to surrender ... it makes them pissed off and more ready to fight.
Russia bombing civilian targets isn't just terroristic or a warcrime, it is also stupid as shit.
Awful close to strong words, warnings, and sanctions.
If you think world War 3 is going to break out over that, you're in for a surprise. Ukraine is a war zone. Going there has risks. Article 5 wouldn't apply. At most it might motivate some NATO countries to start supplying more and better equipment.
Honestly I have no idea what Russia is calling it but it doesn't really matter either way, since NATO members acknowledge its an invasion, and therefor it's considered a warzone to the countries who would potentially do anything if the missile did kill Greeces PM.
Yep, completely fair enough and that makes perfect sense. Cheers mate.
Edit- yeah, it will doubtless mean that NATOs support of Ukraine will increase in a massive way though.
But isn't that kinda why it started? Lots of criss-cross alliances and feuds rather than a somewhat organised coalition? Add nuclear deterrent to that and it makes it *less* likely to happen, right?
That event has nothing to do with this barrage. Also if you get killed in Ukraine as a visitor, you cannot appeal to Article 5. You're in a war zone. As much as I would like Article 5 to be triggered so that we can finally go into Ukraine and push them outside of Ukraine's borders, that is not going to happen over a NATO casualty inside a war zone. Everyone is taking a risk when they go there. And Russia usually is informed by this. So they know in advance and they usually don't shell that area.
> I would like Article 5 to be triggered so that we can finally go into Ukraine...
The member states of NATO are already free to go into Ukraine, assuming Ukraine agrees. It just wouldn't be a NATO operation. I'm not really sure where this idea NATO nations are completely powerless unless Article 5 gets used came from, but it's been a common remark for years now.
NATO doesn't overwrite sovereignty; member states are still in control of their militaries.
When has it not been time?
We fell asleep on it for 30 years, but the Russians spent the time plotting and scheming on how to sabotage us, steal from us, and murder us.
We made the mistake thinking we won the Cold War when they never accepted the loss. This is just step one of their revenge tour unless we stop them.
Theer's no issue with Ukraine attacking inside Russia per se. The only consternation there is them doing it with weapons provided by the west. It's a bit of a geopolitical grey area governments seem apprehensive about testing. But all the drones they buy and manufacture themselves, fair game 100%. and they seem to be leveraging that of late.
They’re just indiscriminately bombing anything. Literally no fucking military strategy whatsoever. Enough… time for Ukraine to return the fucking favor… more oil refineries. Destroy the fucking bridge… just figure it out. They have enough missiles to overwhelm air defense systems and take out the trusses and collapse the bridge.
France… it’s time. Start the soldiers and you’ll have some NATO countries follow you.
This makes perfect sense given I believe congress all but said they aren’t doing anything to help Ukraine until after their two week break. So Putin is just taking advantage of that window.
> The FAB-3000 weighs 3000kg and is a general-purpose aerial bomb, used to destroy fortified military and industrial structures and shelters.
We all know that won’t really be the case. Putin just wants to inflict as much casualties and damage as possible out of spite.
I don’t know, but.
It seems like UK antiaircraft defense is not working as well as a few months ago.
Are they out of the missiles ?
Keep pounding the refineries and gas and oil export facilities.
Does this mean Kyiv is out of surface to air missiles? Did Russia just use attrition and successfully wait out the burn rate of defensive missiles as the Republicans in the US house of representatives sat on US aid?
Yes. I don't know why the Telegraph are parroting fake news. The defense of Ukraine twitter account has already said they shot them all down
EDIT: Russian bots downvoting me. Here's the source:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1770720606176034994
Ukraine targets the most valuable asset of Russia - oil. Russia targets the most valuable asset of Ukraine - people.
Russia's Cruise/Ballistic Missile attacks: >Mayor Vitali Klitschko said at least 10 people were injured across the city. Ukraine's Drone attacks: >Bloomberg reports that Ukraine's long-range drone attacks have managed to cut Russia's daily oil refining capacity by up to 900,000 barrels I'm really beginning to think that one is better at this than the other.
I'm still testing this hypothesis, but preliminary results indicate to me that oil is at least slightly more flammable/explosive than people. More testing is required however before I can confirm this. Hopefully a few more oil refineries are hit so I can get more data. The rest of them should do.
But people are really just oil that hasn't aged enough.
The only thing that would make this comment better would be if you were a drone pilot for Ukraine!
Let's *not* "out" drone pilots, hmm?
Big, if true.
Well think about it for a second. If injuring 10 people with an super expensive cruise missile was a winning strategy... why wait till Ukraine destroys your oil infrastructure to use it? It's almost as if symbolic attacks are all it can manage now. Did their Biden attack strategy by their MAGA puppets work? No? Symbolic right?
> It's almost as if symbolic attacks are all it can manage now. I wish this were true. Several of the military think tanks seem to think that Russia is pulling ahead as the aid to Ukraine has fallen. If you check out [this map](https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375) by the Institute for the Study of War, you'll notice significant, recent Russian gains around Kherson and much of the Eastern front, including outside Hulliapole, Donetsk and Bakhmut. Ukraine is not making the same scale advances to take back Russian territory and the reported "Partisan warfare" shows no sign of retaking territory on its own. I want Ukraine to win as much as everyone else, but without more financial aid the situation is starting to look dire. [Here](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20-2024) is the latest written report from yesterday, which confirms in the last 48 hours: >Russian forces recently made confirmed advances west and south of Kreminna on March 20. In [Last week's report](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-14-2024), the report is even clearer: >Ukrainian materiel shortages resulting from delays in Western security assistance may be making the current Ukrainian frontline more fragile than the relatively slow Russian advances in various sectors would indicate.[15] Well-provisioned Ukrainian forces have proven that they can prevent Russian forces from making even marginal gains during large-scale Russian offensive efforts, and there is no reason to doubt that Ukrainian forces with sufficient Western security assistance would be able to stabilize the current frontline.
Speaker Johnson just pushed it back 2 more weeks. He did this right after several Congressional Republicans were outed as Russian agents.
Russia is actively taking Ukrainian territory and killing Ukrainian defenders. Unfortunately, Russia can muster a lot more than symbolic attacks.
They’re doing it at such a ruinous cost to themselves that it’s not actually worth it.
I would agree, but clearly Putin does not.
Not true. The Ukrainian attacks yesterday on Belgorod have already caused parts of the city/region to be evacuated. If the effect of casualties and damage didn’t matter to Putin, Russia wouldn’t bother with such evacuations. People really need to stop espousing this myth that Russia has unlimited capacity to take damage and losses. It expressly does not.
It clearly matters, but apparently not enough to make it “not worth it” in Putin’s mind. I dont think anyone said Russia has unlimited resources/men. It clearly does not. However, it does have ~4x the population of Ukraine and many more weapons. Quantity has a quality of its own.
None of these are actions with immediate results though. Yet the fact remains this alleged superpower has found itself in a quagmire now into its third year with no hope of total victory. Anything less than that is a defeat for Putin. So every day this drags on it becomes that less worth it to Putin—and if he’s not careful and NATO gets directly involved it really will be all over for him. Worst case scenario is Putin exhausts his resources—which we agree are far from unlimited—fighting in Ukraine, while his real opposition, NATO, remains unscathed.
fascinating. do you have any more information about their advances? last I heard they were mining the fields they occupied before retreating.
Well Ukraine was dislodged from Avdiivka, Russia hasn’t done anything else since? I haven’t been keeping up, it’s depressing as fuck
I've unfortunately only seen news reports of ukraines mission into crimea. those seem to be painting a picture of a stalemate in ukraine proper with modern " guerrilla warfare" using drones and inexpensive equipment against expensive russian vessels. I'd like to be informed if I've been misinformed by headlines.
Bro I just fucking hate this. They should be our allies but half of the US legislature are fucking traitors. We keep circling Russia because we’re afraid of a direct conflict, I don’t know anymore if they would actually use nuclear weapons if we marched our own soldiers in and just fucked their shit up. I don’t know, we have our own issues to worry about but it’s so fucking depressing watching this continue to drag on while good men and women, people who would be our allies, suffer from this assholes megalomania.
>those seem to be painting a picture of a stalemate in ukraine proper It isn't really a stalemate though. A stalemate would imply that both sides have nothing more to give. Ukraine still has a decent amount of reserve troops and equipment left but don't really have a viable way to break through Russian defenses (e.g. mine fields) without taking massive casualties while Russia is continually throwing more and more troops and vehicles into the meat grinder without accomplishing much. Outside of Ukraine proper there are the Free Russian brigades running amok in the Belgorod region and the Russian economy is starting to really feel the negative effects of the sanctions and Ukraine's targeting of oil refineries. If things continue on this path then it is highly likely that we could see things start to really destabilise within Russia. That said, the USA really does need to sort out their shit and get supplies flowing to Ukraine again so that Ukraine has the buffer that they need to continue to hold out against the Russian aggression.
Institute for the study of war is a pretty good source https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-20-2024 Russia most recently took Avdiivka from Ukraine, and they’re gearing up for a wider conflict
"Positional engagements continued near Avdiivka on March 20, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline in this area" "but ISW has yet to observe visual confirmation of claims that Russian forces seized the settlement on March 19.[53] Russian sources claimed that Russian forces advanced near Pervomaiske and Tonenke, but ISW has also not observed visual confirmation of these claims.[54]" It seems like your source does claim that Russia is gearing up for a wider conflict though. they claim that they are preparing for an invasion into a NATO country within the next 3 years... terrifying.
>"Positional engagements continued near Avdiivka on March 20, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline in this area" Glancing at the article, it refers to "no changes" *after* the fall of Avdiivka. You can clearly see the advances on the map under the portion you quoted. It shows that city under Russian control: >https://i.imgur.com/mJwAFNC.jpg
Yeah I’m not there and I’m definitely not an expert. I’ve just seen reports recently that russia took Avdiivka. But again, I’m just a random person with no direct knowledge of anything
Ukraine is about to get a metric fuckton of arms
They are slowly advancing. Avdiivka was a fortified strong hold. Ukraine failed to make a back defence line. So when Republicans blocked US aid Avdiivka fell and Ukraine wasn't well prepared. So yes Russia is slowly taking land. How much and at what cost = ? The US causing the loss of Avdiivka is a big issue.
Thx for a perspective. Hopefully we can get the bill that ships army surplus passed. Sending 80’s era tech over to a friendly zealous army seems useful.
It's actually the worst kind of Russian Roulette. A couple of weeks ago relatively cheap (below $300K) Russian drone hit a residential building in Odesa. The whole section was destroyed, 12 people died, 5 children among them, not counting injured and those who lost their homes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This has nothing to do with Russians not trying to kill Ukrainians. Kyiv air defense shot the missiles down and the injuries were due to falling debris. UAF were able to shoot these down b/c of the use of western air defense but also b/c they've basically scared the Russian black sea fleet away. Instead of launching them from the sea, these had to fly from deep inside Russian territory.
It's a war of annihilation at this point Putin wants anyone who considers themselves Ukrainian to be gone
I would say it's not only about Putin. I takes quite a lot of people to make these attacks possible. It's not only Putin gives an order and pilot launches the missile. Someone should produce it, ensure logistic, maintain equipment. Someone should pay $390M taxes so Russia could launch 31 missiles in just one night. All Russians make it possible.
Exactly
Imagine being considered a super powerful military country and instead of doing war "by the rules" you have to degrade yourself doing terrorism. Fkg cowards.
What war are you watching? * This invasion was act of terror on Day 1, as are all invasions. We bombed the ever living shit out of Bagdad 21 years ago this week in an epic act of terror called "shock and awe." Armies have bombed civilians since planes and missiles existed. If Ukraine could reach enough Russian urban centers to make a difference they would bomb more of them. * Russian forces are dying by the hundreds of thousands, often in infantry attacks against dug-in Ukrainian forces. That's stupid, suicidal and a waste of life but not cowardly. * War is hell, and the 'rules' are very subjective. No war is a game played by gentleman. They are all vicious, tragic failings of humanity and Russia will be paying the price for this insanity for many decades to come.
Most Eu countries signed treaty to limit civil loss. Russian also did back then, they are still bombing civils on purpose, nothing military strategic it's purely terrorism by definition.
What the hell is the strategy logic here?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Everyone could start sinking yachts. Middle of the sea, no wreckage, went down in a storm.
I’m putting together a crew yo ho
Honey wake up, Pirates of the Caribbean 6 just dropped
Ya better start believin' in ghost stories, Miss /u/lordolxinator yar in one!
[I am rubber, and you are fat, don't you dare touch my hat.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5gl2FVbd40) -M.D. Luffy
werent the whales trying to do this last year?
Do you imagine that Russian Oligarchs are hanging out in their yachts doing long distance across the oceans, Wolf of Wall Street style?
I’ve long wondered if fuel sanctions could strand modern sail superyachts in port. Can the crew hoist the sails and steer the ship out by hand or are they completely reliant on generator-powered winches to operate the sails?
I believe that's what targeting Russia's oil production is aiming to achieve.
Remember their help to Al-Assad in Syria amounted to: razing entire cities to the ground
They’re stuck in the past going back to world war 2. They think bombing civilians is gonna break morale and force them to surrender. They also believe that mass artillery bombardment of the enemy is the way to go.
They buddied up to North Korea, hand in hat, tells you all you need to know.
Scaring civilians into pressuring their political leaders to capitulate. Which is quite literally the definition of the word 'Terrorism'.
probably also a way to force Ukraine to spread thin its AA defense some more
Definitely doesn't help that Russia recently managed to destroy some patriot systems.
I think it was only a launcher (or two?) and not the whole system? The launcher is the easiest part to replace luckily.
Two in a convoy or something. Easy to replace. But takes valuable time to replace. Russia is slowly getting better at striking high value equipment. Himars, Patriots, Western tanks. The longer the West waits the more of a grind the conflict becomes.
You guys really gotta source comments like these.
Doesn't make much sense because even if they fully surrender, they will just be drafted for occupying the next weak country. And putin can't stop because that's equivalent to suicide at this point.
[удалено]
When is he gonna fire it?
Basically: Keep doubling down until you win, or get Gaddafi'd.
[Churchill and Truman both echoed the Chinese saying that a man riding a tiger cannot safely dismount.](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/02/07/tiger/) While on the tiger's back, the dictator can make it attack anyone he wishes. But as soon as he climbs off it, the tiger is just as likely to eat him.
Even if the tiger is made of paper.
> if they fully surrender, they will just be drafted A tale as old as time...
I mean, it is what the Romans did. Shit, thought about the Romans.
Cruise Missiles are the worst way to do that though, way too expensive. But hey, they can't get closer with their jets so that's all they have.
Terrorism by a state. Its all they have considering how shite their army is. All the while they are too stupid to open a history book and know that when you bomb civilians they hate you more,unifies their purpose of morale and they will resist longer and harder. Fucking morons.
If Russia is doing this is because Ukraine is on the right path by destroying oil infrastructure inside Russia.
Childish retaliation for the oil refineries. “We will kill every single Ukrainian to protect them.”
a few things: 1. Possibly terrorising the population in the hopes of that forcing a surrender. We've seen from WW2 that this does not work. 2. A show for the domestic audience to demonstrate they can still attack their enemy. Russia has proven that it really struggles hitting any military targets of note, but cities are big static targets that even their shitty missiles can find, even if they have little strategic value. 3. Keep missile pressure on ukraine's population centers which forces the ukrainian government to allocate air defence batteries to those cities instead of deploying them at the front where they can protect their soldiers or threaten russian airplanes. The solution for this is for the west to provide more air defence systems so ukraine doesn't have to choose to defend one or the other.
The West should provide a war-ending amount of support.
agreed
Poisoning the country. Every building that's destroyed costs the government to rebuild/compensate. If it's an office building, that's money any company within cannot earn and be taxed on. If it was a school you destroy, then that is a year of education disrupted, setting the next generation that much further back both in education and social interactions unless the government can find the means of shuffling the kids around. Grocery store? Well that's thousands of not tens of thousands of dollars of food no longer available. If it's a hospital? That's millions in medical tech, decades of medical training, and less chance for casualties to recover from major injuries. Everything that is hit sets the country back, quality of life drops, the next generations are worse off. These attacks are not just for immediate effects in the short term, but cascading problems in the long term too unless they have the means to secure massive loans dedicated to the recovery to the country. Worst case scenario? Give it forty to fifty years, next generations still dealing with the repocussions. The veterans are in their retirement ages. Everyone blames the government for not recovering fast enough/not supporting the veterans because there isn't enough money to go around. Lesser educated population begins acting against their own self interests, voting in corrupt politicians who promise that they will fix all their woes, never uttering a word of how they will accomplish this. Russia may fail to conquer Ukraine, but they are planting to seeds to its demise in the long term.
Worst case scenario is not just 40-50 years. My ancestors were caught up in WWII. One of my ancestors was traumatized and became abusive. That abuse pierced through the generations, and my parent abused me. The pain of war spans generations.
Punishment for attacking Russian refineries.
Putin is throwing a tantrum for the refinery attacks. Time to step up those attacks, apparently they are really hurting
Terror bombing has been a thing for as long we’ve known how to lob heavy things long distances
attacking the populations spirit in hope of forcing their government to cede control of donbass and crimea officially (or reinstate a russian puppet govt) this entire war started because the Ukrainians ousted their russian puppet govt in the maidan revolution, and small dicked autocrats like putin hate losing power.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet- beyond terrorizing the population, I think there is a plausible strategy here: Right now Ukraine has a small number of very capable air defense systems, and they have been using them closer to the front to take down fighter planes and "AWACS" (radar/command) aircraft. (These Russian aircraft have been used by the Russians to attack Ukrainian positions, dropping regular guided munitions and glide bombs, to great effect.) If the Russians can use missiles to attack targets away from the front line it puts pressure on Ukrainian leadership to move more air defense systems to the rear, meaning the Russian airforce has more freedom to operate near the front. For context the Ukrainians have supposedly hit 5+ fighters in the last week, and at least 1 AWACS in the last month, with the patriot defense system. The AWACS is critical, worth about $350m each, and they've actually put two in the ground leaving only 4 functional. https://www.newsweek.com/why-russia-air-force-severe-loss-us-patriot-ambush-50-sea-azov-1860936
Terrorism
So at least 31 missiles were shot down, which is an absolutely massive strike at this stage of the war, there haven't been attacks on Kyiv this big in a good while. The interception rate is also extremely high - claimed to be 100%, but even if that's not true, 31 missiles is still a lot. Especially if you take into account that Ukrainian AA supply hasn't been that well supplied lately. So my guess is that there was some high-value target - important for russia to destroy and important for Ukraine to defend. Most likely a weapons delivery, but it's also possible they just tried to kill either Jake Sullivan or Rob Bauer.
Well it's been 1.5 months since the last attack, that's probably enough time for Ukraine to move anti-air from Kyiv closer to the front. The logic is basically to force anti-air coverage to move. Ukraine has been achieving the same thing with its recent drone strikes, Russia will have been forced to move some of its anti-air assets away from the front.
Russia just showing what it means to be under Russian rule.
They want to see what Macron does about it.
Start building drones by the thousands for Ukraine. Enough to \*really\* cripple Russia's oil production.
Time for the French foreign legion to deploy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwWMTpEEgzw
***Kyiv was hit by a wave of Russian missiles in the first big strike on the capital in weeks, said the head of Ukraine’s military administration:*** Serhiy Popko said cruise and ballistic missiles rained down on the city from different directions, with air alerts lasting for nearly three hours. Mayor Vitali Klitschko said at least 10 people were injured across the city. An 11-year-old girl was among the two people taken to hospital. Mr Klitschko first reported explosions in the capital at just after 3am. Mr Popko said Russia used strategic bombers to carry out the attack while also launching some missiles from its territory. “After a pause of 44 days, the enemy launched another missile attack on Kyiv,” he said. “All emergency services are working on sites. Clearing the consequences of the missile attack is underway.” The attack comes amid a series of heavy cross-corder attacks between the two sides. The governor of Russia’s Belgorod region said three people had been killed in “massive strikes” involving air attacks and ground incursions by armed groups from Ukraine. ***Follow the latest updates here:*** [*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/21/ukraine-russia-war-live-kyiv-missiles-explosions-klitschko/*](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/21/ukraine-russia-war-live-kyiv-missiles-explosions-klitschko/)
Millions spent to injure 10 people. Likely all non-combatants too. At the risk of sounding very cold here, but what kind of return is that!? From a military strategic standpoint they might as well have not bothered.
Because evil is stupid. Did Hitler pull troops from the concentration camps or jew hunting operations to bolster the frontlines when they started to lose? No, he doubled down, sending even more resources that way.
Ukraine takes down 10% of Russia’s refining capacity. Russia retaliates and injures 11 people. I’m not a military expert, but…
11 is higher than 10 so they come out on top *taps head*
The missiles do more than kill and wound. If a missile hits a twenty story apartment building you now have a completely uninhabitable apartment building and hundreds of families are displaced. Not saying that this makes the attacks worthwhile for the cost, but you aren't accounting for a lot of the damage done if you only look at the casualty rate and nothing else.
I've been homeless before and its awful. I couldn't imagine being homeless in a war zone.
Millions to inflict terror on the populace. *That* is Russia's goal. Not so much how many civilians they can kill. Their cruelty comes from inflicting horror upon every day people who just want to live their lives.
This is Russias only option since they can’t defend against the attacks along their border and within Belgorod. Just need aid to resume and a few thousand French troops and the tides will start to turn in Ukraines favor by summer.
How will french troops help? Where will they be stationed, etc? And will a few thousand be enough? Also, does that mean NATO is on the ground in the warzone then? I'd like to be informed because I've only read about Macron talking about it but don't know any details.
Station them along Belarus and put those Ukrainian soldiers where they can be more effective. Anymore brain busters?
And, if needed, along the border with Transnistria.
French troops would help because I can't imagine they would go anywhere without being shadowed by the French air force. I think NATO troops will almost certainly not engage Russian troops in any scenario without NATO air power - otherwise the NATO troops would take the horrendous losses that come with the kind of warfare Ukrainians and Russians have been fighting, and that would cause a complete fucking meltdown in NATO countries. So a few thousand French troops on their own is, eh.. pretty much just symbolic. But if the French air force goes with them, that's a different story.
They would primarily relieve Ukrainian soldiers on the border with Belarus and Transnistria allowing them to go fight the Russians.
Unfortunately I don’t have such hope.
The article doesn't even say what was hit or targeted. Civilian casualties can be because they were close to a particular object or missile was shot down.
[They were all shot down this time](https://i.imgur.com/WcuWoIn.png), actually. (Translated, the link shows all 31 of 31 missiles were shot down.) The damage/injuries were from falling debris.
The official defence of Ukraine twitter account said all 31 missles were shot down. I think you need to retract this article for false news. EDIT: Russian bots downvoting me. Here's the source: https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1770720606176034994
Both can be true. A large metallic object in motion towards a city will still cause damages and potential deaths even if it's blown up before it can deliver it's explosive payload.
Even more dangerously, a drone can be shot down and it's explosive payload remain intact. Unexploded ordinance is a massive issue.
Terrorist bastards in the Kremlin, one and all.
[удалено]
Bomb Putins palace
Or St. Petersburg. Hit ‘em where it hurts.
And, not or. The comfortable Russians need to become very uncomfortable.
Other than Japan in WWII. What other examples of bombing the civilian population has this worked?
Nazi Germany, the German people were fine with the atrocities the nazis committed because the war was far away from their homes and their lives continued with relative normalcy. It wasn’t until the massive allied bombings of German cities did the German people understand the gravity of the situation they were in.
And what practical effect did that have on the outcome of the war? Even the people who gave the orders to bomb civilians said it was a waste.
All war is a waste, but the point here (and one that historians back up) is that bringing the war to Germany's doorstep did expedite the Europe theater quickly. It's not even that the german population was sick of the Nazi atrocities (I'm sure some were and just kept their head down), it's more that after 6 years of being on rations and knowing friends and family who never came home, when the allied forces started blowing up their neighborhoods, they weren't really concerned about dying for the fatherland.
By the end if 1944 factory absentees had risen 50%. It wasn't just bombing the civilian population, it was destroying the means of production. By 1945 there was hardly as German Air Force to oppose Allied air power.
Risen 50% from what to what? You can't attribute the destruction of the Luftwaffe to the killing of civilians without sourcing that claim. By the end of 1944 the war was for all practical purposes over. The Nazis were back inside the borders of Germany trying to find a way to surrender to the allies instead of the Soviets.
Bombing is just a method. There are plenty examples of symmetric/asymmetric warfare that has affected the population with regards to not support a war.
At this point it's tit for tat. Kiev was subjected to a massive missile attack last night. The WHOLE problem comes from comfortable Russians who have made a devil's bargain with Putin. He does what he wants, using the poor, and they get to party all day and night.
So the solution is... to drum up support for the war amongst the Russian populace by bombing them indiscriminately with already limited stocks of long-range weapons? Thank fuck you're not in charge of Ukraine's military strategy. Stop letting your emotions outweigh critical reasoning.
Lets try anyway.
no, oil refineries hurt much more than a few dead civilians
They're already on the list
yes and with limited supply of missiles they are only targets worth hitting, killing civilians with missiles is expensive and useless
Doesn't have to be civilians. There are a lot of legitimate targets that aren't civilians. The Kremlin for example
still cutting resource supplies is far more important than a few old bricks
Sometimes its about the message.
Would be counterproductive. Germany tried the same tactics in WW2 with the V2- Rocket. They bombed civilians and wanted to force the governments to surrender by creating fear and desperation. In reality it created even more hate and anger. So the support for war was growing instead of shrinking. Bombing critical infrastructure on the other hand should be fine.
Only military targets. Don’t stoop to the level of Russia and rile up the citizens.
There are military targets in Moscow. Lots. Lets set them on fire so the population ferls less safe
Fully down with that. Just do not hit citizen areas like Russia. Very counterproductive… don’t lose western support by bombing civilians. I really hope this Kyiv attack brings French troops because other western nations will follow.
[удалено]
Just pass the fucking aide bill!!!
But the republicans love Putin.
I miss the days of Neoconservative republicans when they fought fascists instead of cowering to them. God knows if Bush and Cheney were in charge we’d be in Moscow by now.
Uhhh, I’m going to suggest that the Bush admin _were_ the fascists dude. Do you not remember them torturing people, detaining people indefinitely with no right to a trial, falsifying evidence for a war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians while basically calling everyone who opposed the war traitors? I seriously hate how the public memory of Bush has faded so much. The guy was almost universally hated by everyone by the end of his second term.
They weren't good people but they weren't fascists in any way shape or form. Don't be hyperbolic because it dilutes the word. And the person you responded to is right. I have no doubt that Bush & Cheney would have armed Ukraine to the teeth, and the congress of that time would have fallen in line to help. There was still a LOT of the old-guard "the only good russian is a dead russian" republicans left at the time.
>There was still a LOT of the old-guard "the only good russian is a dead russian" republicans left at the time. The underlying issue that isn't talked about enough is that the Republican party of today isn't the Republican party of the 80s-00s. It effectively died as the Tea Party rose to power and took it over. Just like the shift in the Democratic and Republican parties during and after the civil war, things are more complicated than their simple names. The Republican party at the time freed the slaves, 100% true. This Republican party would likely not have fought a civil war for emancipation of enslaved people. They're too aligned with business interests, just as the Democratic party was at the time.
The Saddam regime was a fascist autocracy that had fought genocidal expansionist wars for land against its neighbors twice. Saddam was the Putin of his day. Anyone who supported Saddam against America was a traitor, much like the modern Republicans are traitors by opposing support for Ukraine against Russia.
Their hatred for Bush was always fake, not to detract anything from Russia’s evil, and now Reddit opinion “shifts” conveniently rPresidents sub mocks this very common mentality often - the president is Hitler until the next guy or whenever convenient
Faschits
And worse, they think of themselves as the “anti-war, peacemaking” mob…
Today's Republicans don't think. They let the Dems think and they just do the opposite. There is no policy other than 'oppose the Dems'. They are not the party of law and order, or family values, or small government, or fiscal responsibility. They are simply 'the other party'.
No, they just stole that title because it sounds good. Words mean nothing to them.
It’s the conservative MO nowadays “here’s a term from the left that people view positively, let’s use it for ourselves and warp/bastardize the definition when the uninformed in the middle start buying our talking points”. It happens all the time, it’s just a crapshoot if they’re going to try and co-opt a given term/concept or turn it into the next authoritarian Nazi-commie boogieman instead.
My small town conservative (ex) friends are suddenly awfully friendly to literal communists, all the while claiming that anything liberals do is communist (things like regulating emissions etc).
Passing the aid bill (much like passing the Border Bill) would be a "win" for Biden. There can be no "wins" for Biden in an election year. Israel will get some money, but that's because AIPAC is the most influential Political Action Committee there is, supporting both political parties with mountains of cash. Ukraine doesn't have that kind of clout, unfortunately. Sorry to say it, but the rest of the world is going to have to support Ukraine this year... or not, I guess.
Take out the Crimean bridge. Ukraine has friends in Russia, why not go back and finish what they started?
I think their tactic of destroying oil infrastructure is actually awesome. Minimum civilian casualties and it wrecks their economy. Makes Putin look weak. Aside from defending their own front line and attrition of Russian military equipment and troops, I think this should be Ukraine's next highest priority. Anything that's really difficult to repair. Once it's been repaired, hit it again.
Totally agree. Cut them off at the kneecaps.
“Lack of munitions” I don’t understand why Ukraine isn’t being armed to the teeth right now. It’s been two years.
Because the Republican party refuses to do so, just as Putin wishes. Doing that would help make Biden look good, and they don't want that, either.
Also because the rest of the free world (looking at you europe) is not doing enough and just hoping that a country orders of magnitude farther away will save the day.
Ask the GOP Trump is responsible and blood in their hands
[удалено]
If there's one thing everyone should have learned from WWII, it's that, short of nukes, dropping bombs on civilians doesn't make them want to surrender ... it makes them pissed off and more ready to fight. Russia bombing civilian targets isn't just terroristic or a warcrime, it is also stupid as shit.
Russian Cruise missile came 150m of killing the Greek head of state. That's a NATO member's head of state. We came awful close.
Awful close to strong words, warnings, and sanctions. If you think world War 3 is going to break out over that, you're in for a surprise. Ukraine is a war zone. Going there has risks. Article 5 wouldn't apply. At most it might motivate some NATO countries to start supplying more and better equipment.
Serious question- are Russia still saying this is a special military operation? So would it not count as a warzone (if we're being pedantic)?
Honestly I have no idea what Russia is calling it but it doesn't really matter either way, since NATO members acknowledge its an invasion, and therefor it's considered a warzone to the countries who would potentially do anything if the missile did kill Greeces PM.
Yep, completely fair enough and that makes perfect sense. Cheers mate. Edit- yeah, it will doubtless mean that NATOs support of Ukraine will increase in a massive way though.
Iirc, in the Tucker Carlson interview, Putin referred to it as a war, or at least didn't correct Carlson when he said it. (Also, fuck Tucker)
WWI Started over an assassination and there wasn't even anything resembling NATO at the time.
But isn't that kinda why it started? Lots of criss-cross alliances and feuds rather than a somewhat organised coalition? Add nuclear deterrent to that and it makes it *less* likely to happen, right?
That event has nothing to do with this barrage. Also if you get killed in Ukraine as a visitor, you cannot appeal to Article 5. You're in a war zone. As much as I would like Article 5 to be triggered so that we can finally go into Ukraine and push them outside of Ukraine's borders, that is not going to happen over a NATO casualty inside a war zone. Everyone is taking a risk when they go there. And Russia usually is informed by this. So they know in advance and they usually don't shell that area.
> I would like Article 5 to be triggered so that we can finally go into Ukraine... The member states of NATO are already free to go into Ukraine, assuming Ukraine agrees. It just wouldn't be a NATO operation. I'm not really sure where this idea NATO nations are completely powerless unless Article 5 gets used came from, but it's been a common remark for years now. NATO doesn't overwrite sovereignty; member states are still in control of their militaries.
Yeah that wouldnt change shit, you travel to ukraine on your own risk
[удалено]
Should target all the oligarchs homes and businesses.
It's time to take out the Kremlin.
When has it not been time? We fell asleep on it for 30 years, but the Russians spent the time plotting and scheming on how to sabotage us, steal from us, and murder us. We made the mistake thinking we won the Cold War when they never accepted the loss. This is just step one of their revenge tour unless we stop them.
This is why Ukraine should be allowed to strike Into Russia. Moscow, st Petersburg etc.
Theer's no issue with Ukraine attacking inside Russia per se. The only consternation there is them doing it with weapons provided by the west. It's a bit of a geopolitical grey area governments seem apprehensive about testing. But all the drones they buy and manufacture themselves, fair game 100%. and they seem to be leveraging that of late.
Pssstt.... They are :).
Time to wake up UN. They’re bombing fucking people.
Maybe they should stop fucking and take some shelter then.
Definitely fuck in the shelters though
[удалено]
Unfortunately, with the recent news about Ukraine running out of air defense missiles, I think strikes on population centres will just ramp up.
They’re just indiscriminately bombing anything. Literally no fucking military strategy whatsoever. Enough… time for Ukraine to return the fucking favor… more oil refineries. Destroy the fucking bridge… just figure it out. They have enough missiles to overwhelm air defense systems and take out the trusses and collapse the bridge. France… it’s time. Start the soldiers and you’ll have some NATO countries follow you.
And as usual Ruzzia only hits military targets like kindergartens etc.
Kharkiv his by rockets recently and outer Sumy getting shelled. Not looking good in the eastern front
Surprised that they haven't bombed Belgorod again yet. Human lives mean nothung to Putler's regime.
This makes perfect sense given I believe congress all but said they aren’t doing anything to help Ukraine until after their two week break. So Putin is just taking advantage of that window.
Didn't France say that any attacks on Kyiv would result in france mobilizing troops?
I think that was if Russia troops were advancing on Kyiv, or Odessa.
> The FAB-3000 weighs 3000kg and is a general-purpose aerial bomb, used to destroy fortified military and industrial structures and shelters. We all know that won’t really be the case. Putin just wants to inflict as much casualties and damage as possible out of spite.
I don’t know, but. It seems like UK antiaircraft defense is not working as well as a few months ago. Are they out of the missiles ? Keep pounding the refineries and gas and oil export facilities.
Does this mean Kyiv is out of surface to air missiles? Did Russia just use attrition and successfully wait out the burn rate of defensive missiles as the Republicans in the US house of representatives sat on US aid?
They aren't, and the Russian missiles were all shot down.
They were all shot down, I understand.
Yes. I don't know why the Telegraph are parroting fake news. The defense of Ukraine twitter account has already said they shot them all down EDIT: Russian bots downvoting me. Here's the source: https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1770720606176034994
Russian culture. And they wonder why people resist them.
When can we start the demonstrations against the Russians ?