• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,956
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Russia is saying that the explosion in Crimean bridge was caused by a truck bomb, and from the footage and damage it sounds plausible: the road bridge that collapsed was the epicenter, and apparently caused another portion of the bridge to fall as well, damaged the adjacent lane, and set the tanker train on fire. Presumably the explosion was intended to blow up the train, which would have caused even more damage to the railway bridge, but failed to do so. Possibly a suicide mission.

I think more likely someone managed to slip a charge into an ammo truck.
That's possible. The truck came from the Russian side of the bridge. Russian Ukraine sympathizers?

The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.
If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.
As I understand, the trains are already running again.
They didn’t inspect shit. They just weight tested it with a train.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,491
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Russia is saying that the explosion in Crimean bridge was caused by a truck bomb, and from the footage and damage it sounds plausible: the road bridge that collapsed was the epicenter, and apparently caused another portion of the bridge to fall as well, damaged the adjacent lane, and set the tanker train on fire. Presumably the explosion was intended to blow up the train, which would have caused even more damage to the railway bridge, but failed to do so. Possibly a suicide mission.

I think more likely someone managed to slip a charge into an ammo truck.
That's possible. The truck came from the Russian side of the bridge. Russian Ukraine sympathizers?

The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.
If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.
As I understand, the trains are already running again.
They didn’t inspect shit. They just weight tested it with a train.
When you don't give a crap about the lives of the people who use it, any bridge is a usable bridge.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,644
Location
Ignore list
Excuse the momentary sidetrack, please.

The initial solution to this was to deploy large amounts of US manpower and equipment in Western Europe, particularly West Germany; But this was expensive, and was unpopular both with the deployed troops, and with the local residents.
I agree with your post, bilby, but neither expense nor (lack of) popularity affected the number of US troops posted overseas.

Once the infrastructure was established, the cost of keeping a quarter million US troops in Germany was almost indistinguishable from having them stationed in the US.

The deployed troops could hardly feel the difference. Most of them had their families with them, and hardly any lived in barracks. They had their own homes in US compounds resembling little cities with shopping malls, schools, golf courses, football grounds, baseball parks, churches, social clubs for various hobbyists and interest groups etc. Some did not even live inside those communities. The troops and their families basically liked their lives.

As for Germans, they basically regarded the US occupiers favourably. Unlike the British, who were not a great deal better off than the natives in the area they were controlling, they were generous. We just about developed a cargo cult. Unlike the French, they were not plain vindictive and unlike the Russians they were not outright oppressive, brutal and cruel.

The popularity of US troops was fairly good almost from the start. It got a huge uplift when they broke the USSR's 1948/9 blockade of Berlin with their raisin bombers.

C-54landingattemplehof.jpg


Air-freighting over 12,000 tons of milk, coal, flour and whatever else Berlin needed to survive was definitely super expensive, but the USSR lifted the blockade in May 1949. Not trusting Stalin, the US continued with what became known as the air bridge until September. Expense was not an impediment during the cold war.

1280px-C-47s_at_Tempelhof_Airport_Berlin_1948.jpg


The generosity was not confined to that city. Speaking personally, we had a USAF pilot renting a room from us. He was a never ending source of goodies like peanut butter, corn flakes, pop corn and other luxuries we had not known until he arrived. We also socialised with children of American troops. Fun times were had by all. Language differences were not an obstacle.

Beginning around 1967, popularity did take a rather profound dive. I think it was in part due to the emergence of a leftish political movement, the vaguely rebellious hippy culture and a growing opposition to the Vietnam war. None of these developments brought about a drawing down of the number of troops in Germany, though, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter.

In short: Neither cost nor popularity are factors in the number of overseas troop deployments. National interest is. There was no significant reduction of overseas forces until the USSR's dissolution brought about the end of the Warsaw pact and the cold war with it.

1time-graph-nato-troop-numbers-1200x1001.jpg
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,388
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Like the Nazi troops before them, the Russian army is not just an army of mass murder and destruction. It is also an army of thieves. Like locusts, they descend on new territory and cart off everything that they think of value, including historical artifacts. In those lands that they occupy, there is what one Associated Press article calls:

‘War crime:’ Industrial-scale destruction of Ukraine culture


If you visit Russian museums and historical locations that were under German occupation in WWII, you will hear all sorts of stories about how the Nazis carted off priceless works of art, some of which has never been recovered. For example, I recently visited the famous  Amber Room in Catherine II's palace at Tsarskoe Selo outside of Petersburg. It is lovingly restored now with new amber, but the original room was looted by the Nazis, and nobody knows what they did with all of that amber. Nowadays, it is an obligatory stop in the palace, where guides express their anger and disdain for the Nazi thieves.

Russian troops are behaving no differently from the Nazis in an area where they are shoving the fascist "One People" doctrine down the throats of the locals:

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The exquisite golden tiara, inlaid with precious stones by master craftsmen some 1,500 years ago, was one of the world’s most valuable artifacts from the blood-letting rule of Attila the Hun, who rampaged with horseback warriors deep into Europe in the 5th century.

The Hun diadem is now vanished from the museum in Ukraine that housed it — perhaps, historians fear, forever. Russian troops carted away the priceless crown and a hoard of other treasures after capturing the Ukrainian city of Melitopol in February, museum authorities say.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, now in its eighth month, is being accompanied by the destruction and pillaging of historical sites and treasures on an industrial scale, Ukrainian authorities say.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Ukraine’s culture minister alleged that Russian soldiers helped themselves to artifacts in almost 40 Ukrainian museums. The looting and destruction of cultural sites has caused losses estimated in the hundreds of millions of euros (dollars), the minister, Oleksandr Tkachenko, added.

“The attitude of Russians toward Ukrainian culture heritage is a war crime,” he said...
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,664
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
US may run out of M30/31 guided rockets for HIMARS, says think tank:


GMLRS rockets have proved to be very effective against Russian logistics, and in particular there is no way Ukraine can take back Kherson if it loses that weapon. Unless it can at least advance close enough that Dnipro bridges and ferries are within regular artillery range.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,388
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
GMLRS rockets have proved to be very effective against Russian logistics, and in particular there is no way Ukraine can take back Kherson if it loses that weapon. Unless it can at least advance close enough that Dnipro bridges and ferries are within regular artillery range.

If the battle for Kherson depends entirely on this one weapon, then you may be right. However, I imagine that there are other weapons available, if the analyst who wrote that piece is right in his understanding of existing stockpiles and the rate at which they are being and can be replenished. The Russians are also running out of ammunition, and at least some of the equipment now used by Ukraine seems to be supplied by retreating and/or surrendering Russian troops.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,664
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
GMLRS rockets have proved to be very effective against Russian logistics, and in particular there is no way Ukraine can take back Kherson if it loses that weapon. Unless it can at least advance close enough that Dnipro bridges and ferries are within regular artillery range.

If the battle for Kherson depends entirely on this one weapon, then you may be right. However, I imagine that there are other weapons available, if the analyst who wrote that piece is right in his understanding of existing stockpiles and the rate at which they are being and can be replenished. The Russians are also running out of ammunition, and at least some of the equipment now used by Ukraine seems to be supplied by retreating and/or surrendering Russian troops.
Russia is out of ammunition in Kherson because Ukraine shoots the bridges and ferries they try to deliver them with, as well as any reasonably-sized storage. Remove that and Russia can go back to its usual tactic of overwhelming artillery barrages. Russia won't run out of artillery shells (at least not before the western stockpiles), its problem is logistics to get them to the front lines.

Can Ukraine replace HIMARS with other types of weapons? To some extent, yes. The 155mm GPS guided Excalibur shells should be just as accurate, but have shorter range (which is why it's crucial Ukraine pushes Russia back so that they can use regular artillery). ATACMS missiles that Ukraine currently doesn't have could help continue to hit longer-range targets. Kamikaze drones could be used also, but they have to get past Russian air defenses and have smaller payloads. These would be inferior choices.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,388
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Russia is out of ammunition in Kherson because Ukraine shoots the bridges and ferries they try to deliver them with, as well as any reasonably-sized storage. Remove that and Russia can go back to its usual tactic of overwhelming artillery barrages. Russia won't run out of artillery shells (at least not before the western stockpiles), its problem is logistics to get them to the front lines.

Can Ukraine replace HIMARS with other types of weapons? To some extent, yes. The 155mm GPS guided Excalibur shells should be just as accurate, but have shorter range (which is why it's crucial Ukraine pushes Russia back so that they can use regular artillery). ATACMS missiles that Ukraine currently doesn't have could help continue to hit longer-range targets. Kamikaze drones could be used also, but they have to get past Russian air defenses and have smaller payloads. These would be inferior choices.

Yes, but I do not have information on what methods the Ukrainians have available to them to keep those bridges disabled. Is it only through the use of HIMARS? Everything I've read only refers to "attacks" on the bridges. No specifics. Your article did not mention the use of HIMARS in Kherson or support your assumption that they are crucial to keeping those damaged bridges disabled. My assumption would be that, if you are correct that Ukraine depends on the HIMARS to conquer Kherson, then they would move their dwindling supply of GLMRS missiles to that theater of operations and use other means available to them. If they need to move closer, they'll move closer. It seems that the Russian troops there are so much on their back foot that they have virtually stopped all attacks and artillery barrages. Increased looting is now going on, and there is a lot of chatter about lack of supplies and other morale issues. So the situation strikes me as less dire for Ukraine than you suggest, but I'm no military strategist, and I have no real knowledge of the situation there beyond what I read.

This Radio Free Europe article claims that the Ukrainians first damaged the Antonivskiy Bridge on July 19-20. It began using the HIMARS only on July 26-27. But it is not usable any longer. The makeshift pontoon bridges and ferries do not seem sufficient to keep the eastern side of the river supplied properly, and Ukrainian troops are advancing south along the Dnipro. The shelling mentioned in the article took place in August. Right now, the Russians aren't doing much shelling.

Ukraine Says Positions In East Shelled To Prevent Troop Transfers, Plot To Kill Top Officials Foiled

 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,388
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
This BBC story proposes the possibility that a Ukrainian maritime drone fitted with explosives might have been used. The prevailing theory of a truck bomb has been suggested by Russia, and the Ukrainian government seems to be encouraging that interpretation, saying that Russia should look "inside Russia" for the answer.

Crimean bridge: Who - or what - caused the explosion?


Security camera footage released on social media showed a truck - allegedly from the Russian city of Krasnodar, an hour's drive from the crossing - moving west across the bridge at the time of the explosion.
Russian officials named a 25-year old Krasnodar man, Samir Yusubov, as the owner of the truck, and said an older relative, Makhir Yusubov, was the driver.

But close examination of the footage seems to show that the truck had nothing to do with the explosion.

The footage shows a huge fireball erupting just behind - and to one side - of the truck as it begins to climb an elevated section of the bridge.

The speed with which the truck bomb theory started to spread in Russian circles was suspicious. It suggested the Kremlin preferred an act of terrorism to a more alarming possibility: that this was an audacious act of sabotage carried out by Ukraine.

"I've seen plenty of large vehicle-borne IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in my time," a former British army explosives expert told me. "This does not look like one."

A more plausible explanation, he said, is a massive explosion below the bridge - probably delivered using some kind of clandestine maritime drone.

"Bridges are generally designed to resist downwards loads on the deck and a certain amount of side loading from the wind," he said. "They are not generally engineered to resist upward loads. I think this fact was exploited in the Ukrainian attack."

Some observers have noted that in one of the other security camera videos, something that looks like the bow wave of a small boat appears next to one of the bridge supports, a split second before the explosion.

...

This is not the first time reports have circulated suggesting that Ukraine has access to such clandestine equipment.

"There are well-founded reports which suggest that the Ukrainians have both surveillance and strike maritime remote controlled vehicles in service," the British explosives expert told me...
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
38,179
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Russia is saying that the explosion in Crimean bridge was caused by a truck bomb, and from the footage and damage it sounds plausible: the road bridge that collapsed was the epicenter, and apparently caused another portion of the bridge to fall as well, damaged the adjacent lane, and set the tanker train on fire. Presumably the explosion was intended to blow up the train, which would have caused even more damage to the railway bridge, but failed to do so. Possibly a suicide mission.

I think more likely someone managed to slip a charge into an ammo truck.
That's possible. The truck came from the Russian side of the bridge. Russian Ukraine sympathizers?

I think more likely Ukrainian special forces.

The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.
If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.
As I understand, the trains are already running again.
But note that it's a few cars of passenger train, and it's a few vehicles on the surviving road. That says they've probably been severely weakened.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,567
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
GMLRS rockets have proved to be very effective against Russian logistics, and in particular there is no way Ukraine can take back Kherson if it loses that weapon. Unless it can at least advance close enough that Dnipro bridges and ferries are within regular artillery range.

I saw that article, and there was an interesting response to it on ABC radio the morning after. The US still has options. They could start shipping ATACMS for example (yes there is a metric fuckton of foreseen and unforeseen unintended consequences but it is an option, albiet a risky one). But also, the Biden Administration hasn't even spent half of what it is allowed to spend on Ukraine; there's still over 20 billion to work with. It can quite easily purchase arms/munitions from elsewhere and ship those to Ukraine. The UK, Germany and Israel manufacture their own GMLRS, for example.
 

Jayjay

Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
6,664
Location
Finland
Basic Beliefs
An accurate worldview or philosophy
The railway connection is probably easy to repair, mostly just fire damage. The second lane of the road bridge might still work, but that depends on whether there was structural damage to that side that would prevent heavy traffic. And if it was a suicide truck, stopping any future attacks of that nature just requires better inspections at the checkpoints in Russian side, so there's no fear of repeat attacks like in Antonivskyi bridge in Kherson. The effect on Russian logistics is probably going to be short-lived, but the mental blow is still huge.
If the fire softened the steel enough to deform it it could take a lot to put the rail back in operation.
As I understand, the trains are already running again.
But note that it's a few cars of passenger train, and it's a few vehicles on the surviving road. That says they've probably been severely weakened.
Why waste time with "inspections" and other western claptrap, when you can just try if the bridge holds by testing it with real trains filled with civilians passengers and listen how loudly it squeaks, da?
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,644
Location
Ignore list
This BBC story proposes the possibility that a Ukrainian maritime drone fitted with explosives might have been used. The prevailing theory of a truck bomb has been suggested by Russia, and the Ukrainian government seems to be encouraging that interpretation, saying that Russia should look "inside Russia" for the answer.

Crimean bridge: Who - or what - caused the explosion?


Security camera footage released on social media showed a truck - allegedly from the Russian city of Krasnodar, an hour's drive from the crossing - moving west across the bridge at the time of the explosion.
Russian officials named a 25-year old Krasnodar man, Samir Yusubov, as the owner of the truck, and said an older relative, Makhir Yusubov, was the driver.

But close examination of the footage seems to show that the truck had nothing to do with the explosion.

The footage shows a huge fireball erupting just behind - and to one side - of the truck as it begins to climb an elevated section of the bridge.

The speed with which the truck bomb theory started to spread in Russian circles was suspicious. It suggested the Kremlin preferred an act of terrorism to a more alarming possibility: that this was an audacious act of sabotage carried out by Ukraine.

"I've seen plenty of large vehicle-borne IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in my time," a former British army explosives expert told me. "This does not look like one."

A more plausible explanation, he said, is a massive explosion below the bridge - probably delivered using some kind of clandestine maritime drone.

"Bridges are generally designed to resist downwards loads on the deck and a certain amount of side loading from the wind," he said. "They are not generally engineered to resist upward loads. I think this fact was exploited in the Ukrainian attack."

Some observers have noted that in one of the other security camera videos, something that looks like the bow wave of a small boat appears next to one of the bridge supports, a split second before the explosion.

...

This is not the first time reports have circulated suggesting that Ukraine has access to such clandestine equipment.

"There are well-founded reports which suggest that the Ukrainians have both surveillance and strike maritime remote controlled vehicles in service," the British explosives expert told me...
I have downloaded this video and changed the frames between 00:01:12 and 00:02:07 to show in slow motion. Instead of running for just under one second they now take almost eight. I am inclined to believe the explosion was done using the boat that emerges from under the bridge just as semi-trailer passes overhead. It is only a guess, though. The boat may have been only coincidentally under the bridge at the exact moment the explosion was effected by other means.

 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,547
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Big morale victory for Ukraine, but won't impact military logistics much.

That’s why they should make it an “Every Friday” thing.


I generally don't post in this thread, because I am very ignorant concerning almost everything. I don't know about the history, people, or even the geography. I certainly don't understand military strategy and such.

But wouldn't a 12 mile long bridge, so crucial to the Russian's war goals, be easily taken out by whoever took out Nordstream?

Whoever that was hasn't bombed the bridge. Why not? The most obvious answer to me, who doesn't claim to know anything else, is that whoever bombed Nordstream was on Putin's side of this. Or that bridge would have been taken out weeks ago.
Tom

Nordstream was probably bombed by Russia to try to finger USA. Nordstream hasn't been used yet and probably never will. So it wasn't much of a sacrifice for Russia.

The Crimea bridge is a crucial supply line for the Russian front. Especially if Luhansk and Donetsk are ever retaken.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,547
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This BBC story proposes the possibility that a Ukrainian maritime drone fitted with explosives might have been used. The prevailing theory of a truck bomb has been suggested by Russia, and the Ukrainian government seems to be encouraging that interpretation, saying that Russia should look "inside Russia" for the answer.

Crimean bridge: Who - or what - caused the explosion?


Security camera footage released on social media showed a truck - allegedly from the Russian city of Krasnodar, an hour's drive from the crossing - moving west across the bridge at the time of the explosion.
Russian officials named a 25-year old Krasnodar man, Samir Yusubov, as the owner of the truck, and said an older relative, Makhir Yusubov, was the driver.

But close examination of the footage seems to show that the truck had nothing to do with the explosion.

The footage shows a huge fireball erupting just behind - and to one side - of the truck as it begins to climb an elevated section of the bridge.

The speed with which the truck bomb theory started to spread in Russian circles was suspicious. It suggested the Kremlin preferred an act of terrorism to a more alarming possibility: that this was an audacious act of sabotage carried out by Ukraine.

"I've seen plenty of large vehicle-borne IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in my time," a former British army explosives expert told me. "This does not look like one."

A more plausible explanation, he said, is a massive explosion below the bridge - probably delivered using some kind of clandestine maritime drone.

"Bridges are generally designed to resist downwards loads on the deck and a certain amount of side loading from the wind," he said. "They are not generally engineered to resist upward loads. I think this fact was exploited in the Ukrainian attack."

Some observers have noted that in one of the other security camera videos, something that looks like the bow wave of a small boat appears next to one of the bridge supports, a split second before the explosion.

...

This is not the first time reports have circulated suggesting that Ukraine has access to such clandestine equipment.

"There are well-founded reports which suggest that the Ukrainians have both surveillance and strike maritime remote controlled vehicles in service," the British explosives expert told me...
I have downloaded this video and changed the frames between 00:01:12 and 00:02:07 to show in slow motion. Instead of running for just under one second they now take almost eight. I am inclined to believe the explosion was done using the boat that emerges from under the bridge just as semi-trailer passes overhead. It is only a guess, though. The boat may have been only coincidentally under the bridge at the exact moment the explosion was effected by other means.



Why couldn't it just have been a frogman? Seems like the simplest explanation.
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,644
Location
Ignore list
I have downloaded this video and changed the frames between 00:01:12 and 00:02:07 to show in slow motion. Instead of running for just under one second they now take almost eight. I am inclined to believe the explosion was done using the boat that emerges from under the bridge just as semi-trailer passes overhead. It is only a guess, though. The boat may have been only coincidentally under the bridge at the exact moment the explosion was effected by other means.



Why couldn't it just have been a frogman? Seems like the simplest explanation.

Simple, yes, but not workable.

1) A frogman is unlikely to move the amount of thermite needed to create such a massive explosion.

2) The frogman would still need transport to get him/herself and the explosives to the bridge.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
This BBC story proposes the possibility that a Ukrainian maritime drone fitted with explosives might have been used. The prevailing theory of a truck bomb has been suggested by Russia, and the Ukrainian government seems to be encouraging that interpretation, saying that Russia should look "inside Russia" for the answer.

Crimean bridge: Who - or what - caused the explosion?


Security camera footage released on social media showed a truck - allegedly from the Russian city of Krasnodar, an hour's drive from the crossing - moving west across the bridge at the time of the explosion.
Russian officials named a 25-year old Krasnodar man, Samir Yusubov, as the owner of the truck, and said an older relative, Makhir Yusubov, was the driver.

But close examination of the footage seems to show that the truck had nothing to do with the explosion.

The footage shows a huge fireball erupting just behind - and to one side - of the truck as it begins to climb an elevated section of the bridge.

The speed with which the truck bomb theory started to spread in Russian circles was suspicious. It suggested the Kremlin preferred an act of terrorism to a more alarming possibility: that this was an audacious act of sabotage carried out by Ukraine.

"I've seen plenty of large vehicle-borne IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in my time," a former British army explosives expert told me. "This does not look like one."

A more plausible explanation, he said, is a massive explosion below the bridge - probably delivered using some kind of clandestine maritime drone.

"Bridges are generally designed to resist downwards loads on the deck and a certain amount of side loading from the wind," he said. "They are not generally engineered to resist upward loads. I think this fact was exploited in the Ukrainian attack."

Some observers have noted that in one of the other security camera videos, something that looks like the bow wave of a small boat appears next to one of the bridge supports, a split second before the explosion.

...

This is not the first time reports have circulated suggesting that Ukraine has access to such clandestine equipment.

"There are well-founded reports which suggest that the Ukrainians have both surveillance and strike maritime remote controlled vehicles in service," the British explosives expert told me...
I have downloaded this video and changed the frames between 00:01:12 and 00:02:07 to show in slow motion. Instead of running for just under one second they now take almost eight. I am inclined to believe the explosion was done using the boat that emerges from under the bridge just as semi-trailer passes overhead. It is only a guess, though. The boat may have been only coincidentally under the bridge at the exact moment the explosion was effected by other means.


That would mean that ukrainians are raging imbeciles.
They had access from water and decided to bomb the part which can be easily and cheaply replaced instead of bridge support which is much more expensive and easier to blow anyway (from water)

I am not saying ukro-nazis are not idiots, they are, it's just not to that degree. And don't forget that their masters (in London and Washington) who are clearly smart enough to know how to blow up bridges.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
For those of you wondering how the fuck tiny Ukraine can do so well against Russia. It's because of intel.
Well, "so well" is a giant exageration. But it's true ukro-nazis are completely dependent on US, including supply of "meth" for their "drones".
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,491
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Well, "so well" is a giant exageration.
No, it's not. Russia was expected to win in a short campaign back in February. That such a small nation has not only been effective in resisting Russian military might, but has now begun to drive back the invaders, is a far better outcome than anyone expected.

If anything, "so well" is an understatement. The vaunted Russian military machine are being shown to be utterly incompetent and ridiculous at every level.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Well, "so well" is a giant exageration.
No, it's not. Russia was expected to win in a short campaign back in February. That such a small nation has not only been effective in resisting Russian military might, but has now begun to drive back the invaders, is a far better outcome than anyone expected.

If anything, "so well" is an understatement. The vaunted Russian military machine are being shown to be utterly incompetent and ridiculous at every level.
Russia technically won. Ukrainian Army have been utterly destroyed. What you have now is NATO manned by ukro-drones using NATO weapons.
And even so, NATO progress in Ukraine is still very limited. Most of the drug-induced attacks by NATO is repelled with horrendous losses on ukrainian side.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,567
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Russia technically won. Ukrainian Army have been utterly destroyed. What you have now is NATO manned by ukro-drones using NATO weapons.
And even so, NATO progress in Ukraine is still very limited. Most of the drug-induced attacks by NATO is repelled with horrendous losses on ukrainian side.
afkgaming%2Fimport%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F64144-5f5d9b481fe5863c196d3441322ab983.jpeg


As the kids say nowadays.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
You need to stop listening to Western Propaganda.
You are still not winning. The losses NATO narco-army suffers don't qualify as winning.
And yes, Ukro-nazis have ran out of soviet era weapons and now in the process of running out of NATO weapons and people as well.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,567
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,644
Location
Ignore list
More about boats.

Secret US ‘Kayak Drone’ Washed Ashore on Crimea
It should be noted that back in April, the United States promised to transfer to Ukraine various multi-purpose stealth unmanned surface vehicles for testing in combat conditions against Russia. Media reports appeared in May that Ukrainian operators had already been trained at the Joint Expeditionary US Naval Base Little Creek, an amphibious force facility of the former US Atlantic Fleet.

Such compact stealth boats, called tactical autonomous systems (Man-Portable Tactical Autonomous Systems – MANTAS), can be used both for collecting information, reconnaissance, surveillance and target designation, and for carrying out strike missions, turning into kamikaze drones.

ScreenHunter-11115-1170x873.jpg
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The guy is a fucking kook who knows a little bit about economics and fuck all about everything else. I'm not surprised you'd listen to someone like that.
Oh really? What's next? Russia blew up their own gas pipeline and bridge?
Cook here is collective west with Nuland on top of it which think they can win a war with nuclear power such as Russia.
So address his point, instead of attacking his credibility of which he has way more that all WH scam combined.

Seriusly, you really think these MIC paid cunts which you see on CNN have more credibility? Seriously?
 

zorq

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
1,782
Location
Republic of Korea
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Moderate
There are still some sane people in US.

Poor Barbos.

The guy in your video says, '"This is a war about Russian Security," okay. That's the Russian view. And you can say "They're crazy/not crazy," but I think that's the Russian view.'

He pins it right here. Any Russians who are stupid enough to think this war is really about Russian security have to be fucking crazy.

Fucking Crazy! You know, just like certain posters here who insisted that Russia wasn't interested in "expansionism" back on December 6th, but were proven to be fucking crazy town wrong when( to nobody's surprise), Putin "annexed" more territory from Ukraine at the end of September.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The guy in your video says, '"This is a war about Russian Security," okay. That's the Russian view. And you can say "They're crazy/not crazy," but I think that's the Russian view.'
That's all you see there?
And what's wrong with him saying that? Please note, that he does not agree with "you" there. And even if he did, what would it change?
The guy merely points out the same thing Mersheimer is saying.
The guy is sane. and you and your establishment are not.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The guy in your video says, '"This is a war about Russian Security," okay. That's the Russian view. And you can say "They're crazy/not crazy," but I think that's the Russian view.'
That's all you see there?
You think I can watch a 44 minute video that you posted 36 minutes ago? LOL. Crazy!
Actually, that's not crazy, that can be easily achieved :)
People do that all the time, and his interview is shorter than that anyway.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,773
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
So, anyone who does not agree with talking heads on CNN is a cook according to you here. That make Mersheimer, Sachs, Roger Waters and ..... Elon Musk cooks.
OK.

Yeah, Roger Waters did tear Smerconish a new one, did not he? :)
 

zorq

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
1,782
Location
Republic of Korea
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Moderate
Sachs says that we are making a nuclear adversary choose between a humiliating defeat and a nuclear war. But that isn't at all what we are doing. We are telling Russia to stop trying to murder civilians and steal land from other sovereign states. Russia doesn't have to be humiliated. They can just fucking go home and say "sorry." The West isn't going to sack Moscow. The west isn't going to enslave Russians or send them to gulags.

You know what you DON'T fucking do EVER?

You don't fucking reward violence just because it is backed by nuclear threats.

Letting Russia get away with this kind of murderous theft would only be an invitation for them to do it again and again. It is unsustainable. It is unconscionable.

Sachs is nuts. But notice that he AND Mearsheimer refuse to say that Russia/Putin is behaving reasonably, or rationally. They both know that Putin's delusions of NATO oppression are, in REALITY, just paranoid fantasies. That's why neither one even bothers to try convincing Russians to change their strategies. Because you can't negotiate with crazy spoiled children. The West are the only rational actors on the playing field so that is why both of them think the West needs to be responsible for stopping this situation. But when they say the West is responsible, they mean that because ONLY the West has the capacity to act like a responsible adult in this situation. Because Putin is fucking nuts.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
4,146
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,567
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Oh really? What's next? Russia blew up their own gas pipeline and bridge?
He believes covid was created in the US in a biolab. That disqualifies him as a reputable source on anything.
Cook here is collective west with Nuland on top of it which think they can win a war with nuclear power such as Russia.
Oh good, you've given up the pretense of pretending this is about nazis and are going with full blown imperialism. Welcome to what everyone knew 10 months ago.
So address his point, instead of attacking his credibility of which he has way more that all WH scam combined.
The guy is an economist, and a shitty one at that who believes in complete bullshit conspiracy theories. I'm quite comfortable not giving a flying fuck what he thinks with regard to foreign policy and only giving the slightest of fucks in the field where he allegedly has some expertise.
Seriusly, you really think these MIC paid cunts which you see on CNN have more credibility? Seriously?
Yes, but that's largely because I consider even a 17 year old TikTok influencer high on molly being more credible than a Russian propagandist. I mean at this point Baghdad Bob has a very strong case to sue you for copyright infringement.

Seriously.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
6,180
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
Saying Russia is winning in Ukraine is like saying Germany and Japan did very well getting second place in WW2.
... I understand why you say that.
Yeah, he said it because Russia is losing. Obviously and embarrassingly.
No.
So when do you report for duty? Do you need any tampons?
I was gonna say...

I decided to "show ignored content" and oh boy...Barbos is more dedicated to Mother Russia than several hundred thousand actual Russians (that skipped town rather than get drafted).

Just skimming through, I learned that:

1. Russia is actually winning.

2. The Ukrainian army has been destroyed.

3. Russia is now fighting NATO directly AND inflicting heavy losses!


Truth is, Russia would get (what's left of) their asses handed to them on a platter if they tangled with even one NATO country like Germany, France, or the UK...to say nothing of what would happen if the US got involved directly. It is worth pointing out that the current ass-whipping is being delivered by Ukrainian forces armed with mid-level Western kit after being given some training in modern tactics by the US. Russia hasn't even achieved air superiority over Ukraine. Putin should be thanking whatever god he worships (probably a photo of himself on a horse) that the US didn't accede to Zelensky's request for a no-fly zone, because if we'd done that there wouldn't be so much as a Russian kite flying over Ukraine.

And if Russia is "winning," (I guess I'll have to unblock some more to see the hilarious answer), then how is it that Kyiv is still standing? How is it that Zelensky is still President of Ukraine? Why are Russian soldiers retreating from areas they've controlled for the past 8 years?

This war...sorry, "special military operation"....has exposed the Russian military to be a paper tiger. Or...paper bear? Kyiv was supposed to have fallen 8 fucking months ago, Barbos. How is that "winning?"
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,567
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Just skimming through, I learned that:

1. Russia is actually winning.

2. The Ukrainian army has been destroyed.

3. Russia is now fighting NATO directly AND inflicting heavy losses!
You left out we're all on drugs as well.
 
Top Bottom