Russian special military operation in Ukraine #61

Causing new power failures.

Zlatti71
@Zlatti_71
Today, for the first time, FAB bombs hit Zaporizhzhia. Three powerful impacts were reported, and the strikes are still ongoing.


Strikes on the Ukrainian Zaporizhia region, this is really something new. The vectors and directions of the front's activation are changing. We are looking closely to the south, it will probably start in a few days.
- Condottiero

Russian MoD reporting 2135 Ukrainian casualties over the past 24 hours including:

During the day, the losses of the Armed Forces amounted to more than 340 servicemen and six armored vehicles, including a tank, three infantry fighting vehicles, two armored combat vehicles, as well as eight artillery pieces, an electronic warfare station, a counter-battery radar and five vehicles. One soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was captured.

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12530292@egNews

JohninMK wrote:"There are no fortifications beyond Chasov Yar, Konstantinovka is not ready for defense. Kurakhovo is not either. Selidovo inside the city was completely unprepared for defense, now they are feverishly trying to do something." - Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine deputy Maryana Bezuglaya


Zlatti71
@Zlatti_71

Ukrainian Sources Growing Anxious Over Potential Russian Offensive from the East

A number of Ukrainian sources are beginning to express concern over the increasing likelihood of a Russian Armed Forces strike from the east.

Particularly worried are those who, since 2022, have touted the strength of Ukraine’s defensive lines, supposedly built to either stop or at least slow down advancing Russian forces. Their concerns are not unfounded.

Firstly, the main defensive strongholds in this region were positioned facing south, likely anticipating an offensive from that direction—where Ukraine had planned to push forward during last year's offensive. Secondly, if even part of the Russian attack unfolds as indicated by the projected red arrows on maps, there is a real possibility that the entire front line, stretching from the southern Donetsk sector nearly to the Dnipro River, could be rolled up.

- R23

Ork on the WAAAGHpath
@ZedSignBot

It means that eventually they'll have to retreat to the right bank of the Dnieper, but instead of doing so in a controlled manner while they still can, they'll have to do it in a succession of blood draining last stands.

This calls for a suicidal sally into Belgorod. Marvel as Mr HD and co call it a decisive show of Ukrainian guts, they won't be entirely wrong as a lot of Ukes probably will have massive abdominal wounds.

Mir wrote:

SeigHeil wrote:
and this is why I call you guys cheerleaders

Sure. Nothing wrong with rooting for someone or something. You and the other trolls happened to root for the other side. You are even allowed to propagate your filth over here. On the other side your governments are trying their level best to suppress the Russian news outlets - just so that they can control the narrative.

Soon you may even find yourself on the wrong side of an exploding cellphone - JUST BECAUSE the CIA did not like what you posted here!

Oh there is nothing wrong with that but when you behave like something that's what you are.

Russia cannot defeat NATO in a conventional war tho, and its delusional to think otherwise.

Arrow wrote:

How long will you masturbate to this? In the same way, NATO is not able to conventionally defeat and conquer Russia.

NATO could occupy russia, granted it would be costly, but we have the manpower and resources to do it. It would take a very very large army yes.

If you remove nukes from the equation, the Russians cannot defend their territory fully from just fucking ukraine, and you clowns think they can do that against NATO throwing the kitchen sink at em.

of course since they have all those Nukes, NATO will never occupy Russia and Russia will never occupy any NATO country.

You do realize genius one of the main reasons Russia went into Ukraine was to PREVENT it from joining NATO because it would then be to late and one of their demands has always been "Ukraine never joins NATO"

There is no world in which Russia is able to beat NATO in a conventional war and I am not insulting them for that, Replace the US with Rusia and would loose also because that's just waaaaay too much to fight against at once.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

NATO could occupy russia, granted it would be costly, but we have the manpower and resources to do it. It would take a very very large army yes.

If you remove nukes from the equation, the Russians cannot defend their territory fully from just fucking ukraine, and you clowns think they can do that against NATO throwing the kitchen sink at em.

of course since they have all those Nukes, NATO will never occupy Russia and Russia will never occupy any NATO country.

You do realize genius one of the main reasons Russia went into Ukraine was to PREVENT it from joining NATO because it would then be to late and one of their demands has always been "Ukraine never joins NATO"

There is no world in which Russia is able to beat NATO in a conventional war and I am not insulting them for that, Replace the US with Rusia and would loose also because that's just waaaaay too much to fight against at once.

NATO couldn't even occupy all of Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq you think they could take on a near peer rival? You in Nazilensky's cocaine stash again?

My gosh ! He said "manpower"... filthy misogyn piece of crap. How dare you ?! Lgbtq+×÷iuzvd santence you to eat 4 genital organs of persons born binary male with the ass.

I guess this satiric answer is enough to understand that the west has no more manpower for anything. Most of men in the west are either drugged, pussies or too lazy to fight a war.  They don't even have enough of men to have enough workers for important daylife jobs.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
NATO could occupy russia, granted it would be costly, but we have the manpower and resources to do it. It would take a very very large army yes.

If you remove nukes from the equation, the Russians cannot defend their territory fully from just fucking ukraine, and you clowns think they can do that against NATO throwing the kitchen sink at em.

There is no world in which Russia is able to beat NATO in a conventional war

I can't understand the basis on which you make your claims. Just off the top of my head these could cause problems, ignoring that the US would be fighting Russia in the Pacific as well as Europe.

First, where is this very large army going to be set up and wouldn't the Russians, unlike the Iraqis, take action to impend its creation?

Second, amongst the first casualties, on both sides, will be the GPS and other intel satellite networks upon which Western militaries in particular seem to rely more heavily.

Third, similar early casualties on both sides, if they venture close enough to be of use, will be AWACS/INTEL/tankers etc. that also seem to feature more in Western strategies.

Fourth, air power features heavily with both sides using it for offense and AD but the Russians use SAM systems to a far greater degree than NATO making airfield availability more important for NATO. Whilst NATO has a huge advantage in airframes significant numbers will need to be held back in an anti cruise missile function whilst there are probably less than 30 key military airfields in Western Europe.

A war fought today or especially in the future will be very different to those of the past. Are you letting your experience colour your views?

Isos wrote:My gosh ! He said "manpower"... filthy misogyn piece of crap. How dare you ?! Lgbtq+×÷iuzvd santence you to eat 4 genital organs of persons born binary male with the ass.

I guess this satiric answer is enough to understand that the west has no more manpower for anything. Most of men in the west are either drugged, pussies or too lazy to fight a war.  They don't even have enough of men to have enough workers for important daylife jobs.

Not too far off the mark here. The military is having major problems meeting recruitment numbers to the point some in DC are talking about the draft. Yeah, go figure people don't want to be rainbow warriors and nor do they want to spend more time fearing a court martial because some cuckoo felt like a man today, two times a lady tomorrow, and something in between the next than they do fearing getting shot.

"Salami tactics" bleats the salami analyst.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Arrow wrote:

How long will you masturbate to this? In the same way, NATO is not able to conventionally defeat and conquer Russia.

NATO could occupy russia, granted it would be costly, but we have the manpower and resources to do it. It would take a very very large army yes.

If you remove nukes from the equation, the Russians cannot defend their territory fully from just fucking ukraine, and you clowns think they can do that against NATO throwing the kitchen sink at em.

of course since they have all those Nukes, NATO will never occupy Russia and Russia will never occupy any NATO country.

You do realize genius one of the main reasons Russia went into Ukraine was to PREVENT it from joining NATO because it would then be to late and one of their demands has always been "Ukraine never joins NATO"

There is no world in which Russia is able to beat NATO in a conventional war and I am not insulting them for that, Replace the US with Rusia and would loose also because that's just waaaaay too much to fight against at once.

Lmao you playing Rambo again

NATO cannot fight Russia , neither can Ukraine

Ukraine has been depopulated, and is in free fall now that manpower came home to roost

Across the 1200km front they attacked a narrow sector 30km wide by 30km deep , and lost 10 thousand men and hundred of vehicles to hold some empty land

Along the rest of the front Russia easily collapses them

At the same time- Russia could easily raze Ukraine the same way Israel does to Gaza

For political reasons it does not do so

NATO does not have the manpower, vehicles, or ammunition to fight for as long as Ukraine has

Ukraine lasted for 3 years with Soviet equipment - and it is precisely due to that equipment being destroyed that the frontline is crumbling

NATO does not have the military resources to sustain Ukraine

NATO does not have the military resource to fight Russia

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

and this is why I call you guys cheerleaders

Lmao cope

The frontline is collapsing and you are crying for your hohols

Arkanghelsk wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

and this is why I call you guys cheerleaders

Lmao cope

The frontline is collapsing and you are crying for your hohols

What? You're taking that comment out of context and brazenly lying.

I am sorrie did you wittle feelings get hurt because I pointed out the obvious.

I said that in response to you cheerleaders trying to say Russia could defeat NATO conventional.

It has nothing to do with Russia/ukriane.

I am not for ukriane or for Russia here, I have been critical to both and have made my position clear.

But you got your heads so far up your asses you immediately take rightful criticisms of the Russians as a Pro ukriane thing.

So when I criticize ukriane does that make me pro Russian?.

It never fails to make me chuckle on how short sighted and narrow minded you are Ark

@Vulcan

First off you clueless individual. We took over the main population centers right away, we chased the Taliban into the mountains with ease, we didn't want to occupy every single inch, we didn't need to.

You are attempting a cheap bash tactic, while omitting the facts of why we didn't.

@Iso

I know your anti western propaganda makes that claim but it's complete horse shit.

The stuff you are quoting is highly hated here, you can look.

You are hyper focusing on the vast minority of some clowns to say everyone is like that.

Fact is the LGBT shit doesn't even account for two percent of the pop. They are so vocal because everyone hates them here

You think we are lazy? Try us then bud.

Next time you use the weak propaganda claims come at me with Better facts

@John

Why would we fight them in the Pacific?

1. They would try but they would be getting pummels by air power and cruise missiles daily.

2. It's a myth our weapons need sate to work, a couple do sure but a vast most of it doesn't.

It would also take a Great deal of time to strike the sates and Russia wouldn't be allowed to openly do this for long they also have very limited means of that.

They might get some but they will never get the all.

3. We don't need awacs conduct operations even the they have the range to stay far away and still collect data, we have many other meana of doing this

4. Russian AD Will be hunted down and eliminated again, their AD cannot stop Ukraine fully, it stands no chance against NATO it would take a bit but would be done and these complex launchers are hard to replace not to mention the factories will be targeted right away.

Airfields can be built in short order.

Russia doesn't win this, it's out produced, out manned.

Force NATO into wartime production and are how fast stuff flys off the lines, we have all the resources needed despite fanboys saying otherwise.

The Russians only Chance at winning would be to turtle up and hopefully for them inflict millions upon millions of losses while somehow not having their own forces destroyed

Then hope the public turns on the war.

A Russian/NATO war comes down to attrition and that's a war NATO wins, sure losses Will be immense for both sides but the Russians could not sustain the losses, NATO could

Seig, no one gives a shit about your opinion already. Everyone knows you are full of shit and honestly, you flooding with continuous posts is getting to be real annoying even with you on ignore. You don't contribute and you dont even give any logical comments. So why do you even bother being here?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Vulcan

First off you clueless individual. We took over the main population centers right away, we chased the Taliban into the mountains with ease, we didn't want to occupy every single inch, we didn't need to.

You are attempting a cheap bash tactic, while omitting the facts of why we didn't.

With all the projection in this post, permit me to ask, do you own an IMAX?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@John

Why would we fight them in the Pacific?

1. They would try but they would be getting pummels by air power and cruise missiles daily.

2. It's a myth our weapons need sate to work, a couple do sure but a vast most of it doesn't.

It would also take a Great deal of time to strike the sates and Russia wouldn't be allowed to openly do this for long they also have very limited means of that.

They might get some but they will never get the all.

3. We don't need awacs conduct operations even the they have the range to stay far away and still collect data, we have many other meana of doing this

4. Russian AD Will be hunted down and eliminated again, their AD cannot stop Ukraine fully, it stands no chance against NATO it would take a bit but would be done and these complex launchers are hard to replace not to mention the factories will be targeted right away.

Airfields can be built in short order.

Russia doesn't win this, it's out produced, out manned.

Force NATO into wartime production and are how fast stuff flys off the lines, we have all the resources needed despite fanboys saying otherwise.

The Russians only Chance at winning would be to turtle up and hopefully for them inflict millions upon millions of losses while somehow not having their own forces destroyed

Then hope the public turns on the war.

A Russian/NATO war comes down to attrition and that's a war NATO wins, sure losses Will be immense for both sides but the Russians could not sustain the losses, NATO could

Lmao everything you said is completely wrong

What wartime production the whole reason the west does not have weapons to send to Ukraine is because Rheinmetal, Scranton Army munitions plant, Lockheed Martin, Diehl just cannot produce enough systems - they don’t have the resources or capacity to do so

Western systems are too bespoke and expensive to mass produce - the west lags behind Russian production by more than 3x in artillery and more than 10x in air defenses and we talk about combined NATO

The only thing that the west produces more of are aircraft - and if there is one thing this conflict proved is that aircraft are not going to last long in range of long range missiles and drones

The west will lose there as they have way more airbases that are easily hit by cruise missiles and ballistic missiles - and little air defenses as Ukraine has proven

None of the wests strike systems will ever be in place to launch a massive salvo at Russia because Russia can easily pick those systems off with hypersonic long range weapons as soon as they come to the front , at best they can snipe at gaps like Ukraine does with one off strikes

But they will take much more damage due to the lack of air defenses again

And again you are wrong with manpower

Russia is the 2nd largest military in the world(with a volunteer force and not even in mobilization mode) , with 1.5 million active duty personnel surpassing the Indian army , US army, and North Korean armies , only China being larger - btw Ukraine is the 6th largest in the world by comparison

It is NATO and the US which does not have the manpower with recruiting shortages , production problems, and lack of equipment

Young westerners aren’t signing up for the military , and that’s in a peacetime ; imagine in an attrition war with tens and hundred of thousands of dead and wounded

Lmao the west wouldn’t last in an attrition war - the only war the west can fight is a proxy war

But as both Ukraine and Israel show, even then the western power projection is lacking

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Russia cannot defeat NATO in a conventional war tho, and its delusional to think otherwise.

What do you define as "defeat"? If you mean occupy all of NATO then i agree with you, as Russia does not have the population. If you mean take a few NATO states like the Baltics and then hold them, it can do that. It can prevent the US from reinforcing Europe to attack Russia. Bottom line is the Taliban defeated NATO in an article 5 war. So I am pretty sure Russia can deliver an even more decisive defeat then that.

https://www.facebook.com/K01Archive/posts/pfbid02wxWUVgYPuusRM1hwRa3AYSrvgv7W8p5h8tbyX4LmzCetJtA94rMCMMoEBU9ekAn6l

Motor Sich factory was intercepted by Russian missiles, again.

Reason: Ukrainians frequently attempted to restore it for weapon manufacture and Russians frequently attempted to knock it down.

Reader's comments:

- The main problem is who are the sponsors of the machines in the factory. The sponsors are still alive and well and they will attempt to fund it.

- Even if the sponsors are alive and well, it is not like you can build a machine in one day. Not to mention that amongst the sponsors, some are upset that why they have to carry the financial burden and stop buying cheap Russian gas for the benefit of a certain country beyond the ocean.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Iso

I know your anti western propaganda makes that claim but it's complete horse shit.

The stuff you are quoting is highly hated here, you can look.

You are hyper focusing on the vast minority of some clowns to say everyone is like that.

Fact is the LGBT shit doesn't even account for two percent of the pop. They are so vocal because everyone hates them here

You think we are lazy? Try us then bud.

Next time you use the weak propaganda claims come at me with Better facts

No chance I'm coming in your dumb country to get killed by drugged addict or gangs after 2h in a city.

US can go **** themselves. US dream is just a nightmare. That's why they push for the destruction of the world, they are falling apart.

You are just the exemple. A US member that makes the more grammar mistakes in a forum where members don't use english as a first language.

Enjoy your life there. In few years you will have to suck a dick to prove you're not homophobic. It wiill hurt you but they won't be 2% anymore but more, you will join their ranks.

Funny to watch from far away tho.