Why is it that we only get Ukrainian shills around here? I mean, obviously, some of us are pretty anti-Ukraine at this point, but it'd be nice to see some amusing pieces of actual pro-Russian propaganda for a change.
But in all seriousness, I'm sure that with this bridge out, Ukraine is on the cusp of winning, guys. Putin is surely quaking in his boots. Blowing up their own infrastructure is really showing the ol' Putler what's what.
Naturally after the war is over, they can grind pallets of US dollars that we sent them into some sort of paste and patch these holes up, no problem.
Most of the people labeled as "pro-Russian" aren't. I've been called that just because I blame NATO dick waving for instigating the war and see Ukraine as at least partially vassal for the GAE (though I find the possibility of the GAE losing influence to the nationalists currently aligned with them intriguing).
Continually arming Ukraine just made war more likely, because it made the option of invading now vs. invading 3 years from now more attractive for Russia.
Same reason the Germans started World War I: because they thought winning a war would be more difficult later on.
These Humvees were like the only Western weapons (or more exactly just vehicles, sent unarmed) in all the years before Putin, suddenly (after denials and lies, believed in Ukraine by the naively pacifist government) and for no reason at all, went full retard 5 months ago.
They were a part of the non-lethal package approved back in 2015, so you can your deadly Humvee peril for Russia 2024 wasn't quite there.
The neocon/neolib establishment supports Ukraine so some of that bled into right-wing circles, who then care about this by-proxy or act like they do. On the other hand almost nobody supports Russia unless they are Russian. (or edgy ethnat anons who fell for Putin's white savior psyop) You might find more pro-Russian propaganda on actual communist forums. Not because Russia is communist, but their traditional allies are communist regimes and people in those circles have obligatory support of Russia the way patriotic Americans must support Ukraine for some reason.
I bet there's lots of propaganda on T_D if you sort new, just due to the sheer volume of handshake posts.
You can discount his opinion all you want. The videos show that the bridge is wrecked and impassible.
Let's see Ukraine actually conduct a successful offensive when facing opposition.
They already have on small scales. They don't need to launch a Barbarossa, they only need to chip away at the Russians north of the Dnieper until the Russians decide that holding is untenable and withdraw just like they did from Kiev.
Putin would just mobilize and take over the whole thing.
If Putin could have mobilized, he would have done it early on once it became clear Russia could not win by ordinary means in March. He hasn't because he thinks he can't, because he knows if he tried, the Russian people would revolt and his government would collapse. Russia has already been scraping the barrel for manpower every way it can.
You can discount his opinion all you want. The videos show that the bridge is wrecked and impassible.
If that is the case, then it is so for now.
They don't need to launch a Barbarossa, they only need to chip away at the Russians north of the Dnieper until the Russians decide that holding is untenable and withdraw just like they did from Kiev.
Their decimated army is in no position to launch an offensive. Particularly when the Russians restart theirs.
If Putin could have mobilized, he would have done it early on once it became clear Russia could not win by ordinary means in March. He hasn't because he thinks he can't, because he knows if he tried, the Russian people would revolt and his government would collapse. Russia has already been scraping the barrel for manpower every way it can.
I'm sure the Ukrainians will give him the gift of doing more stupid things, like shelling Russian territory or attacking Crimea.
But I never said that it is just Ukraine that's shelling another country. Obviously, Mariupol was not shelled by Ukraine. The point is that Ukraine is not as pure as innocent as the corrupt Western countries will have you believe.
And everything between them (the Chernihiv and Sumy regions).
All the dead Russian soldiers left behind (some still being discovered, like these in Chernihiv: https://news.yahoo.com/two-russian-tanks-dead-crew-101700467.html - you can find uncensored pics of them after months in water, including weeks when the territory was under Russian control but their "friends" just left them right where they fell from a pontoon bridge) would be probably surprised at your opinion they didn't take "front towards the enemy" to the heart, even after having copied the Claymore mines as the MON-50.
Not sure what you mean. Surely you accept that the Russians abandon the northern fronts, so Ukraine taking it is not exactly evidence of its fighting genius.
If they had won, the capital would be theirs, as would be the second largest city too, and everything between them.
They somehow deluded themselves it would be more like the Germans in Austria, or the Warsaw Pact in Czechoslovakia, with some shock and awe fireworks. This would why they sent the Rosgvardia internal troops columns on Kharkiv in riot control trucks as a vanguard, and thought taking Kyiv would be like Kabul 1979. This might be also why the SVR chief was so nervous, he knew it's not going to be like that. It was never supposed to end like it did, and that's the Ukrainian achievement.
Applause for Ukraine. They managed to stay an American puppet rather than becoming a Russian one.
Whether or not you think that Russia was 'defeated' because it failed to achieve its bold objectives on those fronts, it's still true that Ukraine has not won any significant victory against opposition, which was my initial point.
There would be no Ukraine at all. Putin is very clear about that, I don't know why you don't listen to him when he tells you there was never any Ukraine.
I can't tell if the main structural elements are actually damaged, or if what he's circled is just a piece of fallen decking. If he's right about what that is, he's right that the bridge is out of commission for a long while.
Meanwhile, I've been hearing Very Knowledgeable Experts claim that the evil eastern Orcs will run out of food and ammo within 3 days since early March.
Later they report they will use a ferry crossing while the bridge is being repaired. Not sure why that would be needed with only minor damages.
That is obviously what Russia will have to do now to maintain any logistics over the river, but obviously ferries are much more of a bottleneck, slower, and with much lower capacity. Ferries will not be able to support a large number of troops.
The United States gave the UK ridiculously generous terms on all that WW2 aid, selling it to the UK at the end of the war with a 90% discount, and then giving it a far-below-market 2% loan to actually pay it off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan
Excuse me? WW2 in Europe wasn't America's fight. We didn't create and foster Hitler, all the euros did. Euros created him, created the conditions for his rise, appeased and empowered him, and the finally Stalin teamed up with him so he would launch WW2.
So don't pretend that Hitler was an "America problem" and we somehow didn't carry our weight. You are welcome for our generosity, in both treasure AND blood.
How can you purport to understand geopolitics when you make such comments? Obviously, WW2 was America's fight. If Hitler had been able to defeat the UK and the USSR, that would be a major world hegemon capable of challenging the US on its own turf.
Euros created him, created the conditions for his rise, appeased and empowered him
'Scuse me, remind me who refused to ratify the Anglo-American guarantees for French security?
So don't pretend that Hitler was an "America problem" and we somehow didn't carry our weight. You are welcome for our generosity, in both treasure AND blood.
You haven't done a thing for me. Yet I didn't. I just said that it was a great trade for you to give money and weapons to the UK and the USSR so that Brits and Russians would die rather than Americans. Smart politics, sure. But don't pretend that it was some sort of grand moral gesture.
WW2 was America's fight. If Hitler had been able to defeat the UK and the USSR, that would be a major world hegemon capable of challenging the US on its own turf.
No, it wasn't. Also fyi people who say "obviously" are admitting they know they're full of shit and can't back up their claims, that's why they say "obviously" to excuse themselves from having to consider it.
The US was not a "hegemon" before WW2, it was forced to become one as a result of WW2 because you euros couldn't behave and just make money like a good American. The US didn't give a shit if Hitler conquered Europe. Hitler posed no threat the the United States, hence why the American public was isolationist and would never have joined WW2 but for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
'Scuse me, remind me who refused to ratify the Anglo-American guarantees for French security?
I don't know what you're talking about. This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guarantee_(proposed) Yeah, the United States didn't agree to guarantee France, didn't owe France anything, and even if the US guaranteed France, Hitler would not have given the slightest shit. AND any guarantee would have been nullified by the fact that FRANCE was the aggressor, not Germany. Germany only invaded Poland. The UK and France DOWd Germany and it had no choice but to defend itself. Security guarantees never hold when the protected country starts the war.
You claim to wish that the US wasn't some sort of "hegemon" or "imperial power" but when that was unarguably true before WW2, and the US literally stayed out of everything and euros cluster fucked it, you still try to find fault with the US. It's like you have TDS, but against the US, so ADS.
No, it wasn't. Also fyi people who say "obviously" are admitting they know they're full of shit and can't back up their claims, that's why they say "obviously" to excuse themselves from having to consider it.
You claim to be a realist, but you are obviously unaware of the basic tenets of realism, which is that a country getting overmighty leads to a balancing coalition, and that a regional hegemon will try to prevent a hegemon from arising in another region for fear of what this will do to its own position.
because you euros couldn't behave
I'm not a euro, my parents were immigrants.
The US didn't give a shit if Hitler conquered Europe. Hitler posed no threat the the United States
This is beyond absurd. Obviously, a Hitler controlling Calais to Vladivostok would be the greatest power the world has ever known, and it would be a threat to the US and the entire world. Hell, a much smaller USSR was considered a major threat to the US.
Roosevelt's actions demonstrate that this was seen in the US as well: lend-lease for the UK, the Greer incident, and the determination that the survival of the USSR as vital to US national security.
And that was smart! I'm not even criticizing the US for it, like your dumb ass apparently thinks I am. I'm always arguing against people who say that FDR was a 'commie' or whatever, or that it was a mistake from the US POV to help the USSR. It was quite smart. The aid to the UK was just not based on moral considerations as you claimed.
Germany only invaded Poland. The UK and France DOWd Germany and it had no choice but to defend itself. Security guarantees never hold when the protected country starts the war.
And the UK and France were operating under the guarantees that they had provided to Poland, which they did in order to prevent Germany from becoming a European hegemon.
You claim to wish that the US wasn't some sort of "hegemon" or "imperial power" but when that was unarguably true before WW2, and the US literally stayed out of everything and euros cluster fucked it, you still try to find fault with the US. It's like you have TDS, but against the US, so ADS.
Only thing I'm saying is that the US didn't do anything out of any moral consideration, like you claimed. That's all. Why does that get you so cross? And you claim to be a realist!
The USSR was only a threat because the US changed to becoming internationalist as a result of WW2.
We were selling oil to the Japanese war machine while they were genociding Chinese, for years and years until the Japs threatened Singapore. We really didn't give a shit about the Nazis. The Nazis would have been happy to trade with the US.
How can you purport to understand geopolitics when you make such comments? Obviously, WW2 was America's fight. If Hitler had been able to defeat the UK and the USSR, that would be a major world hegemon capable of challenging the US on its own turf.
Yeah, I don't think that was the point. The US didn't create the situation with Hitler, it was just forced to act (in its own interests) because of the incompetence of Europe. It became the US's fight.
A better argument you could put forth is that the US wasn't great on the Hitler-enabling front anyway. He seemed to be a pretty popular figure here before he went off-script and started murdering people.
Yeah, I don't think that was the point. The US didn't create the situation with Hitler, it was just forced to act (in its own interests) because of the incompetence of Europe. It became the US's fight.
But that is exactly my point. That the US was acting in its own interests. That's what countries do.
A better argument you could put forth is that the US wasn't great on the Hitler-enabling front anyway. He seemed to be a pretty popular figure here before he went off-script and started murdering people.
Was he? Everything I've seen is that people disliked Hitler, they just did not support a war to stop him.
Why is it that we only get Ukrainian shills around here? I mean, obviously, some of us are pretty anti-Ukraine at this point, but it'd be nice to see some amusing pieces of actual pro-Russian propaganda for a change.
But in all seriousness, I'm sure that with this bridge out, Ukraine is on the cusp of winning, guys. Putin is surely quaking in his boots. Blowing up their own infrastructure is really showing the ol' Putler what's what.
Naturally after the war is over, they can grind pallets of US dollars that we sent them into some sort of paste and patch these holes up, no problem.
Most of the people labeled as "pro-Russian" aren't. I've been called that just because I blame NATO dick waving for instigating the war and see Ukraine as at least partially vassal for the GAE (though I find the possibility of the GAE losing influence to the nationalists currently aligned with them intriguing).
NATO didn't do enough to avert the war by arming Ukraine. They thought they can just negotiate with Putin and he's reasonable.
Continually arming Ukraine just made war more likely, because it made the option of invading now vs. invading 3 years from now more attractive for Russia.
Same reason the Germans started World War I: because they thought winning a war would be more difficult later on.
Yes avsolutely, if they just got some more of these Humvee cars they would be laying siege to Vladivostok by this time in 2025.
Not sure what your argument is...
These Humvees were like the only Western weapons (or more exactly just vehicles, sent unarmed) in all the years before Putin, suddenly (after denials and lies, believed in Ukraine by the naively pacifist government) and for no reason at all, went full retard 5 months ago.
They were a part of the non-lethal package approved back in 2015, so you can your deadly Humvee peril for Russia 2024 wasn't quite there.
Just like there was no "8 years of shelling".
LOL WUT? This board is overwhelmingly pro-Russia. The topic is at -7 downvotes right now and 0 upvotes other than my automatic one.
Literally every comment on the topic from Antonio and a number of others.
Is anyone who disagrees with you just posting 'pro-Russian propaganda'?
No, the board isn't "pro-Russia," we're just unimpressed by obvious shilling from Ukraine fanboys like you and SupremeReader.
Ukraine blew up their own bridge! Go Ukraine!
It's a fucking joke. You guys are always posting cringe shit like this.
I'd like to hear a different joke for a change, I simply suggested a delusional pro-Russian shill instead.
The neocon/neolib establishment supports Ukraine so some of that bled into right-wing circles, who then care about this by-proxy or act like they do. On the other hand almost nobody supports Russia unless they are Russian. (or edgy ethnat anons who fell for Putin's white savior psyop) You might find more pro-Russian propaganda on actual communist forums. Not because Russia is communist, but their traditional allies are communist regimes and people in those circles have obligatory support of Russia the way patriotic Americans must support Ukraine for some reason.
I bet there's lots of propaganda on T_D if you sort new, just due to the sheer volume of handshake posts.
Sorry, I don't take Ukraine bots seriously, even if they claim to be 'structural engineers'.
Let's see Ukraine actually conduct a successful offensive when facing opposition.
Won't happen, and if it did, Putin would just mobilize and take over the whole thing.
You can discount his opinion all you want. The videos show that the bridge is wrecked and impassible.
They already have on small scales. They don't need to launch a Barbarossa, they only need to chip away at the Russians north of the Dnieper until the Russians decide that holding is untenable and withdraw just like they did from Kiev.
If Putin could have mobilized, he would have done it early on once it became clear Russia could not win by ordinary means in March. He hasn't because he thinks he can't, because he knows if he tried, the Russian people would revolt and his government would collapse. Russia has already been scraping the barrel for manpower every way it can.
If that is the case, then it is so for now.
Their decimated army is in no position to launch an offensive. Particularly when the Russians restart theirs.
I'm sure the Ukrainians will give him the gift of doing more stupid things, like shelling Russian territory or attacking Crimea.
That's funny that you think only one country can be shelling another. Do you know that quote from Sir Bomber Harris?
(aka DJ Harris https://youtu.be/3_QY3xsLQNI)
I am perfectly aware of Butcher Harris.
But I never said that it is just Ukraine that's shelling another country. Obviously, Mariupol was not shelled by Ukraine. The point is that Ukraine is not as pure as innocent as the corrupt Western countries will have you believe.
"King" Arthur Harris' comment was on point. His German counterpart Hermann Meyer had also famously spoken on the subject, earlier.
I do believe it wasn't Field Marshal Meyer who started bombing cities.
Why is he a king now? Cause he killed more than 10,000?
Oh, and it's a fun coincidence that his Lancaster bombers were powered by the Merlin engines.
Because he was also (Sir) Arthur.
Not sure about him, but General MacArthur did identify with King Arthur (and apparently believed in his Scottish clan's legendary lineage).
They've liberated most of the north.
Anyway it's the second thread about this bridge, and I don't even think this is a place for threads like that.
Otherwise I'd be spamming them lol
(I do miss modding /r/combatfootage)
They have taken the region around Kiev and occupied the region around Kharkov, yes, but that's why I stated 'when facing opposition'.
(And it's still not me downvoting you. Most people here are pro-Russia who can't stand to hear any disagreement.)
And everything between them (the Chernihiv and Sumy regions).
All the dead Russian soldiers left behind (some still being discovered, like these in Chernihiv: https://news.yahoo.com/two-russian-tanks-dead-crew-101700467.html - you can find uncensored pics of them after months in water, including weeks when the territory was under Russian control but their "friends" just left them right where they fell from a pontoon bridge) would be probably surprised at your opinion they didn't take "front towards the enemy" to the heart, even after having copied the Claymore mines as the MON-50.
Not sure what you mean. Surely you accept that the Russians abandon the northern fronts, so Ukraine taking it is not exactly evidence of its fighting genius.
They retreated because they were defeated.
If they had won, the capital would be theirs, as would be the second largest city too, and everything between them.
They somehow deluded themselves it would be more like the Germans in Austria, or the Warsaw Pact in Czechoslovakia, with some shock and awe fireworks. This would why they sent the Rosgvardia internal troops columns on Kharkiv in riot control trucks as a vanguard, and thought taking Kyiv would be like Kabul 1979. This might be also why the SVR chief was so nervous, he knew it's not going to be like that. It was never supposed to end like it did, and that's the Ukrainian achievement.
Applause for Ukraine. They managed to stay an American puppet rather than becoming a Russian one.
Whether or not you think that Russia was 'defeated' because it failed to achieve its bold objectives on those fronts, it's still true that Ukraine has not won any significant victory against opposition, which was my initial point.
There would be no Ukraine at all. Putin is very clear about that, I don't know why you don't listen to him when he tells you there was never any Ukraine.
I can't tell if the main structural elements are actually damaged, or if what he's circled is just a piece of fallen decking. If he's right about what that is, he's right that the bridge is out of commission for a long while.
RuZZian logistics OBLITERATED by FACTS and LOGIC
Meanwhile, I've been hearing Very Knowledgeable Experts claim that the evil eastern Orcs will run out of food and ammo within 3 days since early March.
Video of the strikes. and another source
It turns out enough "potholes" can take a bridge out after all.
Hilarious Russian propaganda where they lie to claim that air defense intercepted the rockets and showing some random road, not the bridge, to claim there is no damage. Truly amateur level.
That is obviously what Russia will have to do now to maintain any logistics over the river, but obviously ferries are much more of a bottleneck, slower, and with much lower capacity. Ferries will not be able to support a large number of troops.
I know what a pontoon bridge is.
The bridge is 1366m long. Russia's big prefab pontoon bridge is only 382 meters for light loads. The Dnieper is a very large river. Making a pontoon bridge that large is not easy. The banks of the river also aren't simply drive-able.
Even if the Russians tried to make a pontoon bridge, it would just get blown up, too, even more easily.
dOeS aNyOnE aT aLl sTuDy mIlItArY lOgIsTiCs?? apparently not you.
Remind him of the Russian pontoon bridge that got bombed to hell and how they lost dozens of vehicles a few months ago over this.
Wow. If only the Russians could move troops into northern Ukraine through Belarus.
The United States gave the UK ridiculously generous terms on all that WW2 aid, selling it to the UK at the end of the war with a 90% discount, and then giving it a far-below-market 2% loan to actually pay it off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan
Nothing generous about giving money to others so they'll die instead of your men.
Excuse me? WW2 in Europe wasn't America's fight. We didn't create and foster Hitler, all the euros did. Euros created him, created the conditions for his rise, appeased and empowered him, and the finally Stalin teamed up with him so he would launch WW2.
So don't pretend that Hitler was an "America problem" and we somehow didn't carry our weight. You are welcome for our generosity, in both treasure AND blood.
How can you purport to understand geopolitics when you make such comments? Obviously, WW2 was America's fight. If Hitler had been able to defeat the UK and the USSR, that would be a major world hegemon capable of challenging the US on its own turf.
'Scuse me, remind me who refused to ratify the Anglo-American guarantees for French security?
You haven't done a thing for me. Yet I didn't. I just said that it was a great trade for you to give money and weapons to the UK and the USSR so that Brits and Russians would die rather than Americans. Smart politics, sure. But don't pretend that it was some sort of grand moral gesture.
No, it wasn't. Also fyi people who say "obviously" are admitting they know they're full of shit and can't back up their claims, that's why they say "obviously" to excuse themselves from having to consider it.
The US was not a "hegemon" before WW2, it was forced to become one as a result of WW2 because you euros couldn't behave and just make money like a good American. The US didn't give a shit if Hitler conquered Europe. Hitler posed no threat the the United States, hence why the American public was isolationist and would never have joined WW2 but for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I don't know what you're talking about. This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guarantee_(proposed) Yeah, the United States didn't agree to guarantee France, didn't owe France anything, and even if the US guaranteed France, Hitler would not have given the slightest shit. AND any guarantee would have been nullified by the fact that FRANCE was the aggressor, not Germany. Germany only invaded Poland. The UK and France DOWd Germany and it had no choice but to defend itself. Security guarantees never hold when the protected country starts the war.
You claim to wish that the US wasn't some sort of "hegemon" or "imperial power" but when that was unarguably true before WW2, and the US literally stayed out of everything and euros cluster fucked it, you still try to find fault with the US. It's like you have TDS, but against the US, so ADS.
You claim to be a realist, but you are obviously unaware of the basic tenets of realism, which is that a country getting overmighty leads to a balancing coalition, and that a regional hegemon will try to prevent a hegemon from arising in another region for fear of what this will do to its own position.
I'm not a euro, my parents were immigrants.
This is beyond absurd. Obviously, a Hitler controlling Calais to Vladivostok would be the greatest power the world has ever known, and it would be a threat to the US and the entire world. Hell, a much smaller USSR was considered a major threat to the US.
Roosevelt's actions demonstrate that this was seen in the US as well: lend-lease for the UK, the Greer incident, and the determination that the survival of the USSR as vital to US national security.
And that was smart! I'm not even criticizing the US for it, like your dumb ass apparently thinks I am. I'm always arguing against people who say that FDR was a 'commie' or whatever, or that it was a mistake from the US POV to help the USSR. It was quite smart. The aid to the UK was just not based on moral considerations as you claimed.
And the UK and France were operating under the guarantees that they had provided to Poland, which they did in order to prevent Germany from becoming a European hegemon.
Only thing I'm saying is that the US didn't do anything out of any moral consideration, like you claimed. That's all. Why does that get you so cross? And you claim to be a realist!
The USSR was only a threat because the US changed to becoming internationalist as a result of WW2.
We were selling oil to the Japanese war machine while they were genociding Chinese, for years and years until the Japs threatened Singapore. We really didn't give a shit about the Nazis. The Nazis would have been happy to trade with the US.
Yeah, I don't think that was the point. The US didn't create the situation with Hitler, it was just forced to act (in its own interests) because of the incompetence of Europe. It became the US's fight.
A better argument you could put forth is that the US wasn't great on the Hitler-enabling front anyway. He seemed to be a pretty popular figure here before he went off-script and started murdering people.
But that is exactly my point. That the US was acting in its own interests. That's what countries do.
Was he? Everything I've seen is that people disliked Hitler, they just did not support a war to stop him.