The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

spikehades · Jul 24, 2022

vonnoobie said:
They claim but if such why was the explosion not larger or why was their no secondary explosions from harpoon warheads cooking off? On the BS meter this one is near boiling..

We can of course speculate as to whether this particular target was military or not. The fact of the matter is that the port of Odessa continues to harbour various weapons installations, men, material and ammunition storage. Are you saying that these should be off limits for Russia, allowing Ukraine complete freedom to utilise these military assets now? This expectation is simply not realistic.

STURM · Jul 24, 2022

Feanor said:
This suggests that Russia has been mostly successful in destroying them, be it by air defenses, or by strikes of staging areas

Another reason could be Russian EW preventing the successful deployment of Ukrainian UASs. There was a link I posted previously in which the Ukrainians acknowledged that Russian EW had become increasingly effective.

vonnoobie · Jul 25, 2022

spikehades said:
We can of course speculate as to whether this particular target was military or not. The fact of the matter is that the port of Odessa continues to harbour various weapons installations, men, material and ammunition storage. Are you saying that these should be off limits for Russia, allowing Ukraine complete freedom to utilise these military assets now? This expectation is simply not realistic.

If it is a fact then I assume you can provide current proof as to that statement? Because so far the only portion of your statement that is a fact related to a single Ukrainian patrol craft and any other Ukrainian vessels remaining will be of zero military value none of which appear to have been used since Ukrainian forces last went to then left snake island.

The one and only thing that could justify the attack would have been the claimed harpoons but as I pointed out lack of larger explosion or follow on explosions makes that claim almost certainly bogus so if you think my expectation to not attack bogus targets next to vital grain handling infrustrcuture in unrealistic then we have very very different terms on realism.

At the end of the day it's just given Ukraine a PR boost and Russia zero gain in any field.

Twain · Jul 25, 2022

Ananda said:
Technically for example Rumanian fleet is part of NATO and they are still in Black fleet. However even if somehow Turkiye let them (non NATO Black Sea members) fleet pass, they're not going to enter any Ukraine still hold ports, without any sort of agreement with Russia anyway.

Turkiye fleet more likely will help monitor the grain ships traffic, and basically they're part of NATO's fleet. So Sultan Erdo now shown more to NATO Western allies, "you need me".

Put Patrick Lancaster video as this's the video that shown latest condition of Bridge on Kherson. Off course as part of Pro Russian channel (even tough claim to be independent), this part of Russian showing that Ukraine HIMARS attack is only make slight damage to the Bridge, it is still open to commercial traffic, and Russia has abilities to handle HIMARS threat. Thus HIMARS not really game changing assets as West told in their media.

Will be interesting if any Western Mainstream media going to put commentators that going to repute that claim.

HIMARS 'Game Changer' in Ukraine War, Russia 'in Dire Shape': Ex-General

The White House included four more HIMARS—High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems—in a military aid package announced Friday.

www.newsweek.com

Seems it is not taking that long.

There is nothing independent or credible about patrick lancaster. He is the one who helped stage the false flag attack at the start of the the hostilities

‘Exploiting Cadavers ’and ‘Faked IEDs’: Experts Debunk Staged Pre-War ‘Provocation’ in the Donbas - bellingcat

Russian media reported that a civilian car in the Donbas was destroyed by a Ukrainian IED in the days before the war. But damage to the vehicle doesn’t add up, and charred bodies show suspicious signs of an autopsy.

www.bellingcat.com

He was also right in the middle of trying to blame Ukraine for shooting down flight MH17

Meet the US ‘Journalist’ Helping Spread the Kremlin’s Propaganda

Patrick Lancaster is one of several YouTubers who have evaded the platform’s anti-disinformation measures, and his pro-Russia coverage has made him a star.

www.vice.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942097830834995203

He is nothing more than a kremlin mouthpiece

How a former US Navy sailor became a Putin propagandist

How a former US Navy sailor became a Putin propagandist

"He has a long track record of biased reporting when it comes to pro-Russian separatists and Russia itself."

taskandpurpose.com

He has also appeared a few times on infowars, for those that may not be familiar with infowars it's a conspiracy website that has promoted (among other things)

Study proves children’s hearts destroyed by COVID vaccine."

Election fraud: Democrats are voting twice in Maryland"

PolitiFact | Infowars

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

I'm surprised that a forum that prides itself on getting to the facts of the issue hasn't banned links involving patrick

tonnyc · Jul 25, 2022

spikehades said:
By the same logic, then shouldn't Ukraine declare the port of Odessa "a demilitarised zone"?

Ukraine won't demilitarize the Odessa. Odessa is a city that Russia wants to capture and thus Ukraine must station troops to defend it. If Ukraine removes their troops and defense systems off Odessa, Russia can just send a small contingent of troops to capture Odessa and I fully expect they will do so if Ukraine somehow got stupid enough to demilitarize the city.

I am hoping that Turkey will send escorts and observers and that Russia will not be stupid enough to attack while Turkish personnels are around.

spikehades · Jul 25, 2022

vonnoobie said:
If it is a fact then I assume you can provide current proof as to that statement? Because so far the only portion of your statement that is a fact related to a single Ukrainian patrol craft and any other Ukrainian vessels remaining will be of zero military value none of which appear to have been used since Ukrainian forces last went to then left snake island.

The one and only thing that could justify the attack would have been the claimed harpoons but as I pointed out lack of larger explosion or follow on explosions makes that claim almost certainly bogus so if you think my expectation to not attack bogus targets next to vital grain handling infrustrcuture in unrealistic then we have very very different terms on realism.

At the end of the day it's just given Ukraine a PR boost and Russia zero gain in any field.

For the sake of clarity, are you asserting that the Ukrainians have completely demilitarised the port of Odessa and that there are likely no longer any extant legitimate military targets remaining (even though it is now the headquarters of the Ukrainian naval forces)?

Additionally it may not be a PR win for Russia, but if they did manage to neutralize harpoon missiles systems, then it is certainly a military score ( which is generally a positive thing for an antagonist when waging war).

spikehades · Jul 25, 2022

tonnyc said:
Ukraine won't demilitarize the Odessa. Odessa is a city that Russia wants to capture and thus Ukraine must station troops to defend it. If Ukraine removes their troops and defense systems off Odessa, Russia can just send a small contingent of troops to capture Odessa and I fully expect they will do so if Ukraine somehow got stupid enough to demilitarize the city.

I am hoping that Turkey will send escorts and observers and that Russia will not be stupid enough to attack while Turkish personnels are around.

Thus, I suppose we are in agreement. There continues to remain legitimate military targets on the port of Odessa. Russia has not broken any convention or rule of war by targeting legitimate military targets in the port of Odessa, nor has it violated the recent grain transfer agreement.

I can see how one might argue that this recent action goes against the "spirit" of the recent grain transfer deal however Russia simply cannot give carte blanche to the Ukrainian forces in Odessa if it wants to prosecute this war with alacrity.

Perhaps this is a calculated move by the Kremlin; if the Ukrainian government wants to successfully export grain, it will need to ensure that Odessa isn't an offensive military threat.

Ananda · Jul 25, 2022

Twain said:
There is nothing independent or credible about patrick lancaster. He is the one who helped stage the false flag attack at the start of the the hostilities

So ? There's not much difference with most Western Mainstream media that become mouth piece of Ukraine propaganda. I put his video to shown latest conditions on the bridges. Independent is his claim, but everyone knows he's pro Russian channel.

Just like Vice which now clearly become more mouthpiece for Ukraine propaganda, as much like of western so call 'independent' online media. Putting one against another acceptable I believe, as long as don't gave any illusions any of them is independent on this war. Either one of them already part of propaganda mouth piece, from one side to another. However against this heavy fog of war from both side, should be taken if they shown part of latest conditions.

Feanor · Jul 25, 2022

vonnoobie said:
If it is a fact then I assume you can provide current proof as to that statement? Because so far the only portion of your statement that is a fact related to a single Ukrainian patrol craft and any other Ukrainian vessels remaining will be of zero military value none of which appear to have been used since Ukrainian forces last went to then left snake island.

The one and only thing that could justify the attack would have been the claimed harpoons but as I pointed out lack of larger explosion or follow on explosions makes that claim almost certainly bogus so if you think my expectation to not attack bogus targets next to vital grain handling infrustrcuture in unrealistic then we have very very different terms on realism.

At the end of the day it's just given Ukraine a PR boost and Russia zero gain in any field.

The destroyed a Centaur type military boat. The type is armed. Hence the port harbored weapons. You can nitpick about the military value of a given weapon system or platform, but remember Ukraine attacked a Russian oil platform. Were there weapons on that platform? If you're going to engage in that kind of scrutiny, where only targets of justified military value in your estimate, rather then any normally valid target, are acceptable, then you will rapidly have to find both sides in the wrong. Russia has, does, and will continue to strike the port of Odessa. I suspect with these agreements in place, Russia will make a reasonable effort to avoid destroying grain infrastructure in particular, and will likely limit strikes during the particular time frames during which ships are going in and out with grain. It would be strange to expect otherwise. This is consistent with Russian behavior so far, and isn't that far outside of what one would expect of a country at war ("Special Operations" notwithstanding).

swerve said:
IIRC the M109s were in the hands of a private company which was trying to sell them, & the Belgian government had been trying to get its hands on them to send to Ukraine but the company was arguing over the price.

But my memory may not be 100% reliable.

You're correct, I didn't go into detail, but that's the story CAST has also.

swerve said:
But attacking the port those ships would load grain at is taking the piss. It's a clear abrogation of the agreement, since safe port facilities are necessary for it to be loaded. Saying "we won't attack the ship en route to the port, or after it's left, but we make no promises about what happens to the port" is saying "We don't give a fuck what we just signed".

I don't think it is. The port of Odessa is huge. It would be very strange for Russia to have it be a safe area for Ukraine, because then Ukraine could and in my opinion would simply start hiding weapons and personnel there. I think this agreement needs to be read as is. Inspected empty ships come in, load grain, and leave. Everything else remains a regular warzone as always. Ukraine wants to export grain? Be extra careful not to park military vehicles or stash munitions or supplies anywhere near the grain terminal.

ngatimozart · Jul 25, 2022

spikehades said:
The Russians claim the target was a Harpoon missile storage facility - which is a legitimate military target. In no part of the grain deal was a ceasefire of military targets agreed or discussed.

If Ukraine agreed to demilitarise the port then it would be reasonable to ask that Russia to no longer attack the military port of Odessa. Without that being in place, I don't see how Russia can ignore military threats originating or transiting Odessa.

That is claim and your justification is pure sophistry. The Russian action shortly after their signing the agreement in Tehran just illustrates their intentions of not abiding to the agreement. This is not the first time that they have made agreements with Ukraine WRT this war and promptly broken them; many of them truce agreements. Now if you want to be a Putin apologist that's your choice but you had better back your claims up with verifiable evidence from reputable sources and not be spreading Putin's disinformation.

spikehades · Jul 25, 2022

ngatimozart said:
That is claim and your justification is pure sophistry. The Russian action shortly after their signing the agreement in Tehran just illustrates their intentions of not abiding to the agreement. This is not the first time that they have made agreements with Ukraine WRT this war and promptly broken them; many of them truce agreements. Now if you want to be a Putin apologist that's your choice but you had better back your claims up with verifiable evidence from reputable sources and not be spreading Putin's disinformation.

Thanks, I have placed a news story link (from VOA no less) - it indicates the Russian claim which I have then based my opinion on.

swerve · Jul 25, 2022

spikehades said:
By the same logic, then shouldn't Ukraine declare the port of Odessa "a demilitarised zone"?

No. Odessa is not a location from which the Ukrainians are attacking Russia or Russian-occupied territory, or from which the Ukrainians can, realistically, launch such attacks. Unless Russian ships or aircraft approach it, there won't be any fighting there. There are no threats to Russia from Odessa unless the Russians choose to create them.

The presence of defences in Odessa has no effect on the transport of grain.

And given recent Russian behaviour, removing defensive weapons from Odessa would be an invitation to attack.

BTW, the Russians have made contradictory claims about their attack on Odessa. Why do you choose to believe one of their claims? If it's true, their other claim was a lie. If that one was true, the one about attacking a Harpoon store is a lie.

Feanor · Jul 25, 2022

swerve said:
No. Odessa is not a location from which the Ukrainians are attacking Russia or Russian-occupied territory, or from which the Ukrainians can, realistically, launch such attacks. Unless Russian ships or aircraft approach it, there won't be any fighting there. There are no threats to Russia from Odessa unless the Russians choose to create them.

Western aid enters Ukraine from many points, one of them being Romania. The first major city on the way in is Odessa. It's completely logical that foreign military aid gets stored there in some quantities for some time before getting distributed out. Odessa is also one of the areas where Ukrainian aircraft are still operating out of. We've seen Su-27s and Su-25s out of there.

The presence of defences in Odessa has no effect on the transport of grain.

Today's defenses are tomorrow's offensive assets. Today a bunch of useless patrol boats, tomorrow they are implementing a Ukrainian SoF raid on Kinburn. Today's reserves staging in Odessa and keeping their equipment in a warehouse in the port are tomorrow's attempted counter-attack.

And given recent Russian behaviour, removing defensive weapons from Odessa would be an invitation to attack.

In principle Ukraine could have the port demilitarized as has been suggested and attempt to negotiate a cessation of strikes on the port specifically while the grain is being shipped out. However 1) I don't think Russia would trust Ukraine and even if an agreement is made, all it would take would be some intel, no matter how faulty, that indicates to the contrary, to serve as an invitation to resume strikes 2) I don't think Ukraine is willing to negotiate with Russia, remember negotiation is give and take. Ukraine wants Russia to stop hitting the port. What will Ukraine give for it? I suspect nothing.

BTW, the Russians have made contradictory claims about their attack on Odessa. Why do you choose to believe one of their claims? If it's true, their other claim was a lie. If that one was true, the one about attacking a Harpoon store is a lie.

Do we know who the denial came from? All I'm finding is Turkey stating Russia denied it to them. I don't suppose there's an obvious reason the Turks would lie, but it's not the most reliable source either. In my opinion the second statement deserves credibility because it's close to the truth. It's entirely plausible and logical that Russia struck what they thought was munition storage (Harpoon or otherwise). It's also completely plausible that they were wrong or that the munitions were moved before the strike.

Feanor · Jul 25, 2022

Update.

Kherson-Nikolaev-Odessa.

Russian strikes, Odessa.

The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group