Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Based on your Tucker Carlson vid or any empirical evidence you'd like to share?this damn thing is proper dodgy like
CorrectWell it’s true
As much as Prigozhin is a horrible bastard, he's always a good listen. What he sees from his side aligns with much of what we suspect from ours.
Structurally it would t fail to that extent from a bit of shelling . It has to be rigged for that amount of damage..On the dam I am wondering who benefits as it doesn't seem like a shrewd move for either Ukraine or Russia. I'm not really the conspiracy theory type but I think this is either a decision made by a local Russian commander or some 3rd party state seeing this as a way of disrupting both sides plans and steering them towards a negotiated settlement. Assuming the dam didn't just fail due to previously being battered of course.
On the dam I am wondering who benefits as it doesn't seem like a shrewd move for either Ukraine or Russia. I'm not really the conspiracy theory type but I think this is either a decision made by a local Russian commander or some 3rd party state seeing this as a way of disrupting both sides plans and steering them towards a negotiated settlement. Assuming the dam didn't just fail due to previously being battered of course.
Gustav Gressel's thread is more informative but at the end of the day, the same general rules apply - the attacking force is expected to take significantly higher losses than the defender if they intend to take and hold territory. It'll get even harder when they approach major urban areas so people should brace themselves.
On the dam I am wondering who benefits as it doesn't seem like a shrewd move for either Ukraine or Russia. I'm not really the conspiracy theory type but I think this is either a decision made by a local Russian commander or some 3rd party state seeing this as a way of disrupting both sides plans and steering them towards a negotiated settlement. Assuming the dam didn't just fail due to previously being battered of course.
Is it possible that they only intended to destroy the road and the power station but the explosion coupled with the high water level caused the failure of the top half of the dam.Structurally it would t fail to that extent from a bit of shelling . It has to be rigged for that amount of damage..
Absolutely correct. Even if it is true - and that is hard to tell without corroborating context - no military operations go completely to plan. The bloodbath on Omaha Beach 79 years ago is a good example. Overlord still succeeded and Nazi Germany still lost the war.That Röpcke chap is an odd one. He’s at least outwardly pro-Ukrainian but exceptionally pessimistic and always extremely fast to share any Russian propaganda without verification or context.
If his pronouncements were in any way true last year Ukraine wouldn’t have recaptured Kharkiv oblast or Kherson city.
Is it possible that they only intended to destroy the road and the power station but the explosion coupled with the high water level caused the failure of the top half of the dam.
On the dam I am wondering who benefits as it doesn't seem like a shrewd move for either Ukraine or Russia. I'm not really the conspiracy theory type but I think this is either a decision made by a local Russian commander or some 3rd party state seeing this as a way of disrupting both sides plans and steering them towards a negotiated settlement. Assuming the dam didn't just fail due to previously being battered of course.