Monk
Premium Member
Ukraine.
- Thread starter Monk
- Start date
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Hi Monk
you're on-target
apparently the dam was already in bad shape
due the attempt on the part of some,
to destroy the dam earlier in this conflict
so,
perhaps deterioration is a partial explanation for this tragedy.
6 June 02:46 am, filming in TPN-1TOD of the moment of water spill through
the destroyed Kakhovskaya hydroelectric power station
AFTER 7 seconds, an explosion, but it looks more like a mine
or an 82 mm projectile that has arrived.
KAKHOVSKAYA 6 June 02:46am SATURN IN 12TH TROPICAL PERSPECTIVE
KAKHOVSKAYA 6 June 02:46am SIDEREAL PERSPECTIVE
However, as Raul Ilargi Meijer writes, twice last year (here and here)
Ukrainian officials discussed Kiev's plans to blow up the dam.
Kiev's Long-Term "..Last Resort.." Plan To Blow-Up The Kakhova Dam Exposed
a report from the Washington Post (WaPo) in late December
extends credence to the Kremlin’s version of events
Titled “..Inside the Ukrainian counteroffensive that shocked Putin and reshaped the war”,
its journalists quoted former commander of November’s Kherson Counteroffensive
Major General Andrey Kovalchuk who shockingly admitted to planning this war crime:
ZH: This clip purports to show the "test" firing last year described by WaPo
Footage of the strike on the Nova Kahrkovska dam last year
when the Ukrainians tested the resistance of the flooding gates
with American Himars missiles as stated by the article of the Washington Post.
His remark about how “the step remained a last resort” is pertinent to recall at present
considering that the first phase of Kiev’s NATO–backed counteroffensive completely failed on Monday
according to the Russian Ministry of Defence .
Just like Ukraine launched its proxy invasion of Russia in late May
to distract from its loss in the Battle of Artyomovsk,
so too might does it seem to have gone through with Kovalchuk’s planned war crime to distract from
this most recent embarrassment as well.
The abovementioned explanation isn’t as far-fetched as some might initially think either.
After all, one of complexity theory’s precepts is that initial conditions at the onset of non-linear processes
can disproportionately shape the outcome.
In this context, the first failed phase of Kiev’s counteroffensive risked ruining the entire campaign,
which could have prompted its planners to employ Kovalchuk’s “..last resort..”
in order to introduce an unexpected variable into the equation that might improve their odds
.
Last edited:
Cap
Well-known member
Putin: White hat or villain?
. We saw the effectiveness of Kyiv's air defenses when they rapidly fired 30 Patriot missiles in random directions & didn't hit a thing - no flashes in the sky :) After having this Patriot system destroyed :) it's highly unlikely their air defenses have suddenly become even more effective -...
www.astrologyweekly.com
What is your source for this?
You seem to be the only person on the planet who have heard such Russian statement.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
What do you think, Cap? Is there a huge Russian offensive in the near future?
That would cause huge casualties on both sides, WWII style.
That would cause huge casualties on both sides, WWII style.
Cap
Well-known member
Macgregor thinks Russians will go forward when they have everything prepared and under control, slowly and looking to minimize their casualties.
Up to now, they deliberately fought defensively which resulted in 1:10 casualty ratio in Russian favor.
Remember, they are not interested in territories beyond what's already part of Russia by referendums.
Their goal is to annihilate the enemy and perhaps install friendly puppet government.
david starling
Well-known member
Cap
Well-known member
Possibly.
The war is already decided. But "decided" and "over" are not the same. There is no way for Ukrainians to turn the situation in their favor. Postponement of surrender will just cost more lives.
But I think maybe NATO will "jump in".
david starling
Well-known member
Looking at this logically, we can assign blame for the damage to the Nordstream 2 pipeline on Ukraine, now that it's been revealed by Western sources that an influential contingent of the Ukrainian government had made plans to do just that. It can't be proven that they carried through with it themselves, but they could easily have gotten someone else to do it for them despite their denials.
In the same way, we can assign blame for the dam explosion on Russia. Early in the war, a number of influential Russians were calling for an attack on ALL vital infrastructure in Ukraine, INCLUDING dams, along with bridges and electric power stations. Among them was Alexey Ainpilogov, who argued forcefully that it would be necessary to avoid a protracted war. This was Russia's "Plan B" from the start, if the "invade, occupy, and defend the occupied territory" strategy caused it to drag on too long, and it had a lot of initial support.
Also, Russia benefits from the flooding, Ukraine does not. The dam is in Russian-occupied territory, and the breach and subsequent flooding have now made it impossible for Ukraine to launch a counter offensive in order to reclaim it.
Denials mean absolutely nothing when it comes to both the pipeline and the dam.
Previous planning and who benefits is what counts.
In the same way, we can assign blame for the dam explosion on Russia. Early in the war, a number of influential Russians were calling for an attack on ALL vital infrastructure in Ukraine, INCLUDING dams, along with bridges and electric power stations. Among them was Alexey Ainpilogov, who argued forcefully that it would be necessary to avoid a protracted war. This was Russia's "Plan B" from the start, if the "invade, occupy, and defend the occupied territory" strategy caused it to drag on too long, and it had a lot of initial support.
Also, Russia benefits from the flooding, Ukraine does not. The dam is in Russian-occupied territory, and the breach and subsequent flooding have now made it impossible for Ukraine to launch a counter offensive in order to reclaim it.
Denials mean absolutely nothing when it comes to both the pipeline and the dam.
Previous planning and who benefits is what counts.
david starling
Well-known member
Video: Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin 'certain' Russia will lose territory to Ukraine - CNN Video
Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of private military group Wagner, says he is certain Russia will soon face massive losses on the battlefield in the war against Ukraine.
www.cnn.com
MSN
www.msn.com
Last edited:
Cap
Well-known member
Scott Ritter, who just came back from Russia, makes a good point that Putin and Prigozhin are in excellent relations. We know that because otherwise Prigozhin wouldn't have been a relevant factor.Video: Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin 'certain' Russia will lose territory to Ukraine - CNN Video
Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of private military group Wagner, says he is certain Russia will soon face massive losses on the battlefield in the war against Ukraine.
MSN
www.msn.com
So, another trap for Ukrainians perhaps?
Last edited:
Cap
Well-known member
Ukraine benefits the most.
It's Russian territory and Russian dam.
Population endangered are ethnic Russians.
Russians had trenches and fortifications on the east side of Dnipro river that are ruined now.
Water supply to Crimea is disrupted, where Russians have population and naval base.
Ukrainians already stated that they want to destroy the dam and also targeted the dam last winter.
Theory that supposedly Russians destroyed the dam to stop Ukrainian offensive is ridiculous. It is only in western MSM that the war is reported as a win for Ukrainians so far. The reality is, Ukrainians have huge losses, shortage of manpower, equipment and ammo. Ukrainian troops are refusing orders to go forward because that means going into certain death. They have no air defenses anymore so they are exposed to long range missiles and their every move is being tracked from satellites.
What Russians have destroyed are bridges that connect Romania and Moldova to Ukraine as pointed out by Macgregor. The purpose of that was to rule out any possible NATO ground involvement from this direction. Odessa is the next target. As pointed out by Macgregor, so far Russians haven't destroyed bridges on Dnipro river, which would be logical step if one wants to prevent Ukrainian "offensive" because they are planning to use them later for their own offensive westwards.
Cap
Well-known member
Conventional war is very different engagement today than it was few decades ago. Modern air defenses are so advanced that it makes it impossible to effectively use air force anymore. Launching missiles, what was the main purpose of air force, is now being replaced by ground launched hypersonic missiles. The days of NATO "flyboys" are over.
The West is decades behind Russia and China. Assuming that they can master hypersonic missile technology in near future, they are still decades behind in infrastructure to produce enough quantities of missiles, not to mention stockpile.
What the West is doing, contemplating to engage Russia and possibly China is effectively a military suicide. Once the "flyboys" are taken out from the sky, and aircraft carriers sank, NATO will be a sitting duck because they lack effective air defenses to stop hypersonic missiles. And they have no hypersonic missiles of their own.
The West is decades behind Russia and China. Assuming that they can master hypersonic missile technology in near future, they are still decades behind in infrastructure to produce enough quantities of missiles, not to mention stockpile.
What the West is doing, contemplating to engage Russia and possibly China is effectively a military suicide. Once the "flyboys" are taken out from the sky, and aircraft carriers sank, NATO will be a sitting duck because they lack effective air defenses to stop hypersonic missiles. And they have no hypersonic missiles of their own.
david starling
Well-known member
Um, sounds unlikely. There's nothing at stake in Ukraine worth starting a major-powers war over.
And, don't underestimate the U.S. capacity for vicious combat by U.S. forces if it does come to that. Especially the Liberals! Macgregor is one of ours, so he's giving some good American military advice and insight regarding Russia's fight with the Ukrainian nationalists. Russia needs all the help it can get!
As far as Prigozhin is concerned, he's also sort of a "loose cannon", and like Macgregor, he says all kinds of things. Time will tell.
If Russia didn't blow the dam, it sure got caught with its pants down! That dam was under their control, and if they didn't blow it, and it's such a tragedy for them, then they totally blew it when it came to protecting "their" Russian-speaking Ukrainians!
Macgregor can be forgiven for predicting a quick, easy victory for Putin in Ukraine at the very start of the war. He, himself, has never gone into battle against determined Slavic soldiers.
Last edited:
Cap
Well-known member
US hegemony is at stake. While Russia is at forefront of emerging multipolar world, other (present and future) superpowers like China and India naturally support multipolarity too. Then you have majority of the world who are also tired of US hegemony but unable to do anything about it militarily and depend on Russia and China to "do the job" but also support multipolarity. The only ones in favor of US hegemony are their vassals, Canada, Australia and Western Europe. Western Europe is btw, greatly weakened and damaged by US but since they are powerless militarily they keep their mouth shut and do as they are told.
I wouldn't underestimate US intentions to keep the hegemony "at all costs". "All costs" would mean costs of their vassals in the first place. Poland seems to be eager to commit suicide and engage against Russia. others will follow when commanded by US. That's how we may end up in WW3 (if we are not in WW3 already).
NATO states may send troops to Ukraine – ex-chief
https://www.rt.com/news/577678-nato-troops-ukraine-rasmussen/
Last edited:
Cap
Well-known member
Hi Monk!
Here is another date to check out.
Reportedly, at a deleted video conference with Kyiv officials, Nuland stated that WWIII will effectively begin on July 11th stating that the US and its partners will fight as long as it takes – 16 years or more… The scheduled date was chosen to coincide with the NATO Summit, a one-day meeting in Lithuania.
https://tfiglobalnews.com/2023/05/31/11th-july-the-date-set-by-victoria-nuland-for-wwiii/
Here is another date to check out.
11th July: The date set by Victoria Nuland for WWIII
Reportedly, at a deleted video conference with Kyiv officials, Nuland stated that WWIII will effectively begin on July 11th stating that the US and its partners will fight as long as it takes – 16 years or more… The scheduled date was chosen to coincide with the NATO Summit, a one-day meeting in Lithuania.
https://tfiglobalnews.com/2023/05/31/11th-july-the-date-set-by-victoria-nuland-for-wwiii/
david starling
Well-known member
I'm glad that, when Hitler's Germany invaded Russia, that the Russians were able to drive them out, although it was at tragic cost to Russia.
Now, Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and I will be glad if the Ukrainians are able to drive the invaders out, although again, it is already at tragic cost to Ukraine.
Now, Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and I will be glad if the Ukrainians are able to drive the invaders out, although again, it is already at tragic cost to Ukraine.
Cap
Well-known member
You don't seem to understand that even before this war Russia was already at war with US. As long as Russia and US exist in current format they will be at war. Invading Ukraine was a defensive move. US is no different than Hitler but instead of conquering and holding territories directly, they install puppet governments and create vassal states and draw (steal and plunder) economic benefits which power your "way of life" in the US.
This is 2019 report from Rand Corporation on how to destroy Russia. US is doing everything by the book, mentioned here, but they screwed up with Ukraine, or Russia outplayed them. Either way, they are in panic mode right now and don't know what to do, because their grand plan is falling apart.
If this is common knowledge, imagine how much more Putin and Russian intelligence know.
How to Destroy Russia. 2019 Rand Corporation Report: “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia”
According to their analysts, Russia remains a powerful adversary for the United States in certain fundamental sectors. To handle this opposition, the USA and their allies will have to pursue a joint long-term strategy which exploits Russia’s vulnerabilities. So Rand analyses the various means with which to unbalance Russia, indicating for each the probabilities of success, the benefits, the cost, and the risks for the USA.
Rand analysts estimate that Russia’s greatest vulnerability is that of its economy, due to its heavy dependency on oil and gas exports. The income from these exports can be reduced by strengthening sanctions and increasing the energy exports of the United States. The goal is to oblige Europe to diminish its importation of Russian natural gas, and replace it by liquefied natural gas transported by sea from other countries.
Another way of destabilizing the Russian economy in the long run is to encourage the emigration of qualified personnel, particularly young Russians with a high level of education.
In the ideological and information sectors, it would be necessary to encourage internal contestation and at the same time, to undermine Russia’s image on the exterior, by excluding it from international forums and boycotting the international sporting events that it organizes.
In the geopolitical sector, arming Ukraine would enable the USA to exploit the central point of Russia’s exterior vulnerability, but this would have to be carefully calculated in order to hold Russia under pressure without slipping into a major conflict, which it would win.
In the military sector, the USA could enjoy high benefits, with low costs and risks, by increasing the number of land-based troops from the NATO countries working in an anti-Russian function.
The USA can enjoy high probabilities of success and high benefits, with moderate risks, especially by investing mainly in strategic bombers and long-range attack missiles directed against Russia.
Leaving the INF Treaty and deploying in Europe new intermediate-range nuclear missiles pointed at Russia would lead to high probabilities of success, but would also present high risks.
By calibrating each option to gain the desired effect – conclude the Rand analysts – Russia would end up by paying the hardest price in a confrontation, but the USA would also have to invest huge resources, which would therefore no longer be available for other objectives. This is also prior warning of a coming major increase in USA/NATO military spending, to the disadvantage of social budgets.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/rand-corp-how-destroy-russia/5678456
------
Now, they screwed up, because the report clearly says: "In the geopolitical sector, arming Ukraine would enable the USA to exploit the central point of Russia’s exterior vulnerability, but this would have to be carefully calculated in order to hold Russia under pressure without slipping into a major conflict, which it would win."
I'm afraid in response to this defeat, US will go "all in" and cause WW3.
david starling
Well-known member
Yeah, the U.S. armed its puppet government in Ukraine which then unilaterally attacked and invaded Russia just like Hitler, in order topple Putin and install a puppet government in Russia. THAT'S what this war is all about. 