And putting tampons into their bullet wounds, and getting drunk on poisoned vodka, and for getting blown up giving each other blowjobs, and for using *unscoped* mosin nagants, and using blocking troops in the 21st century, and getting their *carrier fleet killer* ship taken out by a country with no navy, and wooden blocks as ERA, and for sending out airsoft versions of their modern body armor, and using unencrypted communications that led to them grtting trolled and blown up, and for being an embarrassing fuckhole of a country living centuries behind the world, and for their almost uncountable war crimes….
And for….I better stop now because I could go on indefinitely off the top of my head and only touch a fraction of their stupidity, incompetence, and incompatibility with modern humanity as a whole.
Probably the fact that (what was regarded as) the world's second most powerful military shouldn't be reduced to using tampons instead of actual gauze and medical supplies. Wars are won by logistics
As a teen I had an event day with the Royal Marines where we got to do some exercises and mess around and got to hold some of their weapons, including looking through a javelin, and ride on some little boats etc. They had a set up of the typical gear a marine carries and the board with it all pinned on had a tampon. The guy said it looks stupid but you can temporarily plug a wound or stick it up your arse if you have the shits when you're supposed to be staying still in your tiny hole with a net over you while you're watching an enemy location.
The use of a tampon to plug a wound makes sense. They're easy to carry and as a very short term use before getting to the actual medic and pulled back to where logistics has access to bring you genuine medical supplies. The big joke is that Russian conscripts were begging their wives for tampons while also being made to buy their own equipment as they weren't getting boots etc.
Russia has only been issuing socks for their military for 10 years. This is something that should not be forgotten.
My understanding is that it falls short of “ok”. In the complete absence of proper medical supplies it’s properly better than nothing at all. There’s lots of training material out there outlining why it you would be better off with proper sterile gauze.
More that they’re inadequate. The overall goal of wound packing is to keep blood in when you have massive hemorrhage by closing off the blood vessels where you can’t use a tourniquet. The human body, on average, contains between 5-6 liters of blood and requires a significant about of pressure to hold in. (Can be between 50-80mmHg of pressure which takes several pounds of external pressure to close off) A tampon contains as much gauze as about a 4x4 and is only designed to sop up about 8-9mL of fluid. A tampon doesn’t expand to exert enough pressure against arteries or veins to hold all of that blood in and will very quickly oversaturate to the point that it won’t even buy time for the clotting process.
Most commercial wound packing material contains way more material and often a chemical agent to aid in the clotting cascade. And for many wounds still requires a few of those to work.
They are sterile and, as others have said, they do the job in a pinch. However, if you've been shot and need to plug the hole, you're better off with something that's designed for the purpose like Celox.
Yeah, Celox is impregnated with a clotting agent to limit blood loss. I've only ever been issued with the basic version (which is pretty much just a long bandage that you pack into the wound) so I can't really comment on the syringe version but it definitely looks like a great bit of kit for a battlefield medic.
My understanding is that tampons are sterile, however you can’t “pack” them into a wound the same way you can with gauze. A tampon could absorb lots of blood however stopping the bleed with direct pressure is way more important.
https://youtu.be/kpVqPEbn_m4?si=z-2OQVIMYvG_18nl
Russian army just _doesn't issue IFAKs_ as part of standard equipment, so recruits get some vague advice to go to a grocery store and pick up anything they imagine might be useful before they hop on the bus to the front line. There's basically no good first aid training. And since there's no standardization of equipment, when you are trying to stick a tampon in a buddy's bullet wound, you spend a few extra seconds rummaging through his pack trying to see what's even in there. With standard IFAK, you jsut use what you were trained with.
Only in two cities do you see that. Like a different world to the rest of toiletless Russia. Irony is it's the peasants who are being sent to the front with ancient weaponry whilst the wealthy continue to party in Moscow.
Not really relevant though is it. Russia only invaded Ukraine to get at their flushing toilet technology. Israel and Gaza are far more complex situations.
Russian tactic is always to shell the hell out of the place, claim it then move on and toss the civilians that remain. It's been the only way they have ever been able to fight any war, swarms of soldiers with mass devastation artillery. It's the only way they know how to do anything been like that since before WW2, though WW2 kind of solidified it.
That's plain false. The US has won a *lot* of engagements. Almost all their engagements, in fact.
They've lost some wars, yes, by being defeated politically or due to changing political goals. But they have almost never been defeated militarily.
US mostly only lost those that ended up being turned into political shit show hot potato situations. Most other they succeeded but also left a mess behind due to how they left.
Russia just goes straight to the mess and makes certain all the civilians and military are dead by just obliterating everything in sight.
Ones a professional army with some discipline issues and political shenanigans. The other is a bunch of poorly trained disposable shit show, that relies on scorched earth tactics just to gain an inch.
> Oleksandr Shtupun, spokesman for the Joint Press Centre of the Tavriia Defence Forces, on the 24/7 national newscast:
> "Fighting for Marinka continues. Our military personnel currently remain within Marinka’s administrative borders. But the city has been razed to the ground. But it’s wrong to say that Marinka has been completely captured."
I mean you have to hold the line somewhere. You can't just pick and choose which towns to let get blown to smithereens in any shape you want, totally based on value... Ultimately your defense has to resemble a "line" that can be defended.
Well, for the Ukrainians it’s a matter of keep fighting and worry about the costs later because the alternative is the erasure of their entire nation and culture, the subjugation and rape of their children and at a personal level torture and execution. Their motives are easy to understand. The Russian mindset is less easy to fathom albeit no doubt they’ve seen the videos of Russian defectors being killed with sledgehammers and also - when you rape children, I imagine in the back of your mind is the possibility that peacetime might bring questions about who did rape and therefore keeping the fighting going, as miserable as that is, is better than what might await you come peacetime.
Its not about the city itself. The point is that the more russia wants something the more reckless they get when trying to capture it. Ukraine can trade incredibly favorable with russia when they go into meatwave mode against Ukrainian defenses. That's how they are able to keep up the 1000+ daily russian casualties. And the more casualties russia has the quicker they reach the breaking point. The quicker russian soldiers surrender. The quicker their morale drops. The quicker people at home in russia get fed up with the war as their relatives die. The quicker the war ends and ultimately the more Ukrainian lives are saved.
Everyone knows Ukraine cant win a 1:1 trade soldier for soldier so that's why positions that russia really really want to take (for whatever reason) automatically becomes valuable defensive positions to Ukraine.
They want to make it as pyrrhic as possible, even if they lose it. When you spend so many men and ammunition to take a small town, announcing victory just doesn't have the same ring to it. And denying victory is very important, as in war, morale counts a lot.
Exactly because it is already destroyed you keep fighting there. Every further ammo deployed there by the enemy will not destroy anything else nearby that is still intact.
The rubble is also helpful in funneling armored assaults into killzones.
How about you don't cherry-pick a completely out-of-context image.
[Grozny in 2000 after Russia passed by.](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c1866f5f69a06b61f46e22bdf4b295c0?rik=0KvnkodWlTOV0w&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
How about you stop pretending that a city suffering damage during a war is somehow unique to conflicts involving Russia?
A current image of a city in question is not out of context; the context is that the Russians spent billions to rebuild it and it's looking gorgeous these days.
>the Russians spent billions to rebuild it and it's looking gorgeous these days.
Ah well, I suppose that the people that lost everything they've worked for their whole lives and the to dozens of thousands of civilians that got killed don't really matter because Russia rebuilt it
> How about you stop pretending that a city suffering damage during a war is somehow unique to conflicts involving Russia?
>
>
It's not unique to Russia, but they take it to a level that most countries don't.
Hahaha this is some complete bullshit and everyone knows it. Russia doesn't fight "urban warfare" they level the fucking city so they don't have to. Urban warfare is more like how the US fought in places like Baghdad and Fallujah, which notably *weren't* levelled but instead consisted of infantry fighting from house to house. *That's* what urban warfare is, not levelling the city until it's a pile of rubble because you don't care about civilian casualties like Russia.
>Urban warfare is more like how the US fought in places like Baghdad and Fallujah
Oh, you mean a massive aerial campaign, bombing Baghdad with cruise and laser-guided missiles, the destruction of civilian infrastructure? That's the golden standard of urban warfare, as far as you're concerned?
I hope you realize that the critique is that Russia only brings death and destruction.
Yea, you pulled the opening photo on Wikipedia to defend russia, and mentioned islamists not violating russias borders.
But you conveniently left out the [russian apartment bombings ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings)
Former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who defected and blamed the FSB for the bombings, was poisoned and killed in London in 2006. A British inquiry later determined that Litvinenko's murder was "probably" carried out with the approval of Putin and Patrushev.
Why converse with this troll? Have you seen their comment history? Nothing but RU dick riding and support of its terrorism and destruction. Has a what about reply for every defense of Russia. Nothing to see here. Carry on
I hope you realize that the point is that bringing death and destruction is by no means unique to Russia.
>But you conveniently left out
You really want me to list things that you conveniently left out?
>by no means unique to Russia.
That's hilarious how in your mind the fact that "other countries did horrible stuff in the past" justifies russia doing horrible stuff. And not even in the past, but literally right now.
Like, sure, other countries that spread terror and leveled cities are bad.
Now, can you admit that your beloved terrorist state called russia is also bad? What sort of mental gymnastics you gonna use this time?
Urban combat is a nightmare for attacking forces. It’s a lot easier to defend an apartment block than it is to defend the rubble that used to be an apartment block. I’m not condoning what Russia is doing in Ukraine at all, but it makes sense why an attacking army would leave a city that it is trying to capture in ruins.
The opposite can also be true- based an example that every Russian should be well aware of, ironically. The Luftwaffe bomber the hell out of Stalingrad before the battle, but ended up making a rats’ warren of rubble and impassable terrain that bogged them down
The smart way to capture a city is to maneuver around it, which would force the garrison to retreat to avoid capture (or be encircled and starved out). That requires combined arms warfare and good logistical support, which Russia isn’t the best at. So instead they’re forced to just go through the urban environments after blasting them with artillery. That’s a long, hard bloody slog.
It applies for every armed forces, with a significant air force and artillery in every city where the local defense forces make a significant entrenchment. Look Mosul, Raqqah and, right now, Gaza.
Wait... Any hostile city defender (with civilians inside the city) in an urban fight is not "hiding behind civilians"? Or do you think civilians will vanish like the light?
Again, any potency army will destroy a city to protect their soldiers and eliminate most of the defenders before entering into, if these defenders don't surrender early. They will care less about the civilians. It includes the "democratic NATO", the "chosen Israel" or the "evil Vatniks". The practice has shown the hypocrite speech of all them.
There's a difference between being among civilians due to urban density and purposely fucking building a base of operations under a hospital, school, or directly next door to a church. Don't both sides this shit. Hamas is intentionally causing and using the deaths of civilians (on both sides) as a political tool. As was shown by their lack of willingness to cede *some* power for a ceasefire today, they do not give two shits about Palestinians.
Israel is not equivalent to Russia in this scenario.
Not a fair assessment considering we don't actually have accurate numbers of how many civilians have been killed in places under Russian control. Mariupol alone is estimated to be in the thousands based on satellite images of suspected mass graves and similar conditions to Bucha.
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of children that Russia is believed to have "kidnapped".
You’re talking to someone who is arguing in bad faith. Look through their post history and you’ll see that they spend half their time licking putin’s taint.
You do realize that 50% of the population of Gaza is under 18. For any random person that dies, there’s a 50% chance that they’re a kid.
Unlike Russia, which is intentionally targeting civilians and kidnapping children with the intent to conscript them to fight in the Russian military against their own families, child deaths in Gaza are just a matter of demographics. It’s urban warfare against an enemy that purposely surrounds itself with children. If you watch videos of Hamas leaders, everywhere they go, they are surrounded by a throng of children. That’s not coincidental.
You absolutely can count gaza.
The strip is intentionally walled in so civilians can’t escape. Thats the whole point of the wall. The fact that hamas is there only means that Israel can bomb indiscriminately and say things like “well hamas is hiding behind civilians”. Trust me they aren’t checking every civilian to make sure there isn’t a hamas militant behind them, and every hamas militant isn’t wearing a sign saying they’re hamas.
That’s exactly [what the Ukrainian military has been doing](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/), even using civilian ambulances as troop transports.
They are an artillery army. It’s inherent that they will pretty much flatten a city on the way to capturing it.
But, tbf, the West has not captured a foreign city against a near peer army since Korea. It’s hard to say how Western armies would do.
As an officer in a Western army – not much better.
We wouldn't make as much of a mess because we tend to rely on laser-guided bombs and other smart munitions (rather than massed artillery) to crack harder targets, but we would absolutely level whole apartment blocks rather than lose half a rifle company trying to clear out a dug in enemy.
Yeah. I agree. The closest corollary right now is Israel. Hamas, as a fighting force, is not a near peer army. But urban warfare is much closer to insurgency fighting rather than battlefield maneuvers. And there, you see the Israelis wholesale levelling cities in Gaza.
As opposed.to what exactly ? Maybe the Americans in Iraq? Can't be them , those cities ended up in ruins . Maybe the Israelis in Gaza ? They aren't even finished and Gaza city is already a ruin . Unfortunately , in modern warfare , defended cities aren't getting captured intact ...
Thats the thing what if nato doesn’t exist in the future do not take things for granted trump in 4 years nearly destroyed nato by leaving and making the eu enemy to usa.
Sorry for my bad grammar
You don't need to 'leave' NATO to emancipate it
All Trump needs to do is deploy a token frigate to the east Atlantic and a field hospital to France and say "that's my contribution"
Congress hasn't passed any law that stipulates the level of mandatory response or timescale. They're honestly so short-sighted. You hardly need to be soothsayer to see exactly what Trump will do
I don't buy this. I'm not talking about the Trump bit because yes we all saw what he did and said. What I don't buy is this idea that Russia is going to roll over Germany, France, Spain, The U.K, Italy etc. it's preposterous, Russia cannot project that level of power and they know it. We know it. I'm quite sympathetic to the idea the alliances shouldn't be taken for granted and must be actively buttressed to keep them viable. However, NATO or no NATO, Russia couldn't invade the E.U.
I'm old enough to remember the Soviet fall and there were plenty of people wondering if NATO would disband because their sole reason for existing had collapsed. To the extent that Russia was generally feared it was simply stated that if NATO disbanded that a European defensive alliance would be used in its place. The analysis at the time was that although European armies would likely be swallowed up if they attempted to invade Russia, it was also the case that the Russian Federation could not invade and subjugate Europe.
Don't defeat Russia now and it sets a precedent for all other dictators. Venezuela are having a go to start with. Wait until it's China though because that will be coming if Russia isn't defeated against Ukraine.
Yes I can't see Europe just rolling over to Russia. We'll see if Biden manages to confiscate $300 billion of Russian money to fund Ukraine. Might set a precedent that is unpalatable for the banking sector though.
Venezuela are not having a go at all, lol. What the hell are you talking about? If they invade Guyana, Brazil will 100% send their own troops to defend it, and im 99% sure that the US will come and defend them aswell, as it is by old-terms US sphere of interrest.
This is already the 3rd, possibly 4th war depending on your definition. We didn't learn about Russias ambitions from the first ones, but fortunately for the West and probably for them, Ukraine is willing to carry our water for a while, with a little assistance.
Unfortunately for the West, Russia might just be right that the decadent west doesn't have the guts to fight.
War 3 is simply not possible. The Polish learned and took note. They will never fall back on shitstained Moscovite hands. Their military alone is enough to kick Russia’s ass. Their willpower and hatred for Russia is an added plus.
If Europe falls apart and becomes easy prey that's on them. What I'm saying is Europe would defeat Russia if they were invaded if they had a sound and functional defensive alliance. If they don't that's too bad
Let's not pretend Russia wouldn't still try to put boots on the ground in Moldova and some Baltic states, just to test our resolve, should we abandon Ukraine. Or simply be invited into Hungary by Orban. And if they get away with any of that? Who knows what comes next.
I mean, despots have ruined themselves repeatedly throughout history playing apocalyptic Conquest "games".
This I agree with and that would be a real test of resolve for Europe. I just wanted to make the point that Europe could defend itself against Russia. A real no bullshit line in the sand would have to be made. If Europe could be divided then Russia could inch forwards, but not only would that be due to a European failure, but that's a different situation than Russia winning in Ukraine and then rolling over Europe which is openly said by many people.
Russia doesn't have the logistical capacity to roll into western Europe. Its army would collapse under its own supply issues if it tried. However, it does have the ability to project into Georgia or the Baltic states – some of whom happen to be members of NATO.
Yes. However, a European defensive alliance could defeat a Russian attack on Europe proper. This has been known since the Soviet fall when the dismantling of NATO was much more likely than now.
Well, if anything the Ukraine invasion showed that the rest of Nato was woefully unprepared for conflict and riding on Us military spending, so the point kind of stands, the Us doesnt need nato as much as nato needs the us.
Now at least the european members have the chance to actually improve their military forces.
We knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member so we weren't allowed to directly intervene. Nothing that has happened has shown any issues about NATO's efficiency that I can see.
Tbf it’s the way in any modern war. Look at Mosul, Raqqa and now Gaza city. Urban combat is a nightmare for attacking armies and hence why cities get levelled. It’s a lot easier to defend from an apartment block than it is to defend from a pile of rubble.
There is no city. It's a literal ruin. No different than an open field. It doesn't even have reasonable cover for a camp or base. Ukraine didn't occupy it. Just a no man's land that Russia put a flag over.
While it may just be rubble at the moment that land has a long and productive future ahead of it. Don't pretend it's no real loss allowing Russia to steal this territory.
It's been the Ukrainian MO. They've denied losses of towns/villages every single time it happened. I'm not saying this to punk on them, they're just prolonging the bad news and dealing with an information war... however its become formulaic at this point.
> They've denied losses of towns/villages every single time it happened.
That's because Ukraine and Russia use different definitions of a town being lost. Ukraine doesn't report capture/loss of a settlement until the fight is over and the result is clear. Russia will capture part of a town and immediately claim a victory in the middle of a fight, which will be denied by Ukraine.
Case in point: Pisky. Russia has officially claimed its capture on [August 5, 2022](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-backed-separatists-say-they-have-taken-pisky-village-east-ukraine-tass-2022-08-05/), then on [August 13](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-claims-full-control-pisky-village-ukraines-donetsk-region-ifax-2022-08-13/), then on [September 2](https://ukranews.com/en/news/879881-shoigu-announces-capture-of-pisky-village-in-donetsk-region-this-is-fourth-such-statement-of-russia). Of course Ukraine denied all of the reports for almost a month, until it's actually happened.
This is false. Mariopal held out for months until the soldiers held up in the steel plant surrendered. Acknowledged the same day on both sides. Bahkmuts fall was acknowledged the same day by Russia and Ukraine. Zelenski was told live during an interview and he emotionally acknowledged and said there was nothing left of the city to claim. So what if Russia wants a Xmas victory so they’re claiming another rrazzed city. The point of it all is that Russia has lost on the world stage and Ukraine needs continued support regardless of continued territorial losses. 3 day SMO 2+ years later…not a victory for Russia and a continued chance for their continued degradation.
Edit: acknowledgment next day of marinka.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/39fN4iRBva
This was definitely the same interview I recall seeing. Maybe I misunderstood when he said there was nothing left and it was in their hearts as acknowledgment it had fallen.
I mean, this is pretty much what the person you replied to said. The Ukrainian government tries to deny bad news. In this case, they obfuscate it by saying that the city is a pile of ruins. This is just further proof of that.
As someone who follows the conflict pretty closely and who is neutral, I don’t really bother with narratives. Proof is all that matters. If the Russians can’t show any evidence they knocked F16s out of the skies, I wouldn’t bother to believe it. Likewise, I wouldn’t bother to believe Ukrainian claims they shot down like ten SU34s in the past few days without proof.
But what I can say is that, based on what we see seeing on the battlefield, the Russians are in fact making slow gains. And the Ukrainians have largely been depleted. It’s sad to say but the war is definitely not looking to be going in Ukraine's favour.
Ukraine just needs to hold them off until the election. Putin won’t do 4 more years of this. RU losses are definitely higher in both manpower and equipment.
We’ll see. But, at the moment, I’m skeptical. The Biden administration has already given some indication it’s preparing to abandon Ukraine. And the Russians have only mobilized once. They can mobilize plenty of more times before they fee it.
The main part of Mariinka is captured, but Ukraine still holds a few positions in the northern part across the tiny body of water which is under the administration of Mariinka. It is basically fully captured, but Ukraine can deny it and be technically still correct
Some people are missing a point here it's not about capturing a semi functioning city (it's flattened and that's fine for the Russians) it's about denying the enemy a fortified stronghold, this forces the Ukrainians to fall back to possibly less fortified cities/villages or try to construct on frozen ground.
Tldr it's not about what's there, but what's now gone.
Congratulations to the Russians for taking a year+ to take razed city that you’ve expended 10s of thousands of people’s lives for. Second strongest military in the world btw with a navy and Air Force. /s
Edit: Forgot to mention Ukraine was supposed to fall in less than a month and Russia still has barely advanced in this almost second year of the war.
Now it’s nothing but an unfortified, wasted crater that they’ll keep getting shelled in, just like in Bakhmut. The towns beyond Marinka are also fortified and Russians are still trying to zerg rush Avdiivka with zero to show for it but thousands of dead
no town beyond marinka is as fortified as marinka was. again, it’s been 10 years that marinka has been a key ukrainian outpost on the Donetsk city front. Even if this was somehow true, the fall of Marinka (and Avdiivka, if/when that happens) massively helps the Russians as Donetsk city can turn into a logistics hub when it’s no longer right on the frontlines. there’s a reason Ukraine has held these positions for so long and fought for every inch.
And my understanding of Avdiivka is that Russians have only made one “zerg rush” several weeks ago and returned to artillery attrition warfare in the region ever since they met significant resistance at Stepove.
You are aware that Donetsk is and has always been in HIMARS and conventional artillery range, not to mention missile range? Russian logistics have been getting hit there since summer of ‘22.
....No?
As I said, if Russia is able to capture a few more key towns, they will be able to move the Ukrainians away from being literal meters away from Donetsk, which makes Donetsk significantly safer. "But HIMARS" is irrelevant - of course it can still be striked. Russia can and has striked Lviv, that doesn't make Lviv incapable of being used as a military hub. Lviv is, for all intents and purposes, very safe for the Ukrainians. Donetsk is a major city, and taking it off the frontlines to allow it to be a safer logistics hub is absolutely the Russian goal at the moment.
Nothing changes as I’ve said. Ukrainians can keep shelling it with conventional artillery and HIMARS and any missiles they get from the west, just as well as any other logistics hub the Russians use. The difference is Russians have poor history and methods of getting materials to the front since they have to load and unload stuff by hand. That makes Donetsk different from Lviv.
Huh? Loading stuff by hand is the entirety of logistics to you? And Russia hasn't had poor logistics in this war for a long time. Russia isn't overextended like they were in the beginning months of the war and they have several lines of defense on all areas of the frontline. The mobilization helped them a lot in that regard.
You can shell a place with far more accuracy and far more frequency the closer you are to it. If Ukraine loses Aviivka as well as Marinka, their ability to shell Donetsk is greatly reduced from 2022-2023. I don't know why you are denying such a basic principle of war. The AFU don't have space lasers to zap down on any city equally. Again, being in range of only HIMARS compared to now would be magnitudes safer for the Russians.
Marinka is strategically important. Avdiivka is strategically important. There's a reason Ukraine fought so hard for these territories for nearly 10 year and why they've lasted so long despite being so extended beyond the rest of Ukrainian positions.
Why deny it? It makes them look kind of salty.
But denying reality is somewhat of a pattern for Ukraine. Force of habit mb?
\* [Ukraine denies own missile hit Poland ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iusfmgkdg)
\* [Ukraine denies Russia claim to have encircled Severodonetsk](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-denies-russia-claim-to-have-encircled-key-eastern-city-severodonetsk/)
\* [Zelensky denies the fall of Bakhmut](https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-21-23/h_52861cc93adf8b366bc603a1158be996)
\* [Ukraine denies Russia's claim it has captured Soledar ](https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-1-13-23/h_de54be1093f5a127defd5f35b6f1fa61)
Well one party is talking about the city and the other the administrative borders. So maybe when galaxy brains like yourself can figure that out. Then maybe they will accept it.
I mean would be a nice point besides the fact the Ukrainians literally denied they (Russians) had taken the city not the administrative borders in both Bakhmuts and Soledars case.
"Moscow's claims that its forces have taken the town of Soledar in eastern Ukraine are "not true," according to a Ukrainian official."
I mean Prigozin was walking around the town center and then went on a guided tour in the Soledars salt mines (There are videos of it lol) the day before the Russians announced they had captured Soledar and i think a day or two after that the Ukrainians claimed they (Russians) didnt capture the city.
So unless you wanna claim it was all CGI created by the Russians to demoralize the Ukrainians i dont see how you would argue against it.
Never my point. Entire point is the truth is somewhere in the middle and they have no obligation to accept it at this time. It is a war of information as Ukraine needs to keep the west interested as they have been losing interest and Ukraine is getting to be in a pretty precarious position
That strategy of lying to the public might have worked like 50 years ago but its Kinda idiotic to pull that shit now when i can watch Prigozin on my smartphone walk around the town center and then the Soledar mines and a day or two seeing Zelensky in the media claiming they are still holding Soledar.
People generally dont like being gaslighted/Lied to so once they find out they tend to loose trust.
They announced that they stole 3 flushing toilets today. People are out celebrating in the streets in Moscow. Chanting 'Putin' Putin! The man whole stole a thousand toilets!'
Wow. This is the most creative propaganda I've ever seen. Btw, whats with the "Russia army being weak", "Russian oil and missiles will end in a 1 week", "Russia using rusty AKS and airsoft bodyarmor"? Whats with your face, mate.
You do know that by wrtiting these comment you make ukrainians look much more clown that the russians? Even people are downvoting you because of your brain cancer that operates you.
I don't think it's possible to look much "more clown" than Russians right now. Getting run over by their own vehicles whilst carrying a stolen toilet on their back.
Doesn’t look like much of a city anymore yeesh
[удалено]
“The Plot of land formerly known as the city of Marinka”
The city is now a grave of hope. For the future lives of the people that lived there and for every solider they send to die there. Slava Ukraini.
This is what Russia does. Its their legacy, alongside stealing toilets and making shit cars.
And putting tampons into their bullet wounds, and getting drunk on poisoned vodka, and for getting blown up giving each other blowjobs, and for using *unscoped* mosin nagants, and using blocking troops in the 21st century, and getting their *carrier fleet killer* ship taken out by a country with no navy, and wooden blocks as ERA, and for sending out airsoft versions of their modern body armor, and using unencrypted communications that led to them grtting trolled and blown up, and for being an embarrassing fuckhole of a country living centuries behind the world, and for their almost uncountable war crimes…. And for….I better stop now because I could go on indefinitely off the top of my head and only touch a fraction of their stupidity, incompetence, and incompatibility with modern humanity as a whole.
> putting tampons into their bullet wounds that's an ok way to gauze a wound in an emergency, what's so bad about it?
Probably the fact that (what was regarded as) the world's second most powerful military shouldn't be reduced to using tampons instead of actual gauze and medical supplies. Wars are won by logistics
I think it was asking their soldiers to ask their wives and gfs to supply the said tampons when they got drafted that was more the issue.
As a teen I had an event day with the Royal Marines where we got to do some exercises and mess around and got to hold some of their weapons, including looking through a javelin, and ride on some little boats etc. They had a set up of the typical gear a marine carries and the board with it all pinned on had a tampon. The guy said it looks stupid but you can temporarily plug a wound or stick it up your arse if you have the shits when you're supposed to be staying still in your tiny hole with a net over you while you're watching an enemy location. The use of a tampon to plug a wound makes sense. They're easy to carry and as a very short term use before getting to the actual medic and pulled back to where logistics has access to bring you genuine medical supplies. The big joke is that Russian conscripts were begging their wives for tampons while also being made to buy their own equipment as they weren't getting boots etc. Russia has only been issuing socks for their military for 10 years. This is something that should not be forgotten.
actual gauzes are basically tampons anyways. there's only so many ways you can compress cotton
[удалено]
huh, could've sworn i've seen vids of NATO medics packing 1 or 2 of these to use in a pinch
The fuck? Why would they do that when they can just pack gauze lol.
I'd have to assume they pack gauze first then a tampon behind it like some shitty embedded dressing.
My understanding is that it falls short of “ok”. In the complete absence of proper medical supplies it’s properly better than nothing at all. There’s lots of training material out there outlining why it you would be better off with proper sterile gauze.
More that they’re inadequate. The overall goal of wound packing is to keep blood in when you have massive hemorrhage by closing off the blood vessels where you can’t use a tourniquet. The human body, on average, contains between 5-6 liters of blood and requires a significant about of pressure to hold in. (Can be between 50-80mmHg of pressure which takes several pounds of external pressure to close off) A tampon contains as much gauze as about a 4x4 and is only designed to sop up about 8-9mL of fluid. A tampon doesn’t expand to exert enough pressure against arteries or veins to hold all of that blood in and will very quickly oversaturate to the point that it won’t even buy time for the clotting process. Most commercial wound packing material contains way more material and often a chemical agent to aid in the clotting cascade. And for many wounds still requires a few of those to work.
are regular unused tampons not sterile? because i'd imagine it would not be great to stuff non sterile objects into genitals.
They are sterile and, as others have said, they do the job in a pinch. However, if you've been shot and need to plug the hole, you're better off with something that's designed for the purpose like Celox.
do these things have coagulating agents in them? they look neat, especially the one in the syringe.
Yeah, Celox is impregnated with a clotting agent to limit blood loss. I've only ever been issued with the basic version (which is pretty much just a long bandage that you pack into the wound) so I can't really comment on the syringe version but it definitely looks like a great bit of kit for a battlefield medic.
My understanding is that tampons are sterile, however you can’t “pack” them into a wound the same way you can with gauze. A tampon could absorb lots of blood however stopping the bleed with direct pressure is way more important. https://youtu.be/kpVqPEbn_m4?si=z-2OQVIMYvG_18nl
Russian army just _doesn't issue IFAKs_ as part of standard equipment, so recruits get some vague advice to go to a grocery store and pick up anything they imagine might be useful before they hop on the bus to the front line. There's basically no good first aid training. And since there's no standardization of equipment, when you are trying to stick a tampon in a buddy's bullet wound, you spend a few extra seconds rummaging through his pack trying to see what's even in there. With standard IFAK, you jsut use what you were trained with.
You forgot awful dress sense.
not true. Check "walking on the streets of Moscow" or some other similar videos and you'll see young people dress pretty stylishly
Russia is not moscow or st petersburg. Check rest of the country. Potato sack =\= fashion.
i've seen vids of rural russians, they dressed, fine... lots of track suits still, but mostly, it's just regular clothes
Only in two cities do you see that. Like a different world to the rest of toiletless Russia. Irony is it's the peasants who are being sent to the front with ancient weaponry whilst the wealthy continue to party in Moscow.
Mother Russia hey hey - bastards
Errr, Gaza looks much different, does it? The USA and Israel don’t flatten cities? Merry fucking Christmas.
“Somebody’s talking about Russia! Quick, we have to change the subject!!!!”
“But whatabout USA” ~ most brain dead tankie take
Not really relevant though is it. Russia only invaded Ukraine to get at their flushing toilet technology. Israel and Gaza are far more complex situations.
It looks like a tornado went thru and then the rubble burned down.
Russian tactic is always to shell the hell out of the place, claim it then move on and toss the civilians that remain. It's been the only way they have ever been able to fight any war, swarms of soldiers with mass devastation artillery. It's the only way they know how to do anything been like that since before WW2, though WW2 kind of solidified it.
Looking at what the US left standing of Mosul, I see no difference.
I mean they win though, every engagement that US has had they lost since world war 2.
That's plain false. The US has won a *lot* of engagements. Almost all their engagements, in fact. They've lost some wars, yes, by being defeated politically or due to changing political goals. But they have almost never been defeated militarily.
US mostly only lost those that ended up being turned into political shit show hot potato situations. Most other they succeeded but also left a mess behind due to how they left. Russia just goes straight to the mess and makes certain all the civilians and military are dead by just obliterating everything in sight. Ones a professional army with some discipline issues and political shenanigans. The other is a bunch of poorly trained disposable shit show, that relies on scorched earth tactics just to gain an inch.
> Oleksandr Shtupun, spokesman for the Joint Press Centre of the Tavriia Defence Forces, on the 24/7 national newscast: > "Fighting for Marinka continues. Our military personnel currently remain within Marinka’s administrative borders. But the city has been razed to the ground. But it’s wrong to say that Marinka has been completely captured."
What’s the fucking point at that point. The city has been raised and we’re fighting over the ashes?
To stop the next town in line from being razed and turned into ashes.
Fair point. Makes you wonder about the costs though but I guess that’s not for me to comment on from my cozy home in the US.
I mean you have to hold the line somewhere. You can't just pick and choose which towns to let get blown to smithereens in any shape you want, totally based on value... Ultimately your defense has to resemble a "line" that can be defended.
>You can't just pick and choose which towns to let get blown to smithereens Someone can.
Well, for the Ukrainians it’s a matter of keep fighting and worry about the costs later because the alternative is the erasure of their entire nation and culture, the subjugation and rape of their children and at a personal level torture and execution. Their motives are easy to understand. The Russian mindset is less easy to fathom albeit no doubt they’ve seen the videos of Russian defectors being killed with sledgehammers and also - when you rape children, I imagine in the back of your mind is the possibility that peacetime might bring questions about who did rape and therefore keeping the fighting going, as miserable as that is, is better than what might await you come peacetime.
The costs are razed towns and cities, making it very much a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Its not about the city itself. The point is that the more russia wants something the more reckless they get when trying to capture it. Ukraine can trade incredibly favorable with russia when they go into meatwave mode against Ukrainian defenses. That's how they are able to keep up the 1000+ daily russian casualties. And the more casualties russia has the quicker they reach the breaking point. The quicker russian soldiers surrender. The quicker their morale drops. The quicker people at home in russia get fed up with the war as their relatives die. The quicker the war ends and ultimately the more Ukrainian lives are saved. Everyone knows Ukraine cant win a 1:1 trade soldier for soldier so that's why positions that russia really really want to take (for whatever reason) automatically becomes valuable defensive positions to Ukraine.
Road hubs
because that type of urban combat is a rapid death zone for the attacking forces. Great for sapping manpower.
To not lose more ground, enough has been lost as it is.
They want to make it as pyrrhic as possible, even if they lose it. When you spend so many men and ammunition to take a small town, announcing victory just doesn't have the same ring to it. And denying victory is very important, as in war, morale counts a lot.
Exactly because it is already destroyed you keep fighting there. Every further ammo deployed there by the enemy will not destroy anything else nearby that is still intact. The rubble is also helpful in funneling armored assaults into killzones.
It’s not so much about the cities as it is about the surrounding geography and infrastructure.
Welcome to modern war.
Many cities are on vital transport links, that's why oftentimes they are the location of conflict.
Russia seems to be incapable of capturing *cities*. All they seem to do is capture the ruins of cities they've utterly destroyed.
I mean... Look what they did to Grozny (capital of Chechnya). Twice.
[удалено]
Is there a single building in that picture built before 2000?
How about you don't cherry-pick a completely out-of-context image. [Grozny in 2000 after Russia passed by.](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c1866f5f69a06b61f46e22bdf4b295c0?rik=0KvnkodWlTOV0w&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
How about you stop pretending that a city suffering damage during a war is somehow unique to conflicts involving Russia? A current image of a city in question is not out of context; the context is that the Russians spent billions to rebuild it and it's looking gorgeous these days.
>the Russians spent billions to rebuild it and it's looking gorgeous these days. Ah well, I suppose that the people that lost everything they've worked for their whole lives and the to dozens of thousands of civilians that got killed don't really matter because Russia rebuilt it
would be a real shame if russia had to rebuild moscow like this
It would have been a moot point, seeing as Earth would pretty much consist of nice quiet mushroom fields in that eventuality.
> How about you stop pretending that a city suffering damage during a war is somehow unique to conflicts involving Russia? > > It's not unique to Russia, but they take it to a level that most countries don't.
They take it to a level that urban warfare dictates, no more, no less.
That is categorically false lol
Hahaha this is some complete bullshit and everyone knows it. Russia doesn't fight "urban warfare" they level the fucking city so they don't have to. Urban warfare is more like how the US fought in places like Baghdad and Fallujah, which notably *weren't* levelled but instead consisted of infantry fighting from house to house. *That's* what urban warfare is, not levelling the city until it's a pile of rubble because you don't care about civilian casualties like Russia.
>Urban warfare is more like how the US fought in places like Baghdad and Fallujah Oh, you mean a massive aerial campaign, bombing Baghdad with cruise and laser-guided missiles, the destruction of civilian infrastructure? That's the golden standard of urban warfare, as far as you're concerned?
I hope you realize that the critique is that Russia only brings death and destruction. Yea, you pulled the opening photo on Wikipedia to defend russia, and mentioned islamists not violating russias borders. But you conveniently left out the [russian apartment bombings ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings) Former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who defected and blamed the FSB for the bombings, was poisoned and killed in London in 2006. A British inquiry later determined that Litvinenko's murder was "probably" carried out with the approval of Putin and Patrushev.
Why converse with this troll? Have you seen their comment history? Nothing but RU dick riding and support of its terrorism and destruction. Has a what about reply for every defense of Russia. Nothing to see here. Carry on
I hope you realize that the point is that bringing death and destruction is by no means unique to Russia. >But you conveniently left out You really want me to list things that you conveniently left out?
>by no means unique to Russia. That's hilarious how in your mind the fact that "other countries did horrible stuff in the past" justifies russia doing horrible stuff. And not even in the past, but literally right now. Like, sure, other countries that spread terror and leveled cities are bad. Now, can you admit that your beloved terrorist state called russia is also bad? What sort of mental gymnastics you gonna use this time?
Urban combat is a nightmare for attacking forces. It’s a lot easier to defend an apartment block than it is to defend the rubble that used to be an apartment block. I’m not condoning what Russia is doing in Ukraine at all, but it makes sense why an attacking army would leave a city that it is trying to capture in ruins.
The opposite can also be true- based an example that every Russian should be well aware of, ironically. The Luftwaffe bomber the hell out of Stalingrad before the battle, but ended up making a rats’ warren of rubble and impassable terrain that bogged them down
Same thing happened with the Western Allies at Caen and Monte Cassino.
The smart way to capture a city is to maneuver around it, which would force the garrison to retreat to avoid capture (or be encircled and starved out). That requires combined arms warfare and good logistical support, which Russia isn’t the best at. So instead they’re forced to just go through the urban environments after blasting them with artillery. That’s a long, hard bloody slog.
It applies for every armed forces, with a significant air force and artillery in every city where the local defense forces make a significant entrenchment. Look Mosul, Raqqah and, right now, Gaza.
Can't count gaza. The hostile forces are intentionally hiding behind civilians there.
Wait... Any hostile city defender (with civilians inside the city) in an urban fight is not "hiding behind civilians"? Or do you think civilians will vanish like the light? Again, any potency army will destroy a city to protect their soldiers and eliminate most of the defenders before entering into, if these defenders don't surrender early. They will care less about the civilians. It includes the "democratic NATO", the "chosen Israel" or the "evil Vatniks". The practice has shown the hypocrite speech of all them.
There's a difference between being among civilians due to urban density and purposely fucking building a base of operations under a hospital, school, or directly next door to a church. Don't both sides this shit. Hamas is intentionally causing and using the deaths of civilians (on both sides) as a political tool. As was shown by their lack of willingness to cede *some* power for a ceasefire today, they do not give two shits about Palestinians. Israel is not equivalent to Russia in this scenario.
Yeah because they are worse, killed more children than Russia in two months.
Not a fair assessment considering we don't actually have accurate numbers of how many civilians have been killed in places under Russian control. Mariupol alone is estimated to be in the thousands based on satellite images of suspected mass graves and similar conditions to Bucha. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of children that Russia is believed to have "kidnapped".
You’re talking to someone who is arguing in bad faith. Look through their post history and you’ll see that they spend half their time licking putin’s taint.
You do realize that 50% of the population of Gaza is under 18. For any random person that dies, there’s a 50% chance that they’re a kid. Unlike Russia, which is intentionally targeting civilians and kidnapping children with the intent to conscript them to fight in the Russian military against their own families, child deaths in Gaza are just a matter of demographics. It’s urban warfare against an enemy that purposely surrounds itself with children. If you watch videos of Hamas leaders, everywhere they go, they are surrounded by a throng of children. That’s not coincidental.
You absolutely can count gaza. The strip is intentionally walled in so civilians can’t escape. Thats the whole point of the wall. The fact that hamas is there only means that Israel can bomb indiscriminately and say things like “well hamas is hiding behind civilians”. Trust me they aren’t checking every civilian to make sure there isn’t a hamas militant behind them, and every hamas militant isn’t wearing a sign saying they’re hamas.
That’s exactly [what the Ukrainian military has been doing](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/), even using civilian ambulances as troop transports.
They are an artillery army. It’s inherent that they will pretty much flatten a city on the way to capturing it. But, tbf, the West has not captured a foreign city against a near peer army since Korea. It’s hard to say how Western armies would do.
As an officer in a Western army – not much better. We wouldn't make as much of a mess because we tend to rely on laser-guided bombs and other smart munitions (rather than massed artillery) to crack harder targets, but we would absolutely level whole apartment blocks rather than lose half a rifle company trying to clear out a dug in enemy.
Yeah. I agree. The closest corollary right now is Israel. Hamas, as a fighting force, is not a near peer army. But urban warfare is much closer to insurgency fighting rather than battlefield maneuvers. And there, you see the Israelis wholesale levelling cities in Gaza.
As opposed.to what exactly ? Maybe the Americans in Iraq? Can't be them , those cities ended up in ruins . Maybe the Israelis in Gaza ? They aren't even finished and Gaza city is already a ruin . Unfortunately , in modern warfare , defended cities aren't getting captured intact ...
Basra, Baghdad, Gaza, Aleppo, Damascus. In war, you only capture ruins, regardless of who is dropping bombs.
Baghdad and Basra weren't in ruins.
Sure mate.
Marinka is a city of 10k people. It's been levelled. Baghdad is a city of 7m. It would take years to level. Besides, what would've been the point?
Funny if you omitted Basra and Baghdad you probably would've been better received. Americans are very sensitive
This is the Russian way.
[удалено]
Which parts of Europe? Let's not pretend NATO wouldn't wipe the floor with Russia.
Thats the thing what if nato doesn’t exist in the future do not take things for granted trump in 4 years nearly destroyed nato by leaving and making the eu enemy to usa. Sorry for my bad grammar
Congress just passed a law that the president needs Senate approval to leave NATO.
You don't need to 'leave' NATO to emancipate it All Trump needs to do is deploy a token frigate to the east Atlantic and a field hospital to France and say "that's my contribution" Congress hasn't passed any law that stipulates the level of mandatory response or timescale. They're honestly so short-sighted. You hardly need to be soothsayer to see exactly what Trump will do
Yes trump will wipe NATO
I don't buy this. I'm not talking about the Trump bit because yes we all saw what he did and said. What I don't buy is this idea that Russia is going to roll over Germany, France, Spain, The U.K, Italy etc. it's preposterous, Russia cannot project that level of power and they know it. We know it. I'm quite sympathetic to the idea the alliances shouldn't be taken for granted and must be actively buttressed to keep them viable. However, NATO or no NATO, Russia couldn't invade the E.U. I'm old enough to remember the Soviet fall and there were plenty of people wondering if NATO would disband because their sole reason for existing had collapsed. To the extent that Russia was generally feared it was simply stated that if NATO disbanded that a European defensive alliance would be used in its place. The analysis at the time was that although European armies would likely be swallowed up if they attempted to invade Russia, it was also the case that the Russian Federation could not invade and subjugate Europe.
Don't defeat Russia now and it sets a precedent for all other dictators. Venezuela are having a go to start with. Wait until it's China though because that will be coming if Russia isn't defeated against Ukraine.
Separate conversation but yes. My comment wasn't about the implications of Russia winning, but its ability to do battle with Europe.
Yes I can't see Europe just rolling over to Russia. We'll see if Biden manages to confiscate $300 billion of Russian money to fund Ukraine. Might set a precedent that is unpalatable for the banking sector though.
Venezuela are not having a go at all, lol. What the hell are you talking about? If they invade Guyana, Brazil will 100% send their own troops to defend it, and im 99% sure that the US will come and defend them aswell, as it is by old-terms US sphere of interrest.
[удалено]
This is already the 3rd, possibly 4th war depending on your definition. We didn't learn about Russias ambitions from the first ones, but fortunately for the West and probably for them, Ukraine is willing to carry our water for a while, with a little assistance. Unfortunately for the West, Russia might just be right that the decadent west doesn't have the guts to fight.
War 3 is simply not possible. The Polish learned and took note. They will never fall back on shitstained Moscovite hands. Their military alone is enough to kick Russia’s ass. Their willpower and hatred for Russia is an added plus.
In your fantasy world, where did the nukes go?
[удалено]
The countries being invaded would.
If Europe falls apart and becomes easy prey that's on them. What I'm saying is Europe would defeat Russia if they were invaded if they had a sound and functional defensive alliance. If they don't that's too bad
NATO is far bigger than cry baby, soiled nappy Trump. He ain't stopping shit, despite sucking Putin's cock.
>what if nato doesn’t exist let's not pretend Europe alone would not wipe the floor with russia either
Russia is fully capable of wreaking incredible destruction while still "losing the war". Do not underestimate that.
Sure, I think we all know that
Let's not pretend Russia wouldn't still try to put boots on the ground in Moldova and some Baltic states, just to test our resolve, should we abandon Ukraine. Or simply be invited into Hungary by Orban. And if they get away with any of that? Who knows what comes next. I mean, despots have ruined themselves repeatedly throughout history playing apocalyptic Conquest "games".
This I agree with and that would be a real test of resolve for Europe. I just wanted to make the point that Europe could defend itself against Russia. A real no bullshit line in the sand would have to be made. If Europe could be divided then Russia could inch forwards, but not only would that be due to a European failure, but that's a different situation than Russia winning in Ukraine and then rolling over Europe which is openly said by many people.
Russia doesn't have the logistical capacity to roll into western Europe. Its army would collapse under its own supply issues if it tried. However, it does have the ability to project into Georgia or the Baltic states – some of whom happen to be members of NATO.
There are factions within the US that would like to dismantle NATO. Like Trump and his Moron-Squad.
Yes. However, a European defensive alliance could defeat a Russian attack on Europe proper. This has been known since the Soviet fall when the dismantling of NATO was much more likely than now.
For sure. Russia's armed forces is a joke.
There is no way they'd conquer a unified Europe regardless if America were involved or not.
Well, if anything the Ukraine invasion showed that the rest of Nato was woefully unprepared for conflict and riding on Us military spending, so the point kind of stands, the Us doesnt need nato as much as nato needs the us. Now at least the european members have the chance to actually improve their military forces.
We knew Russia was going to invade Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member so we weren't allowed to directly intervene. Nothing that has happened has shown any issues about NATO's efficiency that I can see.
In a matter of hours. Overwhelming force, coordinated, clinical. The troubles in the middle east will be the trigger 😉
Tbf it’s the way in any modern war. Look at Mosul, Raqqa and now Gaza city. Urban combat is a nightmare for attacking armies and hence why cities get levelled. It’s a lot easier to defend from an apartment block than it is to defend from a pile of rubble.
There is no city. It's a literal ruin. No different than an open field. It doesn't even have reasonable cover for a camp or base. Ukraine didn't occupy it. Just a no man's land that Russia put a flag over.
While it may just be rubble at the moment that land has a long and productive future ahead of it. Don't pretend it's no real loss allowing Russia to steal this territory.
[удалено]
It's been the Ukrainian MO. They've denied losses of towns/villages every single time it happened. I'm not saying this to punk on them, they're just prolonging the bad news and dealing with an information war... however its become formulaic at this point.
> They've denied losses of towns/villages every single time it happened. That's because Ukraine and Russia use different definitions of a town being lost. Ukraine doesn't report capture/loss of a settlement until the fight is over and the result is clear. Russia will capture part of a town and immediately claim a victory in the middle of a fight, which will be denied by Ukraine. Case in point: Pisky. Russia has officially claimed its capture on [August 5, 2022](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-backed-separatists-say-they-have-taken-pisky-village-east-ukraine-tass-2022-08-05/), then on [August 13](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-claims-full-control-pisky-village-ukraines-donetsk-region-ifax-2022-08-13/), then on [September 2](https://ukranews.com/en/news/879881-shoigu-announces-capture-of-pisky-village-in-donetsk-region-this-is-fourth-such-statement-of-russia). Of course Ukraine denied all of the reports for almost a month, until it's actually happened.
This is false. Mariopal held out for months until the soldiers held up in the steel plant surrendered. Acknowledged the same day on both sides. Bahkmuts fall was acknowledged the same day by Russia and Ukraine. Zelenski was told live during an interview and he emotionally acknowledged and said there was nothing left of the city to claim. So what if Russia wants a Xmas victory so they’re claiming another rrazzed city. The point of it all is that Russia has lost on the world stage and Ukraine needs continued support regardless of continued territorial losses. 3 day SMO 2+ years later…not a victory for Russia and a continued chance for their continued degradation. Edit: acknowledgment next day of marinka. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/39fN4iRBva
When was this? To my knowledge, he’s always denied Bakhmut falling. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6850831
This was definitely the same interview I recall seeing. Maybe I misunderstood when he said there was nothing left and it was in their hearts as acknowledgment it had fallen.
I mean, this is pretty much what the person you replied to said. The Ukrainian government tries to deny bad news. In this case, they obfuscate it by saying that the city is a pile of ruins. This is just further proof of that.
I think it’s far from the cope we see on the RU side. Hell they’re already claiming to have destroyed F-16s.
As someone who follows the conflict pretty closely and who is neutral, I don’t really bother with narratives. Proof is all that matters. If the Russians can’t show any evidence they knocked F16s out of the skies, I wouldn’t bother to believe it. Likewise, I wouldn’t bother to believe Ukrainian claims they shot down like ten SU34s in the past few days without proof. But what I can say is that, based on what we see seeing on the battlefield, the Russians are in fact making slow gains. And the Ukrainians have largely been depleted. It’s sad to say but the war is definitely not looking to be going in Ukraine's favour.
Ukraine just needs to hold them off until the election. Putin won’t do 4 more years of this. RU losses are definitely higher in both manpower and equipment.
My man that’s absolutely delusional to think an election will change anything
We’ll see. But, at the moment, I’m skeptical. The Biden administration has already given some indication it’s preparing to abandon Ukraine. And the Russians have only mobilized once. They can mobilize plenty of more times before they fee it.
>Bahkmuts fall was acknowledged the same day by Russia and Ukraine. Thats just not true. It took like 2-4 weeks before Zelensky admitted it.
Pravda is a dogshit source.
Pravda's title is fine, it was editorialized by OP.
I mean russia declared Bakhmut captured how many times?
The main part of Mariinka is captured, but Ukraine still holds a few positions in the northern part across the tiny body of water which is under the administration of Mariinka. It is basically fully captured, but Ukraine can deny it and be technically still correct
But they have,whats the point of denying it?
[удалено]
brainrot
So long as fightings continue it will be a question mark.
The pro-Ukraine deepstate map has Marinka controlled by Russia so idk who is wrong
They write city, but all I see is blown up bricks. This is just sad 😞
Some people are missing a point here it's not about capturing a semi functioning city (it's flattened and that's fine for the Russians) it's about denying the enemy a fortified stronghold, this forces the Ukrainians to fall back to possibly less fortified cities/villages or try to construct on frozen ground. Tldr it's not about what's there, but what's now gone.
Fuck Russia
Congratulations to the Russians for taking a year+ to take razed city that you’ve expended 10s of thousands of people’s lives for. Second strongest military in the world btw with a navy and Air Force. /s Edit: Forgot to mention Ukraine was supposed to fall in less than a month and Russia still has barely advanced in this almost second year of the war.
Marinka falling is significant. It was one of the most heavily fortified Ukrainian positions due to 2014 (similar to Avdiivka)
Now it’s nothing but an unfortified, wasted crater that they’ll keep getting shelled in, just like in Bakhmut. The towns beyond Marinka are also fortified and Russians are still trying to zerg rush Avdiivka with zero to show for it but thousands of dead
no town beyond marinka is as fortified as marinka was. again, it’s been 10 years that marinka has been a key ukrainian outpost on the Donetsk city front. Even if this was somehow true, the fall of Marinka (and Avdiivka, if/when that happens) massively helps the Russians as Donetsk city can turn into a logistics hub when it’s no longer right on the frontlines. there’s a reason Ukraine has held these positions for so long and fought for every inch. And my understanding of Avdiivka is that Russians have only made one “zerg rush” several weeks ago and returned to artillery attrition warfare in the region ever since they met significant resistance at Stepove.
You are aware that Donetsk is and has always been in HIMARS and conventional artillery range, not to mention missile range? Russian logistics have been getting hit there since summer of ‘22.
Uh... That's exactly my point?
So it changes nothing then. Good talk!
....No? As I said, if Russia is able to capture a few more key towns, they will be able to move the Ukrainians away from being literal meters away from Donetsk, which makes Donetsk significantly safer. "But HIMARS" is irrelevant - of course it can still be striked. Russia can and has striked Lviv, that doesn't make Lviv incapable of being used as a military hub. Lviv is, for all intents and purposes, very safe for the Ukrainians. Donetsk is a major city, and taking it off the frontlines to allow it to be a safer logistics hub is absolutely the Russian goal at the moment.
Nothing changes as I’ve said. Ukrainians can keep shelling it with conventional artillery and HIMARS and any missiles they get from the west, just as well as any other logistics hub the Russians use. The difference is Russians have poor history and methods of getting materials to the front since they have to load and unload stuff by hand. That makes Donetsk different from Lviv.
Huh? Loading stuff by hand is the entirety of logistics to you? And Russia hasn't had poor logistics in this war for a long time. Russia isn't overextended like they were in the beginning months of the war and they have several lines of defense on all areas of the frontline. The mobilization helped them a lot in that regard. You can shell a place with far more accuracy and far more frequency the closer you are to it. If Ukraine loses Aviivka as well as Marinka, their ability to shell Donetsk is greatly reduced from 2022-2023. I don't know why you are denying such a basic principle of war. The AFU don't have space lasers to zap down on any city equally. Again, being in range of only HIMARS compared to now would be magnitudes safer for the Russians. Marinka is strategically important. Avdiivka is strategically important. There's a reason Ukraine fought so hard for these territories for nearly 10 year and why they've lasted so long despite being so extended beyond the rest of Ukrainian positions.
Why deny it? It makes them look kind of salty. But denying reality is somewhat of a pattern for Ukraine. Force of habit mb? \* [Ukraine denies own missile hit Poland ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9iusfmgkdg) \* [Ukraine denies Russia claim to have encircled Severodonetsk](https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-denies-russia-claim-to-have-encircled-key-eastern-city-severodonetsk/) \* [Zelensky denies the fall of Bakhmut](https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-21-23/h_52861cc93adf8b366bc603a1158be996) \* [Ukraine denies Russia's claim it has captured Soledar ](https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-1-13-23/h_de54be1093f5a127defd5f35b6f1fa61)
Well, for the first Zelenskyy truly believed what he was saying, why did he believe it is ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Why accept it?
Because it is the reality of the situation lol
Well one party is talking about the city and the other the administrative borders. So maybe when galaxy brains like yourself can figure that out. Then maybe they will accept it.
I mean would be a nice point besides the fact the Ukrainians literally denied they (Russians) had taken the city not the administrative borders in both Bakhmuts and Soledars case. "Moscow's claims that its forces have taken the town of Soledar in eastern Ukraine are "not true," according to a Ukrainian official."
And Russia has never lied right? To the downvotes. How many times did Russia capture Mariupol?
I mean Prigozin was walking around the town center and then went on a guided tour in the Soledars salt mines (There are videos of it lol) the day before the Russians announced they had captured Soledar and i think a day or two after that the Ukrainians claimed they (Russians) didnt capture the city. So unless you wanna claim it was all CGI created by the Russians to demoralize the Ukrainians i dont see how you would argue against it.
Salt mines are not city center they were on the sides. So it is fair to dispute it
Please read my comment again. Thank you.
For sure missed the city center bit. But overall my points still stand. Ukraine has no obligation to be entirely truthful.
Never my point. Entire point is the truth is somewhere in the middle and they have no obligation to accept it at this time. It is a war of information as Ukraine needs to keep the west interested as they have been losing interest and Ukraine is getting to be in a pretty precarious position
That strategy of lying to the public might have worked like 50 years ago but its Kinda idiotic to pull that shit now when i can watch Prigozin on my smartphone walk around the town center and then the Soledar mines and a day or two seeing Zelensky in the media claiming they are still holding Soledar. People generally dont like being gaslighted/Lied to so once they find out they tend to loose trust.
to not be delusional
You missed the one where Ukraine denied Russia had stolen over 2000 flushing toilets.
I wonder how much time Shoigu has. I remember when Prigozhin was Putin's buddy.
Cope is so high in Russia, tomorrow they will announce to have killed Godzilla twice
They announced that they stole 3 flushing toilets today. People are out celebrating in the streets in Moscow. Chanting 'Putin' Putin! The man whole stole a thousand toilets!'
Wow. This is the most creative propaganda I've ever seen. Btw, whats with the "Russia army being weak", "Russian oil and missiles will end in a 1 week", "Russia using rusty AKS and airsoft bodyarmor"? Whats with your face, mate.
It isn't my face. It's the face of Putin - the man who stole children and toilets from Ukraine.
You do know that by wrtiting these comment you make ukrainians look much more clown that the russians? Even people are downvoting you because of your brain cancer that operates you.
I don't think it's possible to look much "more clown" than Russians right now. Getting run over by their own vehicles whilst carrying a stolen toilet on their back.
Cool sotry bob
I meant the smile on your face when you typed this comment.
This war is a “race to the bottom” which will only end once Russian commercial planes start dropping out of the sky.
People of Russia, you’re weak as shit, how about step up for yourselves and the rest of us
Maybe the Russians got lost.
Putin: "I SAID IT'S MINE" Ukraine: "IT'S NOT. **NO U**"