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 24 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote: The enemy is both weak and strong at the same time. It's still just as hilarious to me as the first time I understood it.
The Ukrainian army was completely destroyed at Bakhmut, while the Russian defenders in the south are now putting up incredibly valiant efforts against a massively superior enemy force that's simultaneously extremely ineffective.
Indeed, the herculean efforts to hold the Ukrainian Nazi brutes at bay are a mere deflection to achieve complete breakdown of the enemy lines when they least suspect it. Russia has in fact already won, and the remainder of the war is but a victory lap.
On August 24 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote: The enemy is both weak and strong at the same time. It's still just as hilarious to me as the first time I understood it.
The Ukrainian army was completely destroyed at Bakhmut, while the Russian defenders in the south are now putting up incredibly valiant efforts against a massively superior enemy force that's simultaneously extremely ineffective.
On August 24 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote: The enemy is both weak and strong at the same time. It's still just as hilarious to me as the first time I understood it.
The Ukrainian army was completely destroyed at Bakhmut, while the Russian defenders in the south are now putting up incredibly valiant efforts against a massively superior enemy force that's simultaneously extremely ineffective.
Many units there were destroyed, then pulled out amd replenished and then destroyed again. Ukraine had been trying to mass enough manpower for their counteroffensive while simultaneosly taking good units away from that force and sending them to Bahmut where they took heavy losses. The Ukrainian offensive would have started much earlier if they had abbandoned Bahmut when their NATO advisors told them to.
The end result is a less capable Ukrainian army with its best units lost at Bahmut attacking a Russian force that had more time to set up a defense.
I get that you are misrepresenting everything to state a point. But the point is actually projection. We have on one side spam about how Russia is falling apart and on the other a massive casualty rate, a huge waste of human lives and western equipment for an advance of 1.2km over two and a half months.
There are people that said Hitler lived out his days in Argentina, that the World is flat ect. You could have been burned at the stake for not believing the masses, rather your own eyes and what certain astrologers said. Over time the people saying the World indeed wasnt flat turned out to be right, at a certain point people stopped being scared of the church and the illiterate mobs.
So with several supersonic bomber jets destroyed by a Ukrainian drone a few days ago, now added to the list is a major Crimean missile base...
After capturing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in February 2014, the Russian armed forces established a major missile base on Cape Tarkhankut in western Crimea.
There, the Russians deployed an S-400 surface-to-air missile battery, a battery armed with Bastion anti-ship cruise missiles and a suite of radars including a Podlet K1 and potentially others.
Assisted by the Podlet, the S-400 battery could threaten aerial targets as far away as 250 miles—covering the entire western Black Sea—while the Bastion could hit ships at a distance of 190 miles or so. A Bastion also can strike targets on land.
It’s not unfair to call the Cape Tarkhankut site the linchpin of Russian air and naval defenses across the Black Sea and Crimea. Which is why, on Wednesday, the Ukrainian armed forces blew it up.
We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know this: around 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday, local time, a series of explosions rocked the cape. It’s possible the Ukrainian air force hit the Russian base with Storm Shadow cruise missiles or S-200 ballistic missiles. It also is possible drones or saboteurs were responsible.
Petro Andriushchenko, advisor to the exiled Ukrainian mayor of Russian-occupied Mariupol, claimed the Bastion battery was hit. Ukrainian intelligence added that the S-400 battery and its crew was wiped out, too. It’s hard to imagine the Podlet K1 and other large radars on the peninsula escaped attention.
“This is a painful blow to the air-defense system of the occupiers, which will have a serious impact on further events in the occupied Crimea,” the intelligence agency stated.
It’s the clear objective of Ukraine’s 10-week-old counteroffensive to drive the 50 miles from the front line to the Black Sea in occupied southern Ukraine and sever the land links between Russia and Crimea, leaving the Russian occupiers on the peninsular dependent on vulnerable ships and aircraft for resupply.
In cutting off the garrison, the Ukrainians could begin starving it—setting favorable conditions for the eventual liberation of Crimea. Ideally, Ukraine would liberate Crimea “without a fight,” Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov has said.
But that only would be possible with a virtual blockade of the Russian garrison—a blockade Russia’s air and naval defenses on the peninsula are supposed to prevent. With the destruction of a key missile and radar site, the blockade becomes more feasible.
Ukrainian strikes on Russian positions in Crimea are escalating, with explosives-laden drone boats swarming Russian naval bases and aerial drones, Storm Shadows and S-200s plucking at Russian air bases, logistical facilities and bridges.
Expect these raids to escalate even further as Russian air and naval defenses—themselves targets of Ukraine’s drones and missiles—unravel.
Norway has decided to donate F-16 combat aircraft to Ukraine for its battle against Russia's invasion, Norwegian broadcaster TV2 reported on Thursday, citing unnamed sources. ... Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Kyiv on Thursday and announced donations of anti-aircraft missiles and other equipment, but made no announcement regarding F-16s.
And Ukraine says that they've raided the Crimean coast with a small force, destroying an S-400 system. From DW:
Ukraine said on Wednesday that it had carried out an attack on the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula, destroying an S-400 anti-aircraft system.
"At about 10 am (0700 GMT) an explosion occurred... destroying a Russian long- and medium-range S-400 Triumph air defense system," the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said.
Some (likely) rumors around that it was a radar station they took out.
On August 24 2023 23:19 hexhaven wrote: And Ukraine says that they've raided the Crimean coast with a small force, destroying an S-400 system. From DW:
Ukraine said on Wednesday that it had carried out an attack on the Russian-occupied Crimean peninsula, destroying an S-400 anti-aircraft system.
"At about 10 am (0700 GMT) an explosion occurred... destroying a Russian long- and medium-range S-400 Triumph air defense system," the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said.
Some (likely) rumors around that it was a radar station they took out.
RFU talks about it at the 30 second mark here:
While it's a daring attack that went off with spectacular success, he goes into a bit more on the overall picture. Ukraine has previously sent in a low number of drones clearly meant to test and find AA capabilities in the region. It seems to me that something is planned for the area, although exactly what remains to be seen. A successful amphibious assault on Crimea has the potential to do an insane amount of damage in a region where Russia isn't nearly as dug in and defended as they are up north. Simultaneously, such an attack would be vulnerable to Russian Navy, and give them both difficulties with resupplying and logistics as well as any chance to retreat
Just putting it out there RFU is terrible source on the level of Russian troll farms. Really wouldn't rely on them at all.
There is no way Ukraine will do an amphibious attack as in landing troops meant to stay. Special forces raids like this of course can happen more if they find opportune targets. It's still a high risk high reward kind of operation that won't be happening regularly.
On August 24 2023 23:45 zatic wrote: Just putting it out there RFU is terrible source on the level of Russian troll farms. Really wouldn't rely on them at all.
There is no way Ukraine will do an amphibious attack as in landing troops meant to stay. Special forces raids like this of course can happen more if they find opportune targets. It's still a high risk high reward kind of operation that won't be happening regularly.
Do you have a source for this? RFU is definitively Ukraine oriented, and pretty much only reports on Ukraine victories, not so much when things go wrong. However he has never lied, or faked any of his videos. His videos are not journalism, but an aggregate of other's findings. At worst, you could accuse him of lying by omission, which would be fair. If you want to come with accusations on par with Russian troll farms, I would like for you to back up your claims next time. I'm not going to entertain any kind of "both sides are just as bad" argument just because one side are skewed towards Ukraine in their reports, whilst the other is skewed towards Narnia in their complete make-believe fantasies. Personally I think his videos are a fantastic way for the layman to keep themselves informed on the bits and pieces on what's happening every day in Ukraine, as long as you keep in the back of your mind that he supports Ukraine and doesn't report everything.
He is not the one who said anything about amphibious landings, I alone speculated on that, hence why I said "It seems to me..". He just reported on the singular drone attacks and the recent S-400 and SU-30 attack that is widely reported on everywhere else.
On August 24 2023 23:45 zatic wrote: Just putting it out there RFU is terrible source on the level of Russian troll farms. Really wouldn't rely on them at all.
There is no way Ukraine will do an amphibious attack as in landing troops meant to stay. Special forces raids like this of course can happen more if they find opportune targets. It's still a high risk high reward kind of operation that won't be happening regularly.
Huh, I thought RFU was one of the better sources. Goes into much deeper tactics and reasons for actions of each side, unlike most of the channels who just read the updates from deepstatemap.live. Definitely Ukraine-biased in his language, but I don't remember him being egregiously wrong about something in hindsight. He is also one of the rare people on youtube who doesn't make huge predictions that later turn out hilariously wrong. Just does a short report of important things that happen on battle field, with obvious bias in phrasing (e.g. Ukraine forces successfully attacking / smartly retreating; versus Russian forces making a mistake when attacking / losing a bunch of people when retreating).
Definitely one of my favorite Ukraine-related channels on youtube and the only one I watch daily.
On August 24 2023 23:45 zatic wrote: Just putting it out there RFU is terrible source on the level of Russian troll farms. Really wouldn't rely on them at all.
There is no way Ukraine will do an amphibious attack as in landing troops meant to stay. Special forces raids like this of course can happen more if they find opportune targets. It's still a high risk high reward kind of operation that won't be happening regularly.
Huh, I thought RFU was one of the better sources. Goes into much deeper tactics and reasons for actions of each side, unlike most of the channels who just read the updates from deepstatemap.live. Definitely Ukraine-biased in his language, but I don't remember him being egregiously wrong about something in hindsight. He is also one of the rare people on youtube who doesn't make huge predictions that later turn out hilariously wrong. Just does a short report of important things that happen on battle field, with obvious bias in phrasing (e.g. Ukraine forces successfully attacking / smartly retreating; versus Russian forces making a mistake when attacking / losing a bunch of people when retreating).
Definitely one of my favorite Ukraine-related channels on youtube and the only one I watch daily.
It’s never passed the sniff test to me in terms of the detail he goes into. Assertions of specific troop movements on a metre by metre basis. I doubt Ukrainian military HQ knows exactly what they’re soldiers are doing on that level of detail, urban warfare doesn’t work that neatly. He aggregates information but then he editorializes over it to smooth out the gaps for the user. It’s like when you see an artist’s impression of a dinosaur based on new fossil findings. The fossils were really found but it was far from a complete skeleton and even then it was just bones, no skin or flesh.
Highlighting again how good of a deal this war is for the USA:
In budget terms, America is barely lifting a finger. The money being spent is mostly from old stock that the USA didn't really need anyways. The only thing that is expensive to replace is the GMLRS stockpile. 155mm ammunition is cheap in the grand scheme of things, it just takes time to rebuild the stocks.
However, Graham doesn't seem to have the faintest idea how much the US spends on defense. 3% of its military budget is over 20 billion. So he's effectively saying that the US spent billions during the Cold War vs. billions on support for Ukraine. Doesn't make much sense. ;p
Budgets aren't completely black and white like that to begin with tho. Not to devalue the massive help NATO has given Ukraine, but the equipment (Barring perhaps the Javelin) isn't the newest and most modern. It's usually old stock that costs money to maintain and store in the first place, and getting rid of them is an excellent opportunity to modernise their own stock. The support in dollars definitively isn't zero, but claiming they've "spent" X billion dollars (Where is that number coming from anyways? The ones you find through quick Google searches are along the line of $113 billion) is a bit of a reach as well
On August 24 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote: The enemy is both weak and strong at the same time. It's still just as hilarious to me as the first time I understood it.
The Ukrainian army was completely destroyed at Bakhmut, while the Russian defenders in the south are now putting up incredibly valiant efforts against a massively superior enemy force that's simultaneously extremely ineffective.
So the Russians/Wagner did not throw everything they had at Bakhmut to spin it as an important victory, like you just did?
We might never know who actually lost more in that battle, but attacking a heavily fortified city is hardly easy pickings...
On August 24 2023 18:46 Magic Powers wrote: The enemy is both weak and strong at the same time. It's still just as hilarious to me as the first time I understood it.
The Ukrainian army was completely destroyed at Bakhmut, while the Russian defenders in the south are now putting up incredibly valiant efforts against a massively superior enemy force that's simultaneously extremely ineffective.
So the Russians/Wagner did not throw everything they had at Bakhmut to spin it as an important victory, like you just did?
We might never know who actually lost more in that battle, but attacking a heavily fortified city is hardly easy pickings...
You’re missing his point. He’s parodying the doublethink. The army was both destroyed and powerful.
On August 25 2023 01:56 Excludos wrote: Budgets aren't completely black and white like that to begin with tho. Not to devalue the massive help NATO has given Ukraine, but the equipment (Barring perhaps the Javelin) isn't the newest and most modern. It's usually old stock that costs money to maintain and store in the first place, and getting rid of them is an excellent opportunity to modernise their own stock. The support in dollars definitively isn't zero, but claiming they've "spent" X billion dollars (Where is that number coming from anyways? The ones you find through quick Google searches are along the line of $113 billion) is a bit of a reach as well
You're missing the point. I'm simply pointing out that he's off by orders of magnitude when it comes to the cumulative US military spending during the Cold War. It's in the trillions, not billions.
On August 24 2023 23:45 zatic wrote: Just putting it out there RFU is terrible source on the level of Russian troll farms. Really wouldn't rely on them at all.
There is no way Ukraine will do an amphibious attack as in landing troops meant to stay. Special forces raids like this of course can happen more if they find opportune targets. It's still a high risk high reward kind of operation that won't be happening regularly.
Huh, I thought RFU was one of the better sources. Goes into much deeper tactics and reasons for actions of each side, unlike most of the channels who just read the updates from deepstatemap.live. Definitely Ukraine-biased in his language, but I don't remember him being egregiously wrong about something in hindsight. He is also one of the rare people on youtube who doesn't make huge predictions that later turn out hilariously wrong. Just does a short report of important things that happen on battle field, with obvious bias in phrasing (e.g. Ukraine forces successfully attacking / smartly retreating; versus Russian forces making a mistake when attacking / losing a bunch of people when retreating).
Definitely one of my favorite Ukraine-related channels on youtube and the only one I watch daily.
It’s never passed the sniff test to me in terms of the detail he goes into. Assertions of specific troop movements on a metre by metre basis. I doubt Ukrainian military HQ knows exactly what they’re soldiers are doing on that level of detail, urban warfare doesn’t work that neatly. He aggregates information but then he editorializes over it to smooth out the gaps for the user. It’s like when you see an artist’s impression of a dinosaur based on new fossil findings. The fossils were really found but it was far from a complete skeleton and even then it was just bones, no skin or flesh.
Most of the sources he uses is the geolocated footage from various telegram channels afaik, which show actual troop movement. Sure, he extrapolates some stuff, but I don't think it's on the level of fossils -> dinosaurs.
But regardless of the fact if he gets every minutiae of troop movement correct, the fact is that he's usually doing a report, meaning that he mostly sticks to showing things that already happened. I got tired of watching channels who do wild predictions, because those are usually laughably wrong so it just ends up a waste of time.
So it's a perfect way for me to check out what happened in the last couple of days by watching a 5 minute video. And then there's of course Perun for any big picture 1 hour long presentations.
EPT
