NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 10 2022 18:02 Silvanel wrote: It could be: 1. An loitering munition hitting stockpile of weapons (Russians are supposedly notorious for keeping them on air-fields prior to missions) 2. Long range rocket (Unannounced donation or UA made) 3. Drone 4. Sabotage 5. A submarine (yeah i have seen some people suggesting, there was an unannounced donation of submarine towards UA) sounds very far-fetched to me. 6. An accident
I know we shouldn't trust RU, since they called sinking of Moskva an accident and notorious other lies but accidents do happen in war. If UA wont take credit I think it is plausible that this distaster is of Russia's own making.
Excluding the luckiest chain reaction known to man, we should assume from the videos and especially the range of damage that UA hit the airbase with explosives measured in tons. That's too much for sabotage, drones, etc.
Perhaps a Hrim-2 weapons test?
I heard that UA doesn't have what was needed to produce Hrim-2 for themselves. This basically leaves the option of early delivery of US MLRS Atacms. But that raises the question of what happened to the promise of not firing HIMARS onto Russian soil - US accepts that Crimea is fair game? UA fudged and called Russia's bluff regarding tactical nukes?
Whatever it was, the casualty estimates are growing by the hour. This was a massive blow to the Russian southern defence and we should expect the tide to turn even more to UA's favour soon.
UA hit the last bridge, the dam in Nova Kahovka, with precise strikes, all in a line, making sure there's still a narrow path for lighter equipment. Basically saying to the Russians, it's your last chance to get out.
Crimea is not Russian soil, it is Ukrainian. Of 195 countries, only 15 countries (North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc.) supports Crimea as a federal subject to Russia.
It doesn't have to be HIMARS (and they most likely weren't, the payload would be too small). I would put my bet on a missile system such as Sapsan TBM with modified Tochka-U (with the help from Turkey/Israel).
You're preaching to the choir here. Crimea is Ukraine in my book. But RU said they'd respond with nukes if RU soil was attacked and US believed them, so what's going on now is less than clear.
Well according to Russia there is no such thing as Ukraine as a country, so if going by their definition any missile in Ukraine would be striking Russian soil. Can't use their definition then of what is Russian soil.
Is there a quote on that? I didn't see any Kremlin official denying the existence of Ukraine as a state. .
On August 10 2022 18:02 Silvanel wrote: It could be: 1. An loitering munition hitting stockpile of weapons (Russians are supposedly notorious for keeping them on air-fields prior to missions) 2. Long range rocket (Unannounced donation or UA made) 3. Drone 4. Sabotage 5. A submarine (yeah i have seen some people suggesting, there was an unannounced donation of submarine towards UA) sounds very far-fetched to me. 6. An accident
I know we shouldn't trust RU, since they called sinking of Moskva an accident and notorious other lies but accidents do happen in war. If UA wont take credit I think it is plausible that this distaster is of Russia's own making.
Excluding the luckiest chain reaction known to man, we should assume from the videos and especially the range of damage that UA hit the airbase with explosives measured in tons. That's too much for sabotage, drones, etc.
Perhaps a Hrim-2 weapons test?
I heard that UA doesn't have what was needed to produce Hrim-2 for themselves. This basically leaves the option of early delivery of US MLRS Atacms. But that raises the question of what happened to the promise of not firing HIMARS onto Russian soil - US accepts that Crimea is fair game? UA fudged and called Russia's bluff regarding tactical nukes?
Whatever it was, the casualty estimates are growing by the hour. This was a massive blow to the Russian southern defence and we should expect the tide to turn even more to UA's favour soon.
UA hit the last bridge, the dam in Nova Kahovka, with precise strikes, all in a line, making sure there's still a narrow path for lighter equipment. Basically saying to the Russians, it's your last chance to get out.
Crimea is not Russian soil, it is Ukrainian. Of 195 countries, only 15 countries (North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc.) supports Crimea as a federal subject to Russia.
It doesn't have to be HIMARS (and they most likely weren't, the payload would be too small). I would put my bet on a missile system such as Sapsan TBM with modified Tochka-U (with the help from Turkey/Israel).
You're preaching to the choir here. Crimea is Ukraine in my book. But RU said they'd respond with nukes if RU soil was attacked and US believed them, so what's going on now is less than clear.
Well according to Russia there is no such thing as Ukraine as a country, so if going by their definition any missile in Ukraine would be striking Russian soil. Can't use their definition then of what is Russian soil.
Is there a quote on that? I didn't see any Kremlin official denying the existence of Ukraine as a state.
As for hitting targets within Russia - despite the scale of war, there seem to be boundaries which both sides are rarely crossing. Ukrainians could definetly hit more targets within Russia (especially in border regions), but instead they do it sporadically and Ukraine officials claim to be not involved in any of this cases. Russia, on the other hand, rarely attacks Ukraine rail and bridge infrastracture, despite showing capability to do so (especially on Zatoka bridge near Odessa, though missiles did struck bridges in Dnipro and Zaporozhie couple of times) and the fact that it is immensely important for UA war effort. And I'm not even talking about the fact that no government building in Kiev was ever attacked (not counting the Security Service of Ukraine headquarters on 2nd day of war).
In this speech prior to the war, Putin denied Ukraine full statehood. This was not denied by any official sources in Russia.
I wonder why that article did not include this quote from the same Putin's speech.
"Despite all these injustices, deceit and outright robbery of Russia, our people, namely the people, recognized the new geopolitical realities that arose after the collapse of the USSR, recognized the new independent states. And not only recognized it - Russia itself, being in a difficult situation at that time, helped its partners in the CIS, including Ukrainian colleagues, from whom, right from the moment of independence, numerous requests for material support began to arrive. And our country provided such support with respect for the dignity and sovereignty of Ukraine."
On August 10 2022 18:02 Silvanel wrote: It could be: 1. An loitering munition hitting stockpile of weapons (Russians are supposedly notorious for keeping them on air-fields prior to missions) 2. Long range rocket (Unannounced donation or UA made) 3. Drone 4. Sabotage 5. A submarine (yeah i have seen some people suggesting, there was an unannounced donation of submarine towards UA) sounds very far-fetched to me. 6. An accident
I know we shouldn't trust RU, since they called sinking of Moskva an accident and notorious other lies but accidents do happen in war. If UA wont take credit I think it is plausible that this distaster is of Russia's own making.
Excluding the luckiest chain reaction known to man, we should assume from the videos and especially the range of damage that UA hit the airbase with explosives measured in tons. That's too much for sabotage, drones, etc.
Perhaps a Hrim-2 weapons test?
I heard that UA doesn't have what was needed to produce Hrim-2 for themselves. This basically leaves the option of early delivery of US MLRS Atacms. But that raises the question of what happened to the promise of not firing HIMARS onto Russian soil - US accepts that Crimea is fair game? UA fudged and called Russia's bluff regarding tactical nukes?
Whatever it was, the casualty estimates are growing by the hour. This was a massive blow to the Russian southern defence and we should expect the tide to turn even more to UA's favour soon.
UA hit the last bridge, the dam in Nova Kahovka, with precise strikes, all in a line, making sure there's still a narrow path for lighter equipment. Basically saying to the Russians, it's your last chance to get out.
Crimea is not Russian soil, it is Ukrainian. Of 195 countries, only 15 countries (North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc.) supports Crimea as a federal subject to Russia.
It doesn't have to be HIMARS (and they most likely weren't, the payload would be too small). I would put my bet on a missile system such as Sapsan TBM with modified Tochka-U (with the help from Turkey/Israel).
You're preaching to the choir here. Crimea is Ukraine in my book. But RU said they'd respond with nukes if RU soil was attacked and US believed them, so what's going on now is less than clear.
Well according to Russia there is no such thing as Ukraine as a country, so if going by their definition any missile in Ukraine would be striking Russian soil. Can't use their definition then of what is Russian soil.
Is there a quote on that? I didn't see any Kremlin official denying the existence of Ukraine as a state.
As for hitting targets within Russia - despite the scale of war, there seem to be boundaries which both sides are rarely crossing. Ukrainians could definetly hit more targets within Russia (especially in border regions), but instead they do it sporadically and Ukraine officials claim to be not involved in any of this cases. Russia, on the other hand, rarely attacks Ukraine rail and bridge infrastracture, despite showing capability to do so (especially on Zatoka bridge near Odessa, though missiles did struck bridges in Dnipro and Zaporozhie couple of times) and the fact that it is immensely important for UA war effort. And I'm not even talking about the fact that no government building in Kiev was ever attacked (not counting the Security Service of Ukraine headquarters on 2nd day of war).
In this speech prior to the war, Putin denied Ukraine full statehood. This was not denied by any official sources in Russia.
I wonder why that article did not include this quote from the same Putin's speech.
"Despite all these injustices, deceit and outright robbery of Russia, our people, namely the people, recognized the new geopolitical realities that arose after the collapse of the USSR, recognized the new independent states. And not only recognized it - Russia itself, being in a difficult situation at that time, helped its partners in the CIS, including Ukrainian colleagues, from whom, right from the moment of independence, numerous requests for material support began to arrive. And our country provided such support with respect for the dignity and sovereignty of Ukraine."
Did you watch the first 10 minutes of speech? Putin claims Ukraine was created artificially by donating Donetsk, Crimea, parts of ex-German territory, etc. And parts of Russia as well. Or do you read and listen selectively?
Nevermind though, Ukraine is showing Russian mercenaries what a real country looks like. It'll be much worse than Afghanistan was to USSR. Putin would better think of an escape plan.
On August 12 2022 06:47 SC-Shield wrote: Nevermind though, Ukraine is showing Russian mercenaries what a real country looks like. It'll be much worse than Afghanistan was to USSR. Putin would better think of an escape plan.
I think it's a bit late for that. There was a time near the beginning of this war where Russia could kind-of get out of it without too much of a loss of face (such possibilities were even discussed in this thread) but now it's way past point of no return. Ukraine wasn't interested in peace talks even when Russia had way more men and equipment there and UA was more on the back foot, now that that the tide seems to have shifted to favor Ukraine I don't think they'd go for anything less than regaining Crimea and restoration of pre-2014 borders (so also getting back all of Donetsk and Luhansk). That would be a complete disaster for Putin.
On August 10 2022 18:02 Silvanel wrote: It could be: 1. An loitering munition hitting stockpile of weapons (Russians are supposedly notorious for keeping them on air-fields prior to missions) 2. Long range rocket (Unannounced donation or UA made) 3. Drone 4. Sabotage 5. A submarine (yeah i have seen some people suggesting, there was an unannounced donation of submarine towards UA) sounds very far-fetched to me. 6. An accident
I know we shouldn't trust RU, since they called sinking of Moskva an accident and notorious other lies but accidents do happen in war. If UA wont take credit I think it is plausible that this distaster is of Russia's own making.
Excluding the luckiest chain reaction known to man, we should assume from the videos and especially the range of damage that UA hit the airbase with explosives measured in tons. That's too much for sabotage, drones, etc.
Perhaps a Hrim-2 weapons test?
I heard that UA doesn't have what was needed to produce Hrim-2 for themselves. This basically leaves the option of early delivery of US MLRS Atacms. But that raises the question of what happened to the promise of not firing HIMARS onto Russian soil - US accepts that Crimea is fair game? UA fudged and called Russia's bluff regarding tactical nukes?
Whatever it was, the casualty estimates are growing by the hour. This was a massive blow to the Russian southern defence and we should expect the tide to turn even more to UA's favour soon.
UA hit the last bridge, the dam in Nova Kahovka, with precise strikes, all in a line, making sure there's still a narrow path for lighter equipment. Basically saying to the Russians, it's your last chance to get out.
Crimea is not Russian soil, it is Ukrainian. Of 195 countries, only 15 countries (North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc.) supports Crimea as a federal subject to Russia.
It doesn't have to be HIMARS (and they most likely weren't, the payload would be too small). I would put my bet on a missile system such as Sapsan TBM with modified Tochka-U (with the help from Turkey/Israel).
You're preaching to the choir here. Crimea is Ukraine in my book. But RU said they'd respond with nukes if RU soil was attacked and US believed them, so what's going on now is less than clear.
Well according to Russia there is no such thing as Ukraine as a country, so if going by their definition any missile in Ukraine would be striking Russian soil. Can't use their definition then of what is Russian soil.
Is there a quote on that? I didn't see any Kremlin official denying the existence of Ukraine as a state.
As for hitting targets within Russia - despite the scale of war, there seem to be boundaries which both sides are rarely crossing. Ukrainians could definetly hit more targets within Russia (especially in border regions), but instead they do it sporadically and Ukraine officials claim to be not involved in any of this cases. Russia, on the other hand, rarely attacks Ukraine rail and bridge infrastracture, despite showing capability to do so (especially on Zatoka bridge near Odessa, though missiles did struck bridges in Dnipro and Zaporozhie couple of times) and the fact that it is immensely important for UA war effort. And I'm not even talking about the fact that no government building in Kiev was ever attacked (not counting the Security Service of Ukraine headquarters on 2nd day of war).
In this speech prior to the war, Putin denied Ukraine full statehood. This was not denied by any official sources in Russia.
I wonder why that article did not include this quote from the same Putin's speech.
"Despite all these injustices, deceit and outright robbery of Russia, our people, namely the people, recognized the new geopolitical realities that arose after the collapse of the USSR, recognized the new independent states. And not only recognized it - Russia itself, being in a difficult situation at that time, helped its partners in the CIS, including Ukrainian colleagues, from whom, right from the moment of independence, numerous requests for material support began to arrive. And our country provided such support with respect for the dignity and sovereignty of Ukraine."
Putin in his speech makes it clear that Ukraine's (and all other ex-Soviet states') national self-determination / secession was motivated by economic, administrative and ethnic interests of the Red revolution and apparently again much later as a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union (serving primarily local elites' interests), and precedes this by stating that such motives cannot be considered legitimate, especially since public opinion was apparently "manipulated" by populism (which I guess is opposite to Putin's manipulation which requires no populism because Russia is wonderfully totalitarian - and I'm not being sarcastic, Putin does indeed praise totalitarianism in his speech)
On August 10 2022 18:02 Silvanel wrote: It could be: 1. An loitering munition hitting stockpile of weapons (Russians are supposedly notorious for keeping them on air-fields prior to missions) 2. Long range rocket (Unannounced donation or UA made) 3. Drone 4. Sabotage 5. A submarine (yeah i have seen some people suggesting, there was an unannounced donation of submarine towards UA) sounds very far-fetched to me. 6. An accident
I know we shouldn't trust RU, since they called sinking of Moskva an accident and notorious other lies but accidents do happen in war. If UA wont take credit I think it is plausible that this distaster is of Russia's own making.
Excluding the luckiest chain reaction known to man, we should assume from the videos and especially the range of damage that UA hit the airbase with explosives measured in tons. That's too much for sabotage, drones, etc.
Perhaps a Hrim-2 weapons test?
I heard that UA doesn't have what was needed to produce Hrim-2 for themselves. This basically leaves the option of early delivery of US MLRS Atacms. But that raises the question of what happened to the promise of not firing HIMARS onto Russian soil - US accepts that Crimea is fair game? UA fudged and called Russia's bluff regarding tactical nukes?
Whatever it was, the casualty estimates are growing by the hour. This was a massive blow to the Russian southern defence and we should expect the tide to turn even more to UA's favour soon.
UA hit the last bridge, the dam in Nova Kahovka, with precise strikes, all in a line, making sure there's still a narrow path for lighter equipment. Basically saying to the Russians, it's your last chance to get out.
Crimea is not Russian soil, it is Ukrainian. Of 195 countries, only 15 countries (North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc.) supports Crimea as a federal subject to Russia.
It doesn't have to be HIMARS (and they most likely weren't, the payload would be too small). I would put my bet on a missile system such as Sapsan TBM with modified Tochka-U (with the help from Turkey/Israel).
You're preaching to the choir here. Crimea is Ukraine in my book. But RU said they'd respond with nukes if RU soil was attacked and US believed them, so what's going on now is less than clear.
Well according to Russia there is no such thing as Ukraine as a country, so if going by their definition any missile in Ukraine would be striking Russian soil. Can't use their definition then of what is Russian soil.
Is there a quote on that? I didn't see any Kremlin official denying the existence of Ukraine as a state.
As for hitting targets within Russia - despite the scale of war, there seem to be boundaries which both sides are rarely crossing. Ukrainians could definetly hit more targets within Russia (especially in border regions), but instead they do it sporadically and Ukraine officials claim to be not involved in any of this cases. Russia, on the other hand, rarely attacks Ukraine rail and bridge infrastracture, despite showing capability to do so (especially on Zatoka bridge near Odessa, though missiles did struck bridges in Dnipro and Zaporozhie couple of times) and the fact that it is immensely important for UA war effort. And I'm not even talking about the fact that no government building in Kiev was ever attacked (not counting the Security Service of Ukraine headquarters on 2nd day of war).
In this speech prior to the war, Putin denied Ukraine full statehood. This was not denied by any official sources in Russia.
I wonder why that article did not include this quote from the same Putin's speech.
"Despite all these injustices, deceit and outright robbery of Russia, our people, namely the people, recognized the new geopolitical realities that arose after the collapse of the USSR, recognized the new independent states. And not only recognized it - Russia itself, being in a difficult situation at that time, helped its partners in the CIS, including Ukrainian colleagues, from whom, right from the moment of independence, numerous requests for material support began to arrive. And our country provided such support with respect for the dignity and sovereignty of Ukraine."
Did you watch the first 10 minutes of speech? Putin claims Ukraine was created artificially by donating Donetsk, Crimea, parts of ex-German territory, etc. And parts of Russia as well. Or do you read and listen selectively?
Because it was and it gained independence exactly in administrative borders established by the Soviet Union? As well as other post-Soviet states, with borders between them drawn in Kremlin (which after dissolution of Soviet Union led to stuff like Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Adjara, Transistria and numerous ethnic clashes in Central Asian states). Same goes with most post-colonial states, especially African, which were released with the arbitrary borders drawn by the previous colonial administration, which also caused ton of border an civil conflicts, but it's not exactly the topic.
Also I fail to see how the fact that modern Ukraine's borders were shaped by Soviet Union (with Crimea being transferred from RSFSR to USSR simply to appease Khrustchev as a cherry on top) is condradicting the fact that Russia recognized Ukraine's sovereignty, which Putin explicitly told in it's speech.
To "not recognize X as a country" is China's policy towards Taiwan, when China's refuses to admit that Taiwanese government exists, officially considers Taiwan as part of it's territory and has a Ministry of Taiwan Affairs within it's government structure. If Russia tried to negotiate peace in Ukraine with US or UK, not considering the Ukrainian government as an entity, I would agree with the statement I've initially responded to. But it's not the case.
Edit: also, what ex-German territory was given to Ukraine? It was Polish territory that was given to Ukraine, and Poland got German territory after WW2 to compensate for that.
Why are we debating whether the lies of Russia include yet another? Remember, this is the government that still denies shooting down MH17, poisoning the Skripals with a nerve agent only they possess, denied invading Crimea or Donbass, etc. They tried to "denazify" UA's Jewish president, and are actively denying them territorial integrity with the biggest European war since WWII, this is not compatible with respecting the sovereignty of a country. We'll also likely soon find out that they've committed genocide against Ukrainians, and that's a pretty big hint that they don't respect the country as well...
***
Particularly interesting Rainer Saks update, and as I'm at the office this morning, I can translate more easily:
Summary of August 12 - no significant movements took place on the front during the last 24 hours, the attacks on the Ukrainian side were also more modest yesterday. - In the direction of Kharkiv, the activity of Russian units decreased again and was limited to indirect fire. In the case of the explosions in Belarus, we can also consider the possibility of an act of diversion. Guerrilla fighters operating in Belarus could, in principle, carry out an attack on such a scale. The target was obviously the S-400 air defense complexes, but there is no very definite information about the extent of the damage. Ukrainian communication does not take credit for the attack, but it is deliberately giving the impression that it was not an accident. On the one hand, it creates insecurity on the other side, and on the other hand, Ukraine certainly does not want to put the Belarusian president under public pressure to go to war. Currently, Russia would not be able to organize a major attack from the direction of Belarus towards Kiev - there is not enough manpower. However, Russia can build up the ability to launch missile attacks on Kiev from the territory of Belarus. Undoubtedly, the Ukrainian side does not want to let this happen. At some point, a situation may develop that a public war with Belarus is an easier solution for Ukraine. - The Izyum group remains meek and did not attempt an offensive. The intensity of artillery fire here is also low from the Russian side. We can say that at the present moment there isn't even a theoretical military threat of capturing Kharkiv and penetrating the rear of UA troops south of Izyum. Hopefully, Ukraine will be able to properly exploit this moment of weakness. - In the direction of Kramatorsk/Siversk, Russian units made two weak attempts at reconnaissance operations, we can conclude that no offensive will be attempted here. - In the direction of Bahmut, RU attacked in five directions, but there was minimal success in only one point. In essence, it has not been possible to move forward in the last month. - In southern Donbass, the most energetic attempts were made to capture the village of Piski, but no success was achieved yesterday. In addition, they are still trying to encircle the city of Avdiijivka. Battles continue around the settlement of Piski. In some other points, light attacks were carried out to distract the attention of the Ukrainians. - The southern front was limited to an artillery duel. - At Kherson, Russian units continue to try to take back the lost areas, but cannot move. Around the beginning of next week, the problems resulting from the deteriorated logistics should also make themselves felt more clearly. Throughout the entire southern arc, the Ukrainians continued to attack the Russian rear. Reports and information only appear about major attacks, but smaller ones happen all the time. After the start of major Ukrainian attacks targeting supplies at the end of July, the Russian side began to disperse its warehouses and supplies, which is why there are fewer and fewer targets suitable for such large one-off attacks. We also repeatedly get confirmation that the supply and logistics of the Russian side's troops works more properly where you can get as close as possible to the front by rail. In the southern part of Ukraine, the use of railways has now become very difficult for the Russian side, and this is already felt in the decline of artillery activity. For more than two months, it has been noticed that Russia uses its air force very carefully, only attacking Ukrainian front-line positions (that is, avoiding getting into the range of Ukrainian air defenses). In the case of the Air Force, the biggest problem is the loss of pilots, but clearly there has been a shortage of aircraft for a long time. The decrease in activity on the Russian side can be explained, among other things, by the decreasing use of armored vehicles, which is obviously due to the decreasing number of tanks and armored vehicles. In this light, yesterday's conference of Ukrainian donors in Copenhagen was very important - Ukraine can be quite sure about the arms deliveries in the coming months. Apparently, there will be fewer units than Ukraine itself would like. But experience shows that the quality of Western weapons is much higher than their Russian counterparts than previously thought. If the Ukrainian forces can utilize them properly, then anything is possible. + Show Spoiler +
Original: 12. augusti kokkuvõte - rindel viimase ööpäeva jooksul olulisi liikumisi ei toimunud, ka Ukraina poole rünnakud olid eile tagasihoidlikumas mastaabis. - Harkivi suunal vene üksuste aktiivsus langes taas ning piirduti kaudtule löökidaga. Valgevenes toimunud plahvatuste puhul saame arvestada ka diversiooniakti võimalusega. Valgevenes tegutsevad sissivõitlejad võisid põhimõtteliselt sellise mastaabiga rünnaku läbi viia küll. Sihtmärgiks ilmsesti S-400 õhutõrjekompleksid, mille vigastuste ulatuse kohta siiski väga kindlat infot ei ole. Ukraina kommunikatsioon ei võta rünnakut omaks, kuid jäetakse teadlikult mulje, et õnnetus see nüüd ka ei olnud. Ühtpidi see süvendab ebakindlust vastaspoolel ja teistpidi ei soovi Ukraina kindlasti panna Valgevene presidenti avaliku surve alla, et sõtta astuda. Valgevene suunalt suuremat rünnakut Kiievi suunas venemaa praegu ei suudaks korraldada- jõudu ei jätku. Küll aga võib venemaa üles ehitada võimekuse korraldada Valgevene territooriumilt raketirünnakuid Kiievile. Seda Ukraina pool kahtlemata ei soovi sündida lasta. Mingil hetkel võib kujuneda olukord, et avalik sõda Valgevenega on Ukrainale kergem lahendus. - Izjumi grupeering püsib vagur ja pealetungi katseid ei teinud. Ka suurtükitule intensiivsus on siin vene poolelt madal. Võime öelda, et praeguseks hetkeks isegi teoreetiline sõjaline oht Harkivi hõivamiseks ning Izjumist lõunasse Donbassi tagalasse tungimiseks on lõppenud. Loodetavasti suudab Ukraina selle nõrkusehetke korralikult ära kasutada. - Kramatorski/Siverski suunal tegid vene üksused kaks nõrka luurerahingu katset, kokkuvõttes pealetungi siin ei üritata - Bahmuti suunal rünnatakse viies punktis, aga edu oli minimaalselt olemas vaid ühes punktis. Sisuliselt ei ole viimase kuu jooksul suudetud edasi liikuda. - Lõuna- Donbassis tehti kõige energilisemad katsed Piski küla hõivamiseks, aga eile edu ei saavutatud. Lisaks üritatakse veel Avdiijivka linna ümbert haarata. Piski asula ümbruses lahingud jätkuvad. Mõnes muus punktis tehti kergeid rünnakuüritusi ukrainlaste tähelepanu hajutamiseks - Lõunarindel piirduti suurtükitule duelliga - Hersoni juures üritavad vene üksused jätkuvalt kaotatud alasid tagasi võtta, aga ei saa liikuma. Umbes järgmise nädala alguses peaks selgemalt tundma andma ka halvenenud logistikast tulenevad probleemid. Kogu lõunakaare ulatuses jätkusid ka ukrainlaste löögid vene tagalasse. Raportid ja infod ilmuvad vaid suuremate rünnakute kohta, aga väiksemaid toimub kogu aeg. Peale suurte Ukraina rünnakute algust juuli lõpus, hakkas vene pool oma ladusid ja varusid hajutama, mispärast selliseid suurte ühekordsete rünnakute jaoks sobivaid sihtmärke jääb järjest vähemaks. Korduvalt saame kinnitust ka selle kohta, et vene poole vägede varustamine ja logistika toimib korralikumalt seal, kus raudteel pääseb rindele võimalikult lähedale. Ukraina lõunaosas on raudtee kasutamine vene poole jaoks nüüdseks muutunud väga keeruliseks ja see juba annab ka suurtükiväe aktiivsuse languses tunda. Juba üle kahe kuu on märgata, et venemaa kasutab lennuväge väga ettevaatlikult, ainult rünnates Ukraina eesliini positsioone (ehk siis vältides sattumist Ukraina õhutõrje laskeulatusse). Lennuväe puhul on suurimaks probleemiks pilootide kaotus, kuid selgelt napib juba pikemat aega ka lennuvahendeid. Vene poole aktiivsuse langust saab lisaks muule seletada ka soomustehinka hõreneva kasutamisega, mis on ilmsesti tingitud tankide ja lahingsoomukite kahaneva arvuga. Selles valguses oli eilne Ukraina doonorite konverents Kopenhagenis väga oluline- Ukraina võib lähikuude relvatarnetes üsna kindel olla. Ilmselt on seda ühikutena vähem, kui Ukraina ise sooviks. Aga praktika rinnetel näitab, et lääne relvade kvaliteet on vene analoogidest palju kõrgem, kui seni arvatud. Kui Ukraina väed suudavad need korralikult kasutusele võtta, siis on kõik võimalik.
On August 12 2022 07:36 Ardias wrote: Edit: also, what ex-German territory was given to Ukraine? It was Polish territory that was given to Ukraine, and Poland got German territory after WW2 to compensate for that.
A lot of modern Ukraine territory was under control of Germany for a short period in 1941-1943.
Now, i personally wouldn't call that "ex-German territory", but Putin might, considering that he seems to believe that might makes borders.
Edit: Also, thanks Ghanburighan for update & translation.
On August 12 2022 07:36 Ardias wrote: Edit: also, what ex-German territory was given to Ukraine? It was Polish territory that was given to Ukraine, and Poland got German territory after WW2 to compensate for that.
A lot of modern Ukraine territory was under control of Germany for a short period in 1941-1943.
Now, i personally wouldn't call that "ex-German territory", but Putin might, considering that he seems to believe that might makes borders.
Edit: Also, thanks Ghanburighan for update & translation.
Putin in the video above between 2:40-3:00 said exactly what I said. Edit was a reply on SC-Shield remark that I didn't watch, or selectively listened to the video (actually I didn't, luckily for me there is script of the speech on Kremlin web-site, so I could spend 5 minutes to read it instead of 55 to listen), to point out that maybe he didn't as well.
As for looming collapse of Russian economy - it's still not reflecting on ordinary citizens, at least here, in the regions. Maybe Moscow and St. Petersburg were hit harder. Availability of consumer goods and utility services is mostly the same, I start to actually see replaced Coca-Cola (I don't drink it, so can't exactly comment on taste), McDonalds (people say that quality dropped a bit, but again, can't comment since don't go there). Price on a number of manufactured goods went up significantly, mostly on imported ones (though all cookies and chocolate became more pricy), so sometimes we have to look for cheaper opportunities (or go to more healthy diet, since basic greens, meats, breads etc. remain closer to pre-war prices). But no deficit of anything yet. Prices for utility services didn't spike up. They continue to grow each half-year period by 2-3%, but it's a steady process (tied to inflation probably), that was before the war, and even before COVID. Internet and phone prices spiked up more though. To give context on utility services, for my 42 sq m apartment for family of two I pay around 80 bucks a month in summer, and around 120 in winter. That includes water, gas, heating, electricity, internet and phone, plus the payments for house maintenance (though these are very cheap in my house, so you can add 10-15 bucks to the equasion for other similar households). Edit: bus tickets within the city area are around 60 cents. Prices on them were also growing continiously through the years, so no big spike there. Consumer electronics are more tricky, since I rarely buy them, so don't check prices too often. Prices definetly went up, but there are still a lot of affordable choices at least for me (and again, no deficit yet), and I'm not exactly earning a lot. Again, for the context: me and my wife get around 1000 bucks a month combined, at current exchange rate. Pretty average salary (some can say even "below average", most of my friends earn more than me) for a family of two in provincial Russia, but it's enough to live and spend money on a lot of unnecessary things (fancy foods, clothes, pubs, fishing etc.). Though the good thing for us is that my apartment is my property, not rented. Life would still be affordable, but with average rent price of 300-350 bucks a month for 1-room or small 2-room apartment (edit: that in the center of the city, you can get more affordable choices of around 180-250 bucks on the outskirts of the town) - less so. Though again, we are not exactly busting our ass off, and I have a lot of free time I could spend on earning more. Instead I write these longreads on TL for some reason. Probably because you were discussing situation within Russia with no Russian participating in it, I felt that I should give some exact figures, so you could understand, how it's working out for average Russian family.
On August 12 2022 07:36 Ardias wrote: Edit: also, what ex-German territory was given to Ukraine? It was Polish territory that was given to Ukraine, and Poland got German territory after WW2 to compensate for that.
A lot of modern Ukraine territory was under control of Germany for a short period in 1941-1943.
Now, i personally wouldn't call that "ex-German territory", but Putin might, considering that he seems to believe that might makes borders.
Edit: Also, thanks Ghanburighan for update & translation.
Putin in the video above between 2:40-3:00 said exactly what I said. Edit was a reply on SC-Shield remark that I didn't watch, or selectively listen to the video (actually I didn't, luckily for me there is script of the speech on Kremlin web-site, so I could spend 5 minutes to read it instead of 55 to listen), t
As for looming collapse of Russian economy - it's still not reflecting on ordinary citizens, at least here, in the regions. Maybe Moscow and St. Petersburg were hit harder. Availability of consumer goods and utility services is mostly the same, I start to actually see replaced Coca-Cola (I don't drink it, so can't exactly comment on taste), McDonalds (people say that quality dropped a bit, but again, can't comment since don't go there). Price on a number of manufactured goods went up significantly, mostly on imported ones (though all cookies and chocolate became more pricy), so sometimes we have to look for cheaper opportunities (or go to more healthy diet, since basic greens, meats, breads etc. remain closer to pre-war prices). But no deficit of anything yet. Prices for utility services didn't spike up. They continue grow each half-year period by 2-3%, but it's a steady process (tied to inflation probably), that was before the war, and even before COVID. Internet and phone prices spiked up more though. To give context on utility services, for my 42 sq m apartment for family of two I pay around 80 bucks a month in summer, and around 120 in winter. That includes water, gas, heating, electricity, internet and phone, plus the payments for house maintenance (though these are very cheap in my house, so you can add 10-15 bucks to the equasion for other similar households). Consumer electronics are more tricky, since I rarely buy them, so don't check prices too often. Prices definetly went up, but at least there were still a lot of affordable choices at least for me (and again, no deficit yet), and I'm not exactly earning a lot. Again, for the context: me and my wife get around 1000 bucks a month combined, at current exchange rate. Pretty average salary (some can say even "below average", most of my friends earn more than me) for a family of two in provincial Russia, but it's enough to live and spend money on a lot of unnecessary things (fancy foods, clothes, pubs, fishing etc.). Though the good thing for us is that my apartment is my property, not rented. Life would still be affordable, but with average rent price of 300-350 bucks a month for 1-room or small 2-room apartment - less so. Though again, we are not exactly busting our ass off, and I have a lot of free time I could spend on earning more. Instead I write these longreads on TL for some reason. Probably because you were discussing situation within Russia with no Russian participating in it, I felt that I should give some exact figures, so you could understand, how it's working out for average Russian family.
But isn't that saying that sanctions are reaching consumers? Price increases on everything but energy and agricultural goods, i.e. what Russia produces itself.
On August 10 2022 18:02 Silvanel wrote: It could be: 1. An loitering munition hitting stockpile of weapons (Russians are supposedly notorious for keeping them on air-fields prior to missions) 2. Long range rocket (Unannounced donation or UA made) 3. Drone 4. Sabotage 5. A submarine (yeah i have seen some people suggesting, there was an unannounced donation of submarine towards UA) sounds very far-fetched to me. 6. An accident
I know we shouldn't trust RU, since they called sinking of Moskva an accident and notorious other lies but accidents do happen in war. If UA wont take credit I think it is plausible that this distaster is of Russia's own making.
Excluding the luckiest chain reaction known to man, we should assume from the videos and especially the range of damage that UA hit the airbase with explosives measured in tons. That's too much for sabotage, drones, etc.
Perhaps a Hrim-2 weapons test?
I heard that UA doesn't have what was needed to produce Hrim-2 for themselves. This basically leaves the option of early delivery of US MLRS Atacms. But that raises the question of what happened to the promise of not firing HIMARS onto Russian soil - US accepts that Crimea is fair game? UA fudged and called Russia's bluff regarding tactical nukes?
Whatever it was, the casualty estimates are growing by the hour. This was a massive blow to the Russian southern defence and we should expect the tide to turn even more to UA's favour soon.
UA hit the last bridge, the dam in Nova Kahovka, with precise strikes, all in a line, making sure there's still a narrow path for lighter equipment. Basically saying to the Russians, it's your last chance to get out.
Crimea is not Russian soil, it is Ukrainian. Of 195 countries, only 15 countries (North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc.) supports Crimea as a federal subject to Russia.
It doesn't have to be HIMARS (and they most likely weren't, the payload would be too small). I would put my bet on a missile system such as Sapsan TBM with modified Tochka-U (with the help from Turkey/Israel).
You're preaching to the choir here. Crimea is Ukraine in my book. But RU said they'd respond with nukes if RU soil was attacked and US believed them, so what's going on now is less than clear.
Well according to Russia there is no such thing as Ukraine as a country, so if going by their definition any missile in Ukraine would be striking Russian soil. Can't use their definition then of what is Russian soil.
Is there a quote on that? I didn't see any Kremlin official denying the existence of Ukraine as a state.
As for hitting targets within Russia - despite the scale of war, there seem to be boundaries which both sides are rarely crossing. Ukrainians could definetly hit more targets within Russia (especially in border regions), but instead they do it sporadically and Ukraine officials claim to be not involved in any of this cases. Russia, on the other hand, rarely attacks Ukraine rail and bridge infrastracture, despite showing capability to do so (especially on Zatoka bridge near Odessa, though missiles did struck bridges in Dnipro and Zaporozhie couple of times) and the fact that it is immensely important for UA war effort. And I'm not even talking about the fact that no government building in Kiev was ever attacked (not counting the Security Service of Ukraine headquarters on 2nd day of war).
In this speech prior to the war, Putin denied Ukraine full statehood. This was not denied by any official sources in Russia.
I wonder why that article did not include this quote from the same Putin's speech.
"Despite all these injustices, deceit and outright robbery of Russia, our people, namely the people, recognized the new geopolitical realities that arose after the collapse of the USSR, recognized the new independent states. And not only recognized it - Russia itself, being in a difficult situation at that time, helped its partners in the CIS, including Ukrainian colleagues, from whom, right from the moment of independence, numerous requests for material support began to arrive. And our country provided such support with respect for the dignity and sovereignty of Ukraine."
Past tense vs present tense statement of your current fascist dictator. One does not contradict the other.
On August 12 2022 20:34 schaf wrote: But isn't that saying that sanctions are reaching consumers? Price increases on everything but energy and agricultural goods, i.e. what Russia produces itself.
The posters before were talking about complete collapse of Russian economy, I was telling that it's not there yet. Of course sanctions are affecting people, but not severely. When talking about economical collapse, I imagine something like internal default of 1998, when many deposits were frozen, ruble fell more than three times in comparison to dollar within couple of weeks (and stayed that way) and prices on everything drastically went up (from 2 to 5 times) within days after default. Or fall of the Soviet Union, when there were completely empty shelves in the stores for weeks.
On August 12 2022 21:05 Elroi wrote: Thanks for the info Ardias. That is really interesting. What kind of work do you do, if you dont mind me asking?
Support of clients operations in the investment company. Basicaly a gearwheel between brokers and other specialists in the company, helping to solve issues that clients or brokers themselves come across, plus performing routine internal company operations. Previously worked as a manager in bank debt collection department and the head of the apartment property owners community. Don't know how to translate the latter to English correctly, it's an organization created by owners of the property in the apartment building to govern and maintain it. Owners pay their apartment maintenance fees into the community budget, decide what has to be done in the building on annual meetings, then the head oversees that these decisions were carried out and everything about the building is well maintained, including paymets to utility services, financial accounting and paperwork(and gets salary from the community budget). Smallest form of democracy, you may say (since the head is elected from property owners by community council, and the council is elected by property owners on annual meeting). Plus a bunch of part-time jobs, both physical and intellectual ones.
On August 12 2022 21:46 Oleo wrote: [Past tense vs present tense statement of your current fascist dictator. One does not contradict the other.
When Russia would make peace negotiations with US instead of Ukraine (like Ukraine previously did with LDPR in 2014-2015, talking to Russia over their heads), then we can talk about "not recognizing sovereignity".
On August 12 2022 21:46 Oleo wrote: [Past tense vs present tense statement of your current fascist dictator. One does not contradict the other.
When Russia would make peace negotiations with US instead of Ukraine (like Ukraine previously did with LDPR in 2014-2015, talking to Russia over their heads), then we can talk about "not recognizing sovereignity".
Congratulations you managed to provide an even more illogical argument, which I assumed not to be possible, comparing Russia - Ukraine to Ukraine - LPR/DPR, imagine that. Even Russia did not recognize both PR's until 2022.
According to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ‘[t]here can be no doubt that the “DPR” and “LPR” are wholly dependent on Russia’ (see, para. 56). Despite Russia’s denials, it reportedly provided rebels with arms, logistical support, and Russian troops covertly took part in the fighting. As such, these entities also fail to meet the criterion of legality, which prohibits the creation of new States due to violation of ius cogens norm of prohibition of the use of force. Duty of non-recognition is applicable. These territories thus have remained part of Ukraine’s territory. Russia’s recognition does not change this conclusion.
On August 12 2022 21:46 Oleo wrote: [Past tense vs present tense statement of your current fascist dictator. One does not contradict the other.
When Russia would make peace negotiations with US instead of Ukraine (like Ukraine previously did with LDPR in 2014-2015, talking to Russia over their heads), then we can talk about "not recognizing sovereignity".
Congratulations you managed to provide an even more illogical argument, which I assumed not to be possible, comparing Russia - Ukraine to Ukraine - LPR/DPR, imagine that. Even Russia did not recognize both PR's until 2022.
According to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ‘[t]here can be no doubt that the “DPR” and “LPR” are wholly dependent on Russia’ (see, para. 56). Despite Russia’s denials, it reportedly provided rebels with arms, logistical support, and Russian troops covertly took part in the fighting. As such, these entities also fail to meet the criterion of legality, which prohibits the creation of new States due to violation of ius cogens norm of prohibition of the use of force. Duty of non-recognition is applicable. These territories thus have remained part of Ukraine’s territory. Russia’s recognition does not change this conclusion.
I think you are talking past each other. From how I read this, you don't make a distinction between a country disagreeing with a nation's right to having sovereignty(ukraine right now), and a nation pretending that another nation does not have any sovereignty(china - taiwan), while Ardias does make that distinction.
'To Recognize' can have different meanings, one of which just being acknowledging something. I think what Ardias is saying and where the misunderstanding comes from is that russia acknowledges the fact that ukraine is a sovereign state atm, but they disagree with their right to being sovereign. He read your comment as 'russia pretending ukraine does not have sovereignty'. From that angle, his examples make sense in my opinion.
EDIT: Should have known better from the general attitude of your post...
On August 12 2022 21:46 Oleo wrote: [Past tense vs present tense statement of your current fascist dictator. One does not contradict the other.
When Russia would make peace negotiations with US instead of Ukraine (like Ukraine previously did with LDPR in 2014-2015, talking to Russia over their heads), then we can talk about "not recognizing sovereignity".
Congratulations you managed to provide an even more illogical argument, which I assumed not to be possible, comparing Russia - Ukraine to Ukraine - LPR/DPR, imagine that. Even Russia did not recognize both PR's until 2022.
According to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, ‘[t]here can be no doubt that the “DPR” and “LPR” are wholly dependent on Russia’ (see, para. 56). Despite Russia’s denials, it reportedly provided rebels with arms, logistical support, and Russian troops covertly took part in the fighting. As such, these entities also fail to meet the criterion of legality, which prohibits the creation of new States due to violation of ius cogens norm of prohibition of the use of force. Duty of non-recognition is applicable. These territories thus have remained part of Ukraine’s territory. Russia’s recognition does not change this conclusion.
I think you are talking past each other. From how I read this, you don't make a distinction between a country disagreeing with a nation's right to having sovereignty(ukraine right now), and a nation pretending that another nation does not have any sovereignty(china - taiwan), while Ardias does make that distinction.
'To Recognize' can have different meanings, one of which just being acknowledging something. I think what Ardias is saying and where the misunderstanding comes from is that russia acknowledges the fact that ukraine is a sovereign state atm, but they disagree with their right to being sovereign. He read your comment as 'russia pretending ukraine does not have sovereignty'. From that angle, his examples make sense in my opinion.
The RU visa ban issue is heating up. Estonian police just detained two Russians with tourist visas from IT and FI for breaking their visa rules by producing propaganda materials on Estonians dismantling soviet monuments. The tourist visas are being actively used to smuggle RU state actors into the EU. Here's the source (in Estonian).
Estonia already implemented a visa ban but it's of little help when most other countries still grant them. Obviously, various people are excepted: those visiting friends and family, officials, transport workers, students, and people who require humanitarian assistance, among others.
EPT
and notorious other lies but accidents do happen in war. If UA wont take credit I think it is plausible that this distaster is of Russia's own making.
