Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[MOTORVATOR]

twister said:

....

Now look what you've done.

[anonymous-user]

gruffalo said:

I can see them using it to try and weazle out of the fact that they are guilty of multiple war crimes.

You're right but they'll do that anyway. They'll shell their own civilians in a heartbeat if they thought anyone would believe it was Ukraine.

[HM-2]

MOTORVATOR said:

They clearly do or they wouldn't have made the agreement to start with

I think the "agreement" is more for optics than anything else. The US is completely aware that as Ukraine depletes their stock of Warsaw Pact munitions they're going to be increasingly reliant on using Western ones, including against legitimate targets beyond their borders.

Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

[mondeoman]

Ayahuasca said:

mondeoman said:

RichFN2 said:

Would 1 HIMARS missile cause this much damage?

Hoping this doesn't turn out to be something supplied by NATO otherwise the situation could escalate even further
https://twitter.com/HerryNapit/status/154348287600...

https://twitter.com/IntelRepublic/status/154349857...

As before, who gives a sh$t. Whats the warmongering tt going to do, escalate to nukes?

He WILL NOT touch a NATO country at the moment, he's not stupid.

He's already targeting civilians in UKR, Belarus are already "involved" so are fair game, as is anything supplying the invading forces, whether in UKR or close to the border. He doesn't get to make the rules any more.

He who pays the piper makes the rules. The Americans said not to use the new missiles in Russia. Not the Russians. The Americans.

If they launched at Moscow (which they cant) or somewhere that wasn't clearly playing a major part in the unlawful/illegal invasion, Biden might get a bit pissed off. Military targets - fair game. Belgograd is a major staging and re-supply area, quite within the right of UKR to flatten it.

[EddieSteadyGo]

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored. Probably part of this relates to trying to minimise the black market for re-selling weapons, so whether that extends to which targets their weapons are being used against isn't clear, but they (US) don't seem disinterested in how their weapons are being used.

https://newstechok.com/pentagon-agency-wants-to-se...

[Steamer]

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored. Probably part of this relates to trying to minimise the black market for re-selling weapons, so whether that extends to which targets their weapons are being used against isn't clear, but they (US) don't seem disinterested in how their weapons are being used.

https://newstechok.com/pentagon-agency-wants-to-se...

That has crossed my mind too - they can't been too keen on the possibility of their 'tech' falling into the wrong hands

[andy_s]

BikeBikeBIke said:

HM-2 said:

Thankfully sensible folks are relatively immune to their whataboutist bks. Doesn't help they've been up to the same crap since the 1920s.

Saw a real neat summary:

Russian propaganda isn't intented to make you believe something. Russian propaganda is intended to make you believe nothing. If you believe nothing you'll do nothing.

(If I read it on this thread sorry!)

They *want* people to think everything is false, politicians lie, media lie.

I was going to reel off my usual schtick about hypernormalisation and the theatre of the Cardinal Gris when I noticed Surkov had been placed under house arrest in April for alleged [nothing is real] embezzlement in the Donbas region starting from 2014, which is maybe more interesting

But on your point:

"In contemporary Russia, unlike the old USSR or present-day North Korea, the stage is constantly changing: the country is a dictatorship in the morning, a democracy at lunch, an oligarchy by suppertime, while, backstage, oil companies are expropriated, journalists killed, billions siphoned away. Surkov is at the centre of the show, sponsoring nationalist skinheads one moment, backing human rights groups the next. It's a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it's indefinable."

—Peter Pomerantsev, Putin's Rasputin

[I think this is important in a more general sense when we start to fight over what is true or not in relation to Russian interference/propaganda related directly to the west; it's not 'sided', that doesn't matter, it's the fighting that is sought].

Edited by andy_s on Sunday 3rd July 13:56

[HM-2]

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored.

To be entirely fair, as per the link that's the view of one unnamed official rather than being a USDoD drive or policy at the moment.

[rxe]

Well, it seems they have whacked the big air base north west of Melitopol. Here it is from Google earth:



And here it is from NASA FIRMS:



..clearly on fire.

[EddieSteadyGo]

HM-2 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored.

To be entirely fair, as per the link that's the view of one unnamed official rather than being a USDoD drive or policy at the moment.

Whenever this stuff makes the press, it is usually deliberate. I don't believe it is a single individual in the Pentagon. Here is a different source pushing a similar idea, this time attributed to Jed Royal who seems to be a senior person in the Pentagon. If he is prepared to say this on the record, I suspect this is a widely held viewpoint with the leadership level of the Pentagon.

https://industry-update.com/the-pentagon-agency-wa...

[havoc]

MOTORVATOR said:

36 x 'small' 150lb rockets without any transport material would be a little more than 3500lb so shall we settle on two transit van loads in that video I posted as a throwaway.

Hmmm, junior school maths would suggest it'd actually be 5,400lb plus you WOULD want some decent packaging around them, so probably getting on for 7,000lb, or c.3t.

...which is about the limit of a 7.5t truck...or two LWB Sprinters could probably do it.

[/mathspedantry]

[BikeBikeBIke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored. Probably part of this relates to trying to minimise the black market for re-selling weapons, so whether that extends to which targets their weapons are being used against isn't clear, but they (US) don't seem disinterested in how their weapons are being used.

https://newstechok.com/pentagon-agency-wants-to-se...

I think US govt military monitors in fighting areas of Ukraine would go down like a bucket of cold sick in Moscow.

[isaldiri]

HM-2 said:

Your claim about "valid discussion points" is sort of contradicted by your inability/failure to respond to rebuttals or effectively defend your views.

When your reply is that everything that doesn't agree with your view is absolute nonsense and/or whataboutism, it doesn't make for very much 'valid discussion' either. Anyhow as whoozit did make the point yesterday, I'm happy to leave it as that.

[BikeBikeBIke]

rxe said:

Well, it seems they have whacked the big air base north west of Melitopol. Here it is from Google earth:



And here it is from NASA FIRMS:



..clearly on fire.

....and the crowd goes wild.

[HM-2]

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored.

To be entirely fair, as per the link that's the view of one unnamed official rather than being a USDoD drive or policy at the moment.

Whenever this stuff makes the press, it is usually deliberate. I don't believe it is a single individual in the Pentagon. Here is a different source pushing a similar idea, this time attributed to Jed Royal who seems to be a senior person in the Pentagon. If he is prepared to say this on the record, I suspect this is a widely held viewpoint with the leadership level of the Pentagon.

https://industry-update.com/the-pentagon-agency-wa...

Again, not meaning to take this on a pedantic tangent but this reads to me as "we would like to do more to in the way of end use monitoring including possibly inspectors on the ground in the future but we accept that's not realistic right now so if and when lawmakers decide on the approach we'll have to get creative about how we track this stuff".

[TEKNOPUG]

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored.

To be entirely fair, as per the link that's the view of one unnamed official rather than being a USDoD drive or policy at the moment.

Whenever this stuff makes the press, it is usually deliberate. I don't believe it is a single individual in the Pentagon. Here is a different source pushing a similar idea, this time attributed to Jed Royal who seems to be a senior person in the Pentagon. If he is prepared to say this on the record, I suspect this is a widely held viewpoint with the leadership level of the Pentagon.

https://industry-update.com/the-pentagon-agency-wa...

The inspectors are not interested in where the weapons are used; only that they don't fall into undesirable countries hands. So they check that the weapons are in storage and haven't been sold on. Or that the storage is secure and there is no risk of them being stolen. Or captured by Russian forces.

[MOTORVATOR]

Steamer said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

HM-2 said:

...
Put it this way; I don't think the US is going to exactly go actively looking for whether 100% of M30 rockets have fallen on the Ukrainian side of the border.

According to news reports earlier this week, Pentagon officials want to send US weapons monitors into Ukraine so they can check how the weapons they supply are being used and stored. Probably part of this relates to trying to minimise the black market for re-selling weapons, so whether that extends to which targets their weapons are being used against isn't clear, but they (US) don't seem disinterested in how their weapons are being used.

https://newstechok.com/pentagon-agency-wants-to-se...

That has crossed my mind too - they can't been too keen on the possibility of their 'tech' falling into the wrong hands

Wouldn't want someone reverse engineering their stuff.

Again...

https://wikimili.com/en/TOROS_artillery_rocket_sys...

[ruggedscotty]

MOTORVATOR said:

HM-2 said:

Ayahuasca said:

mondeoman said:

RichFN2 said:

Would 1 HIMARS missile cause this much damage?

Hoping this doesn't turn out to be something supplied by NATO otherwise the situation could escalate even further
https://twitter.com/HerryNapit/status/154348287600...

https://twitter.com/IntelRepublic/status/154349857...

As before, who gives a sh$t. Whats the warmongering tt going to do, escalate to nukes?

He WILL NOT touch a NATO country at the moment, he's not stupid.

He's already targeting civilians in UKR, Belarus are already "involved" so are fair game, as is anything supplying the invading forces, whether in UKR or close to the border. He doesn't get to make the rules any more.

He who pays the piper makes the rules. The Americans said not to use the new missiles in Russia. Not the Russians. The Americans.

I don't think the Americans actually care if their munitions are used against Russia proper.

They clearly do or they wouldn't have made the agreement to start with.

I think Ayahuasca and I may actually be saying the same thing.

America asked for that particular rocket / missile system not to be used directly on Russian territory and Ukraine will be abiding by that as they are neither stupid or have a need to do so?.

they have made this agreement for the sake of publicity.... we will give you them but dont you dare use them against russia...

yeah...

but well if the opportunity comes about and the ukrainians do use it against russia they cant blame the americans....

simple really no matter how its dressed up. america doesnt want to be seen to be attacking russia but actually they couldnt give a monkey;s

[HM-2]

isaldiri said:

HM-2 said:

Your claim about "valid discussion points" is sort of contradicted by your inability/failure to respond to rebuttals or effectively defend your views.

When your reply is that everything that doesn't agree with your view is absolute nonsense and/or whataboutism, it doesn't make for very much 'valid discussion' either.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out your obvious whataboutism.

If you're lamenting the lack of discourse coming from repeating "well there are lots of conflicts ongoing , why intervene here" (whilst ignoring the fundamental basics of international relations and geopolitics), and "the US will get bored, just you wait" (despite not being able to provide a single analogous example) whilst ignoring the overwhelming majority of rebuttals to these claims, you might want to stop repeating them ad nauseum and begin addressing responses?

[MOTORVATOR]

ruggedscotty said:

they have made this agreement for the sake of publicity.... we will give you them but dont you dare use them against russia...

yeah...

but well if the opportunity comes about and the ukrainians do use it against russia they cant blame the americans....

simple really no matter how its dressed up. america doesnt want to be seen to be attacking russia but actually they couldnt give a monkey;s

We do seem to have got a bit bogged down on this today.

I agree America probably couldn't really give a hoot if one of these falls on Putin's head itself except they have made an extremely quick agreement to share tech that would normally take a lot of negotiation and if they are going to be drawn further into the dispute they would want to be masters of their own destiny.

Nothing wrong with that and it's all pretty irrelevant anyway as Ukraine are not about to do anything their benefactors have asked them not to and there has been no suggestion otherwise apart from a few people connecting the wrong dots here?

Leave the speculative make it all up stories to Putin and his cronies.