Looks like the Ukrainian strike (or, if believe Russian propaganda like some posters, explosion due to Russian incompetence) against Novofedorivka airbase in Crimea destroyed at least a half-dozen Russian aircraft. *poof* couple hundred million dollars in Russian equipment gone forever with no way to replace it.
Looks like Russian incompetence in storing combustibles that close to aircraft. Looks like Russian air defenses are sh*t. Looks like Russia underestimated Ukraine (again) and paid for their arrogance.
Russia did not underestimate Ukraine. Russia massively underestimated the level of military support Ukraine would receive from NATA/USA, and Russia massively underestimated the economic sanctions the richest countries in the world would impose upon them.
Russia is now screwed for at least one generation.
Looks like the Ukrainian strike (or, if believe Russian propaganda like some posters, explosion due to Russian incompetence) against Novofedorivka airbase in Crimea destroyed at least a half-dozen Russian aircraft. *poof* couple hundred million dollars in Russian equipment gone forever with no way to replace it.
Looks like Russian incompetence in storing combustibles that close to aircraft. Looks like Russian air defenses are sh*t. Looks like Russia underestimated Ukraine (again) and paid for their arrogance.
I posted on this a little earlier with links to before/after satellite photos. It looks like closer to a dozen military aircraft were obliterated, with more likely damaged.
The smoking near ammunition story isn't fooling anyone - like the supposed accidental fire on the Moskva.
The satellite photos also show multiple spaced blast craters, seeming to "shooting down" the Russian explanation as well as Ukraine claims and theories of sabateurs or Ukraine special operations causing the damage.
Of the competing explanations, one favoured among experts is that American-supplied HARM missiles were used first to disrupt Russian air defences. About a week ago, the US acknowledged having secretly supplied these to Ukraine.
After, a volley of well-targeted HIMARS-launched ATACMS missiles did what they do best.
Over the last week, there have been multiple reports, unconfirmed, that Ukraine had been or was being imminently supplied with ATACMS on continued priviso they not be used to target inside Russia.
The Pentagon is stating that "weapons used [on the airbase attack] were not provided by the United States".
Note they did not state the weapons were not US-made.
Technically, HARMS missiles would not have been directed against the airbase, but it's air defence.
ATACMS equipment may have been supplied indirectly through a NATO partner, who then promptly supplied it to the Ukraine. This superficially allows the US to appear to distance itself from an attack it may well have helped plan and conduct.
With the Moskva sinking, a direct US role was discovered later, and this may pan out again in time.
The "proxy" war is increasingly being escalated and becoming hands on.
Biden has sent a paltry number of 20+ year old pieces of American equipment (HIMARS, etc) and they are wreaking havoc on Russian forces. Hilarious.
There is nothing "hilarious" about war.
If HIMARS launchers were 20 years old, it does not mean the equipment is ineffective and out of date, as seems suggested. NATO is using the same equipment and HIMARS is still being sold.
The AK-47 design is 75 years old and still seeing widespread use.
The MLRS platform itself is not so significant as the hundreds or thousands of varying HIMARS "smart" rockets supplied with them.
Logic works just fine here, thank you very much. You made a claim. In the very same post you said assertions need to be supported by evidence. When asked for evidence you provided none. So, I’m not sure how to say this more clearly. Provide evidence that Ukraine “likely” deployed butterfly mines in Donetsk, or admit you made an asinine claim for which you have zero evidence. I have not claimed either side is responsible or likely to be responsible. You have. Now put up or shut up and stop wasting everyone’s time.
If you weren't hiding your inane, bigoted posts with an unregistered handle, you'd be the poster boy for user blocking.
Biden has sent a paltry number of 20+ year old pieces of American equipment (HIMARS, etc) and they are wreaking havoc on Russian forces. Hilarious.
There is nothing "hilarious" about war.
If HIMARS launchers were 20 years old, it does not mean the equipment is ineffective and out of date, as seems suggested. NATO is using the same equipment and HIMARS is still being sold.
The AK-47 design is 75 years old and still seeing widespread use.
The MLRS platform itself is not so significant as the hundreds or thousands of varying HIMARS "smart" rockets supplied with them.
Seeing murderous aggressors put in their place and humiliated for decades is hilarious.
The US is effectively giving cast-off equipment to Ukraine and it's wiping the floor with the best Russia can offer. The American military is just so much more advanced.
This war has completely upended the world order... but in the opposite way Putin imagined.
The "proxy" war is increasingly being escalated and becoming hands on.
Biden and the Dems deserve incredible credit for fighting this proxy war with hand-me-down equipment and barely any attention. Deigning to supply Ukraine with arms and $$ when they remember to. In turn, Ukraine obliterates 'state of the art' Russian equipment.
Biden is basically playing a Civilization game on Settler difficultly. Log on every few days. Make a few turns when he can be bothered. Win easily.
If this is a Ukrainian strike about 40 KM inside Belarus, it is certainly evidence that Ukraine plans to hit Russia in places they thought were safe. Not any more. Let’s hope this doesn’t result in Belarus entering the war. U...
Logic works just fine here, thank you very much. You made a claim. In the very same post you said assertions need to be supported by evidence. When asked for evidence you provided none. So, I’m not sure how to say this more clearly. Provide evidence that Ukraine “likely” deployed butterfly mines in Donetsk, or admit you made an asinine claim for which you have zero evidence. I have not claimed either side is responsible or likely to be responsible. You have. Now put up or shut up and stop wasting everyone’s time.
If you weren't hiding your inane, bigoted posts with an unregistered handle, you'd be the poster boy for user blocking.
Don't go away mad.... just go away.
And you are the poster boy for posting asinine claims and then refusing to support them, but please do take your own advice.
Looks like the Ukrainian strike (or, if believe Russian propaganda like some posters, explosion due to Russian incompetence) against Novofedorivka airbase in Crimea destroyed at least a half-dozen Russian aircraft. *poof* couple hundred million dollars in Russian equipment gone forever with no way to replace it.
Looks like Russian incompetence in storing combustibles that close to aircraft. Looks like Russian air defenses are sh*t. Looks like Russia underestimated Ukraine (again) and paid for their arrogance.
I posted on this a little earlier with links to before/after satellite photos. It looks like closer to a dozen military aircraft were obliterated, with more likely damaged.
The smoking near ammunition story isn't fooling anyone - like the supposed accidental fire on the Moskva.
The satellite photos also show multiple spaced blast craters, seeming to "shooting down" the Russian explanation as well as Ukraine claims and theories of sabateurs or Ukraine special operations causing the damage.
Of the competing explanations, one favoured among experts is that American-supplied HARM missiles were used first to disrupt Russian air defences. About a week ago, the US acknowledged having secretly supplied these to Ukraine.
After, a volley of well-targeted HIMARS-launched ATACMS missiles did what they do best.
Over the last week, there have been multiple reports, unconfirmed, that Ukraine had been or was being imminently supplied with ATACMS on continued priviso they not be used to target inside Russia.
The Pentagon is stating that "weapons used [on the airbase attack] were not provided by the United States".
Note they did not state the weapons were not US-made.
Technically, HARMS missiles would not have been directed against the airbase, but it's air defence.
ATACMS equipment may have been supplied indirectly through a NATO partner, who then promptly supplied it to the Ukraine. This superficially allows the US to appear to distance itself from an attack it may well have helped plan and conduct.
With the Moskva sinking, a direct US role was discovered later, and this may pan out again in time.
The "proxy" war is increasingly being escalated and becoming hands on.
If HARM, a air-to-surface anti-radiation missile, is part of the equation, that implies Ukrainian aircraft penetrated deeply into Russian controlled Crimean airspace to launch an attack. If they can do that, it's a really bad look for Russian air defenses and ATACMS doesn't need to be part of the equation.
I agree with Donald Trump on Russia. We should let Putin and the Ruskies use their power to dominate Ukraine and any other pathetic little European nation, if they can. America always wins because we are strong. Why can't Russia do the same? The powerful survive and the weak perish. M.A.G.A
Political instability, trade disruptions, an energy crisis and soaring inflation are rendering the U.K. an "emerging market country," according to Saxo Bank.
I agree with Donald Trump on Russia. We should let Putin and the Ruskies use their power to dominate Ukraine and any other pathetic little European nation, if they can. America always wins because we are strong. Why can't Russia do the same? The powerful survive and the weak perish. M.A.G.A
it's an interesting question....the postwar order has, more or less, been 'defend all democracies large or small.'
but is that still the order of the day, post Ukraine and with Taiwan threatened by fascist China? Do we really want to go to war with ANOTHER nuclear power, this time over an island in Asia... just because the island is a democracy?
To be fair, without Taiwan's semiconductor industry the world will ground to a halt, so we're also defending our economy by defending Taiwan.
but still, the question needs to be asked if the game is still 'defend all democracies from tyrants.' Every generation needs to decide if that is still the guiding light of the West. (imperfectly applied, of course)
it's an interesting question....the postwar order has, more or less, been 'defend all democracies large or small.'
but is that still the order of the day, post Ukraine and with Taiwan threatened by fascist China? Do we really want to go to war with ANOTHER nuclear power, this time over an island in Asia... just because the island is a democracy?
To be fair, without Taiwan's semiconductor industry the world will ground to a halt, so we're also defending our economy by defending Taiwan.
but still, the question needs to be asked if the game is still 'defend all democracies from tyrants.' Every generation needs to decide if that is still the guiding light of the West. (imperfectly applied, of course)
Russia is a democracy - Putin always wins because he is popular (like my main man Trump). One democracy should be able to dominate another if it is more powerful, e.g. America in Vietnam. I think we should ally with Russia against those soft Europeans, like Trump said.
it's an interesting question....the postwar order has, more or less, been 'defend all democracies large or small.'
but is that still the order of the day, post Ukraine and with Taiwan threatened by fascist China? Do we really want to go to war with ANOTHER nuclear power, this time over an island in Asia... just because the island is a democracy?
To be fair, without Taiwan's semiconductor industry the world will ground to a halt, so we're also defending our economy by defending Taiwan.
but still, the question needs to be asked if the game is still 'defend all democracies from tyrants.' Every generation needs to decide if that is still the guiding light of the West. (imperfectly applied, of course)
Russia is a democracy - Putin always wins because he is popular (like my main man Trump). One democracy should be able to dominate another if it is more powerful, e.g. America in Vietnam. I think we should ally with Russia against those soft Europeans, like Trump said.
I hesitate to respond to such an idiotic post, but isn’t a more powerful democracy (US + Ukraine + NATO) dominating another “democracy” (Russia)? Why would the US ally with a third-world sh*thole like Russia, when they could ally with countries that aren’t Russia?
Latvia's parliament on Thursday designated Russia as a "state sponsor of terrorism" over the war in Ukraine and called on Western allies to impose more comprehensive sanctions on Moscow in order to bring an end to the conflic...
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/WW7C5J6CQFIY7NC7YZRJHYFHTI.jpg)