Yeh it didn't click that this is the first time they've hit back in Crimea since it was invaded, finally!
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Yeh it didn't click that this is the first time they've hit back in Crimea since it was invaded, finally!
In my experience some Paladins did good work.
What's Russian for "it's the Ambien!"?
probably Eta Ambien if memory serves but whatever.
Information is hard to get... it might actually be the case that the (older) Sapsan project in fact evolved into the Hrim and doesn't exist anymore as such. What you say is of course right, but the situation wasn't that much different for the Neptune and then it sunk the Moskva, so who knows? It's as good a guess as speculating if they got some western missiles we don't know about either.
Yeah, all those (30+) fighter jets are very likely have been taken out given this damage:
The above is geolocated to be around 1km from the explosion zone.
It's a brilliant picture. He can't even see through that as the cover isn't fully lifted...
Theses on the Philosophy of History is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
I hope something doesnt happen to the bridge while its jammed with cars.
If they now have range, it would mean that they can’t no longer park their leftovers from black sea fleet in Crimea.
Ukraine attempting to attack and reclaim/liberate Crimea will surely take this war to another level, won’t it? I’m assuming that Putin will not want to lose Crimea under any circumstance. Could this be the catalyst for full out nuclear strikes on Ukraine?
They're not attempting to reclaim Crimea. They're hitting military targets and taking out military aircraft
No, there won't be nuclear strikes on Ukraine.
That being said, I'd be surprised if Ukraine would go ahead with a Crimea operation.
Hard to say. As Russia claims that Crimea is Russia this would something which qualifies as an existential threat to Russia, which would under their doctrine allow nuclear strikes. However the question is, is that really something Russia wants? Escalating to a nuclear war could provoke far more severe consequences than they experienced so far.
Look above, Zelensky made a statement that liberating Crimea is officially a Ukrainian goal for this war now.
What do you mean "now"? When did Ukraine ever accept Russian occupation of any part of their country since 2014? When wasn't liberating all of Ukraine their stated goal?
Crimea is geographically vital for Russia to retain access to the seas all year round.
It’s most vital to their future security, as otherwise they could be surrounded and blocked off during winter.
I don’t imagine Russia will need nuclear weapons to keep it, but they will get very desperate and move a large part of their army to defend it. Hence Ukraine’s strategy of attack.
No, they are not going to nuke Ukraine or anywhere else when Russia itself is not under threat. It would be an act of batshit insanity that the world has never before seen.
Sure they might claim Crimea is Russia, they claim lots of nonsense.
It always was it was, just some in the west wanted Ukraine to give it to Russia so the war could end and everything get back to normal.
The only way the Ukrainians liberate Crimea is if the Russian army folds. According to the US intelligence Russia has 80'000 dead and if we say X's 3 or 4 wounded then they are down 320'000 to 400'000 men. Their attacks have slowed or stopped and their available stocks are depleting.
It is still unclear what level of intensity both sides can continue with but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that after the first actor advantage is gone (predicted around 6 months at the start of the war) Ukraine starts to gain the initiative. Is it possible Ukraine routs Russian forces and takes back Crimea on the march, I'd say unlikely but not out of the question. Putin has committed everything he has short of mass mobilization.
It would be ironic if a war started as a land grab ended with Putin trying to explain how his amazing victory lost the black sea naval base at Sevastopol and gained a land bridge to nowhere.
Wtf are you talking about? Russia didn't have Crimea for 20+ years and had access to the Black Sea, no problem. They cannot be "surrounded and blocked off" by Ukraine.
The port of Novorossiysk, in Russia, is one of the 3 biggest ports in the Black Sea along with Constanta and Odessa. Between Crimea and Turkey, there are several nautical miles of international waters.
Those "security concerns" are lebensraum-style utter horseshit to justify imperialism and expansionism as necessity.
Number 80k was dead and wounded combined. According to Ukrainians, over 40k Russian soldiers were killed.
Sorry, that statement was a bit misleading. Of course it was always Ukraine's goal to do that, Zelensky stated/repeated it just now.
Wtf are you talking about? Russia didn't have Crimea for 20+ years and had access to the Black Sea, no problem. They cannot be "surrounded and blocked off" by Ukraine.
The port of Novorossiysk, in Russia, is one of the 3 biggest ports in the Black Sea along with Constanta and Odessa. Between Crimea and Turkey, there are several nautical miles of international waters.
Those "security concerns" are lebensraum-style utter horseshit to justify imperialism and expansionism as necessity.
It's true that Russia has been building up a huge amount of capacity in Nororossiysk in previous years.
But there is also a "reason" why Russia extended its lease of port space at Sevastopol, and that it targeted Crimea almost immediately after Yanukovych was forced out - they feared Ukraine would renege on its deal for Sevastopol. There is also a "reason" Russia had been moving Russian individuals into Crimea for years, so they'd have local support if anything happened to it.
Obviously the actual explanation for the ridiculous war is Russia paranoia and imperialism. But Russia realise that they would be extremely vulnerable in times of war only having one major warm water port, especially one affected by strong winter winds. I imagine they will continue to do everything they can to suck up to Turkiye to retain access to the Bosporus, use information warfare and hook poor countries on fossil fuels to encourage further global warming and use technology to break out through cold seas to the north, whilst continuing to hugely expand their fleet, in case they need to take drastic measures in the Bosporus.
Think it's a mix of economical (lots of trade passes through the river + ports) and military (they can establish control over most of the Black Sea through land based missiles in Crimea). If they lose Crimea they will effectively lose control of the Black Sea if NATO continues to be supplied with NATO weaponry and that cuts them off completely.Wtf are you talking about? Russia didn't have Crimea for 20+ years and had access to the Black Sea, no problem. They cannot be "surrounded and blocked off" by Ukraine.
The port of Novorossiysk, in Russia, is one of the 3 biggest ports in the Black Sea along with Constanta and Odessa. Between Crimea and Turkey, there are several nautical miles of international waters.
Those "security concerns" are lebensraum-style utter horseshit to justify imperialism and expansionism as necessity.
The strikes were beautiful and probably freaked out plenty of Russian generals. It's time to hit them where it hurts the most and push back hard now.
Yeah my mistake. Its still a load of men lost though. It just feels like Ukraine is getting the upper hand but it might be wishful thinking on my part.
Ukraine's losses are definitely high as well. Weren't there talks of hundreds dead every day?
Interesting because I watched an interview with a top Ukrainian general and he was talking about being able to push Russia back to February borders when they get the latest artillery but he drew the line at Crimea at that time. I think Zelenski may want Crimea but may also use it as a bargaining chip when the time comes
Ye, it was in May, by now it's down to 30-50 losses to day average.
Is it true that the Ukraine president was having a photoshoot (according to Facebook) for Vogue?
From the start of this Zelensky talked about a 'diplomatic solution' to Crimea, he and I guess the general you mention saw no possibility to retake Crimea by force, based on the situation at the time. He literraly said in an interview that invading Crimea could start ww3. Some in the west wrongly interpreted this as them willing to cede Crimea in discussions, which they have been very clear will never happen.
But guess what, in war, things change. The situation right now is very different from early on when Kyiv was almost surrounded, it looked like Kharkiv and Sumy would fall and Odessa under threat. The strike yesterday, instant exodus of Russians fleeing across the bridge and houses being put up for sale on mass was hugely signifiant, for a number of reasons.
Last edited:
Him and his wife were interviewed by Vogue a few weeks ago to spread awareness of the Ukranian plight and had their picture taken to go with the story, if that's what your talking about.
it's their naval base i guess he means. they had control over that for 20+ years until 2014 which is why they annexed it. he's right imo. russia will do whatever it takes to keep crimea.
basically this.
it'll be interesting to see if this is true. i took that 80k number to mean wounded and dead. because the invasion force was 160k or 200k and there were reports of 50k before we had unverified reports of more troop deployment. hard to know what's really happening in terms of troop losses on either side. but i'm expecting russia to go very indiscriminate now. the kind of thing they refrained from early.
i'd say yesterday was the first significant thing to happen in months. interesting to see what happens next. will point to actual conditions on ground and health of each side.
full article https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/09/ukraine-war-russia-optimism-winning-counteroffensive/
writer makes an optimistic case for ukraine. similar to ones raoul has made iirc. things to watch are the counteroffensive whenever it comes and possible russian conscription. basic takeaway is both sides are exhausted but each is determined to continue. also clues as to why i'd take that 80k-400k estimate with a pinch of salt. russia hasn't mobilized that many troops. when it does, or if it does, then russia could be in serious trouble for the reasons the article states. look at the us during vietnam. they moved to a purely voluntary military after that debacle because drafting people in to fight a war will erode support for the war and for the administration that wages it. this is different for ukraine and russia as ukraine is defending and russia is attacking. so it becomes about whether the russians liable for conscription have really bought into the war and see it in the same existential light as the ukrainians or have only bought into the rhetoric and lose support when they have to be called up.
Last edited: