Jump to content

Russian Army collapsing - the unsurprising failure of a police-state


Moonbox

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Quoted for truth!  The above post was Downvoted by Putin apologist @taxme but is now yet another accurate statement proven true despite the denials from the liars and propagandists on the right. When will Putin’s gullible “useful id1ots” face reality?

Getting downvoted by taxme is a sign of intelligence.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Quoted for truth!  The above post was Downvoted by Putin apologist @taxme but is now yet another accurate statement proven true despite the denials from the liars and propagandists on the right. When will Putin’s gullible “useful id1ots” face reality?

 

Thousands flee homes as collapse of dam is blamed on Russian forces

Thousands of people were forced to flee their homes and an ecological disaster was unleashed on southern Ukraine by the collapse of a major hydroelectric dam on the Dnipro River, which Kyiv said was blown up by Russia in a desperate attempt to ward off a Ukrainian counteroffensive.

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, declared the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam as an act of terrorism by Russian occupying forces, which have had control of the dam and the adjacent town since last year’s full-scale invasion.

 

Aerial footage showed the dam missing a broad mid-section with the reservoir behind, which had been at record levels, pouring over it and roaring downstream. Towns along its path were inundated, complete houses could be seen floating away in the waters, while countless pets and wild animals scrambled to survive….
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-blowing-up-nova-kakhovka-dam-near-kherson

The Russians claim the dam was blown up by HIMARS. Nobody has shown any proof of who done it though.

Another Nordsteam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The Russians claim the dam was blown up by HIMARS. Nobody has shown any proof of who done it though.

Another Nordsteam?

Russia’s decades-long track record of blatant and obvious lies pretty much guarantees that the truth is the opposite of anything they say. You can’t rely on their claims as as your only evidence.  Do you really think it’s a coincidence that back in October the Institute for the Study of War warned the international community that Russian was planning to blow this exact dam?  It also appears that the only way to destroy such a large dam is by undermining. Russia has held the dam for over a year. Are we to believe that Ukrainian miners have been tunnelling under their feet this whole time?  Here’s what was said in October:

 

October 21, 2022:  Russian forces will likely attempt to blow up the dam at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) to cover their withdrawal and to prevent Ukrainian forces from pursuing Russian forces deeper into Kherson Oblast. Russian forces will almost certainly blame Ukraine for the dam attack, as ISW has previously assessed.[11] Ukraine has no material interest in blowing the dam, which could flood 80 Ukrainian cities and displace hundreds of thousands of people while damaging Ukraine’s already-tenuous electricity supply. Russia, however, has every reason to attempt to provide cover to its retreating forces and to widen the Dnipro River, which Ukrainian forces would need to cross to continue their counteroffensive.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-21


 

October 20, 7:00pm ET

 

Russia is likely continuing to prepare for a false flag attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP). Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on October 20 that Russian forces mined the dam of the Kakhovka HPP and noted that the HPP holds over 18 million cubic meters of water, which would cause massive and rapid flooding of settlements along the Dnipro River, including Kherson City.[1] Zelensky emphasized that the flooding would impact hundreds of thousands of people.[2]  Russian sources, however, continued to accuse Ukrainian forces of shelling the Kakhovka HPP and have widely circulated graphics depicting the flood path in the event of a dam breach.[3] As ISW reported on October 19, Russian sources are likely setting information conditions for Russian forces to blow the dam after they withdraw from western Kherson Oblast and accuse Ukrainian forces of flooding the Dnipro River and surrounding settlements, partially in an attempt to cover their retreat further into eastern Kherson Oblast.[4] Continued Russian preparation for a false-flag attack on the Kakhovka HPP is also likely meant to distract from reports of Russian losses in Kherson Oblast.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-20
 

October 19, 8:00 pm ET

 

Russian forces are also setting information conditions to conduct a false-flag attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP). The Russian military may believe that breaching the dam could cover their retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River and prevent or delay Ukrainian advances across the river. Surovikin claimed on October 18 that he has received information that Kyiv intends to strike the dam at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP), which he alleged would cause destructive flooding in Kherson Oblast.[3] Saldo echoed this claim and warned that Ukrainian forces intend to strike dams upstream of Kherson City.[4] Russian authorities likely intend these warnings about a purported Ukrainian strike on the Kakhovka HPP to set information conditions for Russian forces to damage the dam and blame Ukraine for the subsequent damage and loss of life, all while using the resulting floods to cover their own retreat further south into Kherson Oblast. The Kremlin could attempt to leverage such a false-flag attack to overshadow the news of a third humiliating retreat for Russian forces, this time from western Kherson. Such an attack would also further the false Russian information operation portraying Ukraine as a terrorist state that deliberately targets civilians.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-19


 

And here is what they’re saying now:

June 6, 2023, 8:30 pm ET

Statements by US and European officials are generally consistent with ISW’s October 2022 forecast that the Russians have a greater and clearer interest in flooding the lower Dnipro despite the damage to their own prepared defensive positions and forces than the Ukrainians.[29] ISW previously assessed on October 21, 2022, that Ukraine has no material interest in blowing the dam and pointed out that 80 settlements would risk flooding.[30] Ukrainian officials confirmed on June 6, 2023, that 80 settlements risk flooding as a result of the damage.[31] ISW further assessed that by contrast, Russia may use the flooding to widen the Dnipro River and complicate Ukrainian counteroffensive attempts across the already-challenging water feature.[32] Russian sources have expressed intense and explicit concern over the possibility that Ukraine has been preparing to cross the river and counterattack into east bank Kherson Oblast.[33] Available footage from June 6, corroborated by claims made by Russian milbloggers, suggests that the flooding washed away Ukrainian positions near the Dnipro shoreline and forced Ukrainian formations to evacuate while under Russian artillery fire.[34] 

 

ISW cannot offer a definitive assessment of responsibility for the June 6 incident at this time but finds that the balance of evidence, reasoning, and rhetoric suggests that the Russians deliberately damaged the dam.

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-6-2023

 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Russia’s decades-long track record of blatant and obvious lies pretty much guarantees that the truth is the opposite of anything they say. You can’t rely on their claims as as your only evidence.  Do you really think it’s a coincidence that back in October the Institute for the Study of War warned the international community that Russian was planning to blow this exact dam?  It also appears that the only way to destroy such a large dam is by undermining. Russia has held the dam for over a year. Are we to believe that Ukrainian miners have been tunnelling under their feet this whole time?  Here’s what was said in October:

 

Russian forces will likely attempt to blow up the dam at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) to cover their withdrawal and to prevent Ukrainian forces from pursuing Russian forces deeper into Kherson Oblast. Russian forces will almost certainly blame Ukraine for the dam attack, as ISW has previously assessed.[11] Ukraine has no material interest in blowing the dam, which could flood 80 Ukrainian cities and displace hundreds of thousands of people while damaging Ukraine’s already-tenuous electricity supply. Russia, however, has every reason to attempt to provide cover to its retreating forces and to widen the Dnipro River, which Ukrainian forces would need to cross to continue their counteroffensive.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-21

 

And here is what they’re saying now:

 

Statements by US and European officials are generally consistent with ISW’s October 2022 forecast that the Russians have a greater and clearer interest in flooding the lower Dnipro despite the damage to their own prepared defensive positions and forces than the Ukrainians.[29] ISW previously assessed on October 21, 2022, that Ukraine has no material interest in blowing the dam and pointed out that 80 settlements would risk flooding.[30] Ukrainian officials confirmed on June 6, 2023, that 80 settlements risk flooding as a result of the damage.[31] ISW further assessed that by contrast, Russia may use the flooding to widen the Dnipro River and complicate Ukrainian counteroffensive attempts across the already-challenging water feature.[32] Russian sources have expressed intense and explicit concern over the possibility that Ukraine has been preparing to cross the river and counterattack into east bank Kherson Oblast.[33] Available footage from June 6, corroborated by claims made by Russian milbloggers, suggests that the flooding washed away Ukrainian positions near the Dnipro shoreline and forced Ukrainian formations to evacuate while under Russian artillery fire.[34] 

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-6-2023

 

Hmmm...well then I suppose we'll have to wait this out a spell till the reality surfaces.

Should take about as long as the NordStream thing did. Tell ya what...if it eventually turns out that one of the other did the deed, the one who's incorrect needs to freely admit they were wrong about this here in this thread...deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Hmmm...well then I suppose we'll have to wait this out a spell till the reality surfaces.

Should take about as long as the NordStream thing did. Tell ya what...if it eventually turns out that one of the other did the deed, the one who's incorrect needs to freely admit they were wrong about this here in this thread...deal?

Deal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Aristides said:

HIMARS doesn't carry a warhead anywhere near large enough to take out a concrete dam.

Operation Chastise.

I was going to say something about that, but figured it was going to be wasted on anyone whose knowledge of history and whose reasoning skills are poor enough to believe Russian propaganda.  
 

The Allies needed 9000 pound special-designed bombs that detonated underwater and had to be carried by converted super heavy bombers.  
 

The HIMARS payload is a precision weapon with ~200 pound warheads.  If you needed any proof that Russia is lying about this, it’s that they are claiming a weapon that can’t do the job, did the job.  
 

A dam is a reinforced concrete fortification meant to hold back millions of tons of water.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I was going to say something about that, but figured it was going to be wasted on anyone whose knowledge of history and whose reasoning skills are poor enough to believe Russian propaganda.  
 

The Allies needed 9000 pound special-designed bombs that detonated underwater and had to be carried by converted super heavy bombers.  
 

The HIMARS payload is a precision weapon with ~200 pound warheads.  If you needed any proof that Russia is lying about this, it’s that they are claiming a weapon that can’t do the job, did the job.  
 

A dam is a reinforced concrete fortification meant to hold back millions of tons of water.  

 

From what I understand so far, the dam is only partially damaged. The reservoir apparently provides fresh water to Crimea. Now why would the Russians want to cut off fresh water to Crimea?

Quote

After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Ukraine blocked a channel carrying water from Nova Kakhovka, triggering a water crisis on the peninsula.

Russian forces reopened the channel soon after last year's full-scale invasion. But without the dam, dropping water levels could once again jeopardise the flow of water along the channel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65818705

This is gonna get interesting as hell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

From what I understand so far, the dam is only partially damaged.

Oh gosh, partially damaged?

Collapse of critical Ukrainian dam sparks region-wide evacuations. Here's  what we know - CW Atlanta

That ain't partial my man.  That's a full and catastrophic failure.  

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The reservoir apparently provides fresh water to Crimea. Now why would the Russians want to cut off fresh water to Crimea?

They don't want to cut off water from Crimea.  They want to keep Ukrainian troops from crossing the river, and also the dam (which was also a road bridge).  Tucker didn't talk about that, did he?  

As for Ukraine, if they wanted to cut off fresh water to Crimea, they'd blow up the fresh water channel to Crimea, not the bridge/dam.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Oh gosh, partially damaged?

Collapse of critical Ukrainian dam sparks region-wide evacuations. Here's  what we know - CW Atlanta

That ain't partial my man.  That's a full and catastrophic failure.  

They don't want to cut off water from Crimea.  They want to keep Ukrainian troops from crossing the river, and also the dam (which was also a road bridge).  Tucker didn't talk about that, did he?  

As for Ukraine, if they wanted to cut off fresh water to Crimea, they'd blow up the fresh water channel to Crimea, not the bridge/dam.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

From what I understand so far, the dam is only partially damaged. The reservoir apparently provides fresh water to Crimea. Now why would the Russians want to cut off fresh water to Crimea?

Addressed in the links I provided.  Russians in Crimea dont rely on the reservoir. Think about it:  Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, you think Ukraine was generously supplying the Russian army with fresh water from its reservoir all those 8 or so years before Russia seized it?

 

Any claims that Russian forces would not blow the dam due to concerns for the water supply to Crimea are absurd. Crimea survived without access to the canal flowing from the Dnipro since Russia illegally invaded and annexed it in 2014 through the restoration of access following Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Russian officials have demonstrated their ability to indefinitely supply Crimea with water without access to the canal. 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-21

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Addressed in the links I provided.  Russians in Crimea dont rely on the reservoir. Think about it:  Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, you think Ukraine was generously supplying the Russian army with fresh water from its reservoir all those 8 or so years before Russia seized it?

 

Any claims that Russian forces would not blow the dam due to concerns for the water supply to Crimea are absurd. Crimea survived without access to the canal flowing from the Dnipro since Russia illegally invaded and annexed it in 2014 through the restoration of access following Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Russian officials have demonstrated their ability to indefinitely supply Crimea with water without access to the canal. 

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-21

So the BBC was lying?

Oh hang on here. This ISW you quote, is a toady think tank funded by the US military contractors. 

Lol...I think I'll just stick with the BBC version...thank you very much.

Edited by Nationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

So the BBC was lying?

No the BBC didn’t say what tou claim it said. Replay your clip and open your ears, the reporter CLEARLY says that it makes more sense that Russia blew the dam. The reporter does NOT say that blowing the dam cuts off Crimean fresh water. He says that is Russia’s claim. 
 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

This ISW you quote, is a toady think tank funded by the US military contractors

Unlike the Russian propagandists you trust who yell the truth for free?  LMAO

You realize what yo do right?  Anything Russia says you take at face value, assume to be true and repeat it here as fact even without evidence. Anything the west says you treat with suspicion and assume to be a lie and deny it…except when you want to distort their reporting like you just did with BBC. You do not treat both sides equal credibility and given Russias long history of lies and dishonesty they don’t even deserve that.

 

HILARIOUS that after all youe anti Mainstream Media and government funded media conspiracies, you want to suddenly trust BBC because you thought they said something convenient for you.  I guess that’s progress of sorts.  Unfortunately they didn’t say what you thought they said however   

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No the BBC didn’t say what tou claim it said. Replay your clip and open your ears, the reporter CLEARLY says that it makes more sense that Russia blew the dam. The reporter does NOT say that blowing the dam cuts off Crimean fresh water. He says that is Russia’s claim. 
 

Unlike the Russian propagandists you trust who yell the truth for free?  LMAO

You realize what yo do right?  Anything Russia says you take at face value, assume to be true and repeat it here as fact even without evidence. Anything the west says you treat with suspicion and assume to be a lie and deny it…except when you want to distort their reporting like you just did with BBC. You do not treat both sides equal credibility and given Russias long history of lies and dishonesty they don’t even deserve that.

 

HILARIOUS that after all youe anti Mainstream Media and government funded media conspiracies, you want to suddenly trust BBC because you thought they said something convenient for you.  I guess that’s progress of sorts.  Unfortunately they didn’t say what you thought they said however   

 

Ir makes no sense for Russia to have blown that dam. 

I have been lied to enough by the western msm that I no longer trust them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ir makes no sense for Russia to have blown that dam. 

I have been lied to enough by the western msm that I no longer trust them.

Sure it does. The flooded area and widened river will make it far more difficult for Ukrainian forces to conduct offensive operations in that area. Same reason German forces breached dykes in Holland to slow down the Allied advance in early 1945.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Ir makes no sense for Russia to have blown that dam. 

I have been lied to enough by the western msm that I no longer trust them.

BBC isn’t the western MSM?

You haven’t had enough of Russian state-controlled media lies yet?

Just because your ideology would rather not believe the facts reported in western society doesn’t mean that everyone in west is lying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Sure it does. The flooded area and widened river will make it far more difficult for Ukrainian forces to conduct offensive operations in that area. Same reason German forces breached dykes in Holland to slow down the Allied advance in early 1945.

We will see eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

BBC isn’t the western MSM?

You haven’t had enough of Russian state-controlled media lies yet?

Just because your ideology would rather not believe the facts reported in western society doesn’t mean that everyone in west is lying. 

Britain isn't part of the western civilization? Gee Beave...you sure do deny a lot of facts.

You can cheerlead all you like, while waving a report by  US military funded goonies, all you like. But sooner or later, just like "He's got 'em"...just like the surrender to terrorists...just like RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA...just like Nordstream...

The truth will win out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Britain isn't part of the western civilization? Gee Beave...you sure do deny a lot of facts.

Huh?  Are you on medication or something?  YOU gave BBC as a source for your claim then YOU proceeded to say you don’t trust western MSM so I AM ASKING YOU if you think BBC is not western MSM. Get it?

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You can cheerlead all you like, while waving a report by  US military funded goonies, all you like. But sooner or later, just like "He's got 'em"...just like the surrender to terrorists...just like RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA...just like Nordstream...

The truth will win out.

Ah the deranged mind of a conspiracy nut like you is a thing to behold bare like intelligible but quite a sight nonetheless. BTW you keep referencing Nordstream as if something has been proven to vindicate Russia and implicate someone else, which is not the case at all, it is still wide open 

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Utter Garbage 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Huh?  Are you on medication or something?  YOU gave BBC as a source for your claim then YOU proceeded to say you don’t trust western MSM so I AM ASKING YOU if you think BBC is not western MSM. Get it?

You get evidence from one of the westeren media outlets and...you don't believe it?

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Ah the deranged mind of a conspiracy nut like you is a thing to behold bare like intelligible but quite a sight nonetheless. BTW you keep referencing Nordstream as if something has been proven to vindicate Russia and implicate someone else, which is not the case at all, it is still wide open

Wide open...ya...right.

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Utter Garbage 

LOL...Beave...anything and anyone who crosses your narrow path is utter garbage. Hell I bet you'd claim utter garbage if Biden or AOC said something that crosses your preferred narrative. Now Milley is utter garbage.

How do you keep friends Beave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You get evidence from one of the westeren media outlets and...you don't believe it?

LOL they didn’t produce the “evidence” you claim. So to repeat myself yet again, BBC didn’t say what you claim it said. Fo back and warch

 

your clip again. Write down the complete sentence that the reporter said and post THE COMPLETE SENTENCE in this thread. VERBATIM. Deal?

 

37 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Wide open...ya...right.

 

Right

 

38 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Now Milley is utter garbage.

 

No, not Milley, the utter garbage is the pro-Russian conspiracy kook opinion piece you linked to. Did you even read the fringe sh1t piece you linked to? I bet not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...