EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 454
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23557 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/europe/2023/06/06/has-the-ukrainian-counteroffensive-against-russia-begun/ | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23557 Posts
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says he plans to block any Senate-led efforts to approve additional funding to aid Ukraine in its war against Russia. McCarthy told Punchbowl News on Monday that a supplemental spending package is “not going anywhere.” Any additional assistance for Ukraine, he said, would have to come as part of the annual congressional appropriations process within the $886 billion in discretionary spending for the Pentagon. www.ny1.com EDIT: For some additional context: With Ukraine aid poised to run out before the fall, Congress will likely need to consider a supplemental aid package in the coming months rollcall.com | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8230 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17587 Posts
On June 07 2023 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote: Turns out that the Discord leak showed the US (and European allies) had reasons to suspect that Ukraine was behind the bombing of Nord Stream for a while now. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1666097331199160321 Those are just allegations without any sort of proof. I think that if it was indeed a part of what Teixeira leaked we would have learned about it a long time ago and not just now. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5731 Posts
| ||
|
yoshi245
United States2972 Posts
Until January 1, 2028, technical investigation of accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents of hydraulic structures that occurred as a result of hostilities, sabotage and terrorist acts is not carried out. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305310067?index=1 HTML version of the thing that can be autotranslated http://actual.pravo.gov.ru/text.html#pnum=0001202305310067 It is not an admission of guilt, but considering the timing it means that they're not wasting their resources to even put out an investigation towards more than 4 years from now. Saw the link to the document off a politico article, but the insider reported the story first and even yahoo is referencing The Insider to it now. https://theins.ru/news/262336?fbclid=IwAR3mtqS0ubhK7quFT8ioxdYvt2aq1BF3rs5WFZjlDYWQH7vzGgh4f-ZEaKc | ||
zatic
Zurich15358 Posts
On June 07 2023 06:32 maybenexttime wrote: I still doubt Ukraine did it. They'd have to be really fucking stupid to potentially jeopardise their support from the West for practically no gain. I mean by now there should be little doubt it was Ukraine in one way or another. What is extra spicy: A so far unnamed European intel agency learned about the plans in June 2022. They notified the CIA and BND (German intel). CIA did not trust the source. BND did, enough to inform members of parliament about them. The agencies then learned that the plans had been cancelled. The bombing in September does not match the plans BND and CIA had from June. Obviously the target was the same, but doesn't match the planning from June in terms of scale and I suppose other factors. So there is still some ambiguity who exactly conducted the specific operation in September (Ukraine special ops, private actors operated by Ukraine intel, etc), but all leads point to Ukraine. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6334 Posts
On June 07 2023 09:26 yoshi245 wrote: Bullet point ten of this decree that Russia carried out was written a week ago. Funny timing considering the dam and the disaster that followed it. Here's what google translate put out on that specific part. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305310067?index=1 HTML version of the thing that can be autotranslated http://actual.pravo.gov.ru/text.html#pnum=0001202305310067 It is not an admission of guilt, but considering the timing it means that they're not wasting their resources to even put out an investigation towards more than 4 years from now. Saw the link to the document off a politico article, but the insider reported the story first and even yahoo is referencing The Insider to it now. https://theins.ru/news/262336?fbclid=IwAR3mtqS0ubhK7quFT8ioxdYvt2aq1BF3rs5WFZjlDYWQH7vzGgh4f-ZEaKc One side of the dam was controlled by Moscow, the other side by Kiev. Basically it was impossible for any kind of joint civillian engineer adventure to check how damaged the dam was because its no mans land. I'm not sure what what the article is trying to say, that the Russian administration doesnt believe that hostilities will end before 2028? Russian bereaucracy loves paperwork and stamps and taking a lot of steps to do anything. This seems like typical 'we wont budget something we have no idea when it will happen anyway so just put a date in the future so we dont have to come back to it in 6 months to do the same thing all over again' In any case given the source its just mental gymnastics and scrapping the barrel for anything that can be spun. Its been hillarious to follow the UKR telegram channels scramble to delete their old posts praising the dam getting bombed and how Russian orcs will be drowned imminently though. P.S. i cant upload images over TL/imgur? This works for everyone else or? | ||
KwarK
United States43426 Posts
On June 07 2023 16:47 zatic wrote: I mean by now there should be little doubt it was Ukraine in one way or another. Why? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
The tl;dr is that, while Zelensky didn't know about it - presumably for Ukraine to achieve plausible deniability - Zaluzhnyi is likely to have been in contact with the pro-Ukrainian group(s) conducting the strike on Nordstream ahead of time. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-attack-intelligence.html#:~:text=American officials had previously told The New York,covert attacks, including on the Nord Stream pipelines. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2696 Posts
On June 07 2023 16:47 zatic wrote: I mean by now there should be little doubt it was Ukraine in one way or another. What is extra spicy: A so far unnamed European intel agency learned about the plans in June 2022. They notified the CIA and BND (German intel). CIA did not trust the source. BND did, enough to inform members of parliament about them. The agencies then learned that the plans had been cancelled. The bombing in September does not match the plans BND and CIA had from June. Obviously the target was the same, but doesn't match the planning from June in terms of scale and I suppose other factors. So there is still some ambiguity who exactly conducted the specific operation in September (Ukraine special ops, private actors operated by Ukraine intel, etc), but all leads point to Ukraine. The US has plans to invade Canada does that mean it's on the agenda? I have seen the post push this bullshit multiple times and it's "strange" how it is always a unnamed source giving new information when Russia wants the internet to talk about something else. It's highly probable that Ukrainian intelligence at least considered the possibility but that doesnt change the fact that the country lacks the capability for even moderatly complex naval operations at their own shores. Seven people and a rented yacht is not enough to blow up multiple pipelines on the seafloor. Meanwhile the Danish navy spotted exactly the kind of shit you need (mini submarines, specialized naval vessel for deep sea diving etc) on site before the explosion. So I don't think most people agree that everything points too Ukraine. Also on a related topic of the blame game. Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4601 Posts
Should I remind you of the timing and the official reaction of Russian authorities? "We are sorry we are unable to repair it unless sanctions are lifted." Technically, repairing it would have required actions from Russia's end. So no matter who is responsible, it was viewed as better for every one not to repair it. This includes Russia and Europeans. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17587 Posts
Is Russian MoD really bragging about killing civilians? | ||
|
Slydie
1929 Posts
On June 07 2023 06:19 Manit0u wrote: Those are just allegations without any sort of proof. I think that if it was indeed a part of what Teixeira leaked we would have learned about it a long time ago and not just now. There are pipelines with Russian gas running straight through Ukraine. Why bother with the one which is way harder to reach? | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany565 Posts
On June 07 2023 17:38 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Also on a related topic of the blame game. Remeber how many consecutive HIMAR strikes it took before the antonovsky bridge collapsed? A large dam is orders of magnitude more durable then a bridge. It would take an inordinate amount of shelling to destroy it with artillery which is why the Ukrainian military had no issue with hitting the attached bridge or trying to target the water gates. Yet artillery damage keeps being pushed as the reason for it's collapse. It is true that the HIMARS ammunition that ukraine has available is unlikely to cause severe damage to the dam, but as far as I know the claims are more along the lines of potentially damaging of the gates, or structural weakening in combination with the water levels, which is not as easy to rule out as you make it to be. And ultimately russia would still be responsible due to controlling the dam and having started the war. The antonovsky bridge example also doesn't work in your favour because while not bringing it down, the himars strikes severely damaged it to the point where it was no longer able to operate according to specs. So if you were to believe the damn failed because of artillery damage, the story goes that damage from the artillery together with the pressure from the water brought it down - kinda like the bridge would have most likely failed if put under regular use after sustaining artillery damage. We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off. And if it ended up being an accident, then even if ukrainian artillery caused the dmg it still would leave russia with the responsibility as they started the war and controlled the dam and its waterlevels, so no reason for us to be so insecure about potential ukrainian involvement or it being a genuine fuckup from russia. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2696 Posts
On June 07 2023 20:07 Artesimo wrote: It is true that the HIMARS ammunition that ukraine has available is unlikely to cause severe damage to the dam, but as far as I know the claims are more along the lines of potentially damaging of the gates, or structural weakening in combination with the water levels, which is not as easy to rule out as you make it to be. And ultimately russia would still be responsible due to controlling the dam and having started the war. The antonovsky bridge example also doesn't work in your favour because while not bringing it down, the himars strikes severely damaged it to the point where it was no longer able to operate according to specs. So if you were to believe the damn failed because of artillery damage, the story goes that damage from the artillery together with the pressure from the water brought it down - kinda like the bridge would have most likely failed if put under regular use after sustaining artillery damage. We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off. And if it ended up being an accident, then even if ukrainian artillery caused the dmg it still would leave russia with the responsibility as they started the war and controlled the dam and its waterlevels, so no reason for us to be so insecure about potential ukrainian involvement or it being a genuine fuckup from russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb In WWII they invented 4200 kg bombs that exploded under water in order to blow up dams because regular (500 kg) bombs are not effective. Bridges are overbuilt to about 4x of what they need to hold but the goal is otherwise to use as little material as possible. Dams are overengineered mountains of reinforced concrete built to handle extreme pressure. In comparisson the bridge might as well be made of paper and it still took a shit ton of effort to bring down. Shooting artillery at them, even rocket artillery, is like shooting a rifle at a tank. Sure you can damage some outer components but it's next to impossible to destroy it. If the combat damage had any effect it's more on the scale of chipping of rust protection and the owner ignoring it untill it rusts through. More of a maintnance problem than anything else. Any effect should have been insignificant next to the massive misshandling required to make it burst by accident (such as filling it up to a new reccord). | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany565 Posts
On June 07 2023 20:44 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb In WWII they invented 4200 kg bombs that exploded under water in order to blow up dams because regular (500 kg) bombs are not effective. Bridges are overbuilt to about 4x of what they need to hold but the goal is otherwise to use as little material as possible. Dams are overengineered mountains of reinforced concrete built to handle extreme pressure. In comparisson the bridge might as well be made of paper and it still took a shit ton of effort to bring down. The bridge was most likely not brought down, but blown up by the russians upon retreat after having been rendered pretty much unusable. The dam equivalent would be claiming a explosives did no damage to a dam because it did not burst while ignoring the fact that 90% of the water was released to lighten the pressure. I don't think it is a comparison that works, and also one that achieves the exact opposite of what you want as soon as someone thinks about it crticially. Shooting artillery at them, even rocket artillery, is like shooting a rifle at a tank. Sure you can damage some outer components but it's next to impossible to destroy it. On its own possibly, but even then I doubt anyone would be willing to bet serious money on it. And you don't know the condition of the dam, there is a reason why they get regular maintenance and inspection. If the combat damage had any effect it's more on the scale of chipping of rust protection and the owner ignoring it untill it rusts through. More of a maintnance problem than anything else. Any effect should have been insignificant next to the massive misshandling required to make it burst by accident (such as filling it up to a new reccord). We are in full agreement that russia is ultimately responsible if this was an accident. That point stands on its own and does not compromise your position. I don't like the himars argument because it is too weak and too easy to poke holes in while the fact that russia controlled the dam and let it fill up doesn't leave much room for attacks. On a personal note, I wouldn't even care if zelensky himself swam out there with a hammer and personally demolished it. Ukraine has made and will made mistakes and things not everyone agrees with, but that doesn't change that their cause is just. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On June 07 2023 20:07 Artesimo wrote: We just have to wait until we get some proof because currently all the claimed motives don't seem to check out if you look at them with some scepticism. Using the dam to deliberately flood the are makes sense from the russian perspective in general, but not right now unless there were some major ukrainian actions happening in the affected area that we don't know off. We do have evidence of something major happening: the big Ukrainian advance last Sunday. It was posted by several sources and - although not confirmed officially - it likely did happen. It would warrant a sudden drastic response from Russia, as such a big advance by Ukraine in such a short time hasn't happened since the Kherson offensive. Let me post the graphic I saw from the balkan mapping video: ![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/dc51582fbac8b0d9c5a6bb4483ce8fe3.jpg) | ||
| ||
