I remind you that you missed this -



Why arrange sabotage? What's the point?

The stranded tank video was meant as an illustration. Yes, Russian fuel shortages were widespread and no, I'm not going to provide a source for every single thing that's said here. This is not Wikipedia, I don't have the time and besides, you'd never be satisfied anyway. You will believe what you want to believe and attempt to sow doubt in everyone else's mind by pulling into question every single thing you don't like. And your rhetoric about who blew up the dam is so unhinged, there's no sense in reasoning with that kind of thinking.

thank you very much for taking away the discussion from mere 'propaganda' and addressing on a very factual level the issue at hand that is investigated in the article, e.g. by providing examples of the more 'credible' sources you cited etc.

Like Miijka said, this isn't Wikipedia and some of us just aren't up to tracking down links and sources to refute every little bit of Kremlin whiffle posted here (god knows I did enough of that back when darkeningday was spouting pro-Russian talking points on the daily here). This is a thread on Metal Archives, not a scholarly debate. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm pointing out that the source you shared by no means can be considered neutral or unbiased.

Yeah someone who writes drivel like: "On one hand, it does not seem Putin’s style at all, because it harms far too many civilians and goes against the entire creed of the SMO—which was the preservation of civilians at all costs and a war only against the regime forces." is not someone who's being neutral or unbiased when Putin's forces are going around committing mass murder. The use of the word "regime" is a dead giveaway anyways.

"The stranded tank video was meant as an illustration."
Illustration of what ? An illustration of what was not discussed in the dialogue? I didn't ask about the logistics of the two military vehicles and you didn't talk about it either

"Yes, Russian fuel shortages were widespread"
And what ? Only in Russia? In the whole history? And what does it show? That Russia blew up the dam?

"I'm not going to provide a source for every single thing that's said here".
Bravo ! That is, you will simply take some words out of nowhere and draw long-playing conclusions. Brilliant

"This is not Wikipedia"
Fortunately, this is not Wikipedia. Otherwise, only fans of the Kiev regime would write here

"I don't have the time and besides, you'd never be satisfied anyway."
Why won't I be satisfied with the facts? You don't have time, but instead of initially confirming your accusations with evidence, you write about the lack of time and predict that I won't be satisfied. How do you even know? You have already shown your level of knowledge in the situation with the words about three days and now you are exposing yourself even more strange with the help of standard excuses

"You will believe what you want to believe"
What does "believe" have to do with it, if there are facts.

" and attempt to sow doubt in everyone else's mind by pulling into question every single thing you don't like. And your rhetoric about who blew up the dam is so unhinged, there's no sense in reasoning with that kind of thinking."
I sow doubts by not taking the word of someone who does not even try to confirm his words with evidence, and I, at the same time, immediately destroyed one of your statements with a link to the Western media? Now you just run away and accuse me of trusting only the facts, and not the words of someone who constantly lies and manipulates

PS - Why did you give me a link describing the location of a large cluster of Russian equipment in the Kiev area? What does this illustrate? Just hysterically sent me the first one that came across from your poor assortment in the spirit of "well, at least say something about Russia"?

"Like Miijka said, this isn't Wikipedia and some of us just aren't up to tracking down links and sources to refute every little bit of Kremlin whiffle posted here (god knows I did enough of that back when darkeningday was spouting pro-Russian talking points on the daily here). This is a thread on Metal Archives, not a scholarly debate. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm pointing out that the source you shared by no means can be considered neutral or unbiased."

That is, you can just say all sorts of nonsense, which is part of what continues the war and kills people every day. And not even responsible for it

"The use of the word "regime" is a dead giveaway anyways."
What is wrong with the word regime in relation to those who came to power with the help of a coup d'etat?

"Putin's forces are going around committing mass murder"
What kind of cases are you talking about?

The word "regime" would be an apt way to describe Ukraine's government if the Maidan Revolution never happened and Yanukovych succeeded in selling the country to Russia as another vassal state à la Belarus against the will of parliament.


Most good faith Putin shill.

"The word "regime" would be an apt way to describe Ukraine's government if the Maidan Revolution never happened and Yanukovych succeeded in selling the country to Russia as another vassal state à la Belarus against the will of parliament."
Why? Did Yanukovych seize power by force as a result of a coup d'etat? What is the vassalage of Belarus and how would the sale of Ukraine to Russia take place? Is it better to sell to the USA ?

"Most good faith Putin shill."
Hm...I didn't really understand...Probably, you have a typo and you inserted the answer to something else. So what are the cases?

I'm going to entertain you once, after that, look for non-Putin soruces by yourself.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases ... s-northern

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/03/ukr ... lled-areas

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/europe/w ... index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime ... of_Ukraine

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 75af420d08

And please stop calling it a "regime".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukra ... l_election

"I'm going to entertain you once, after that, look for non-Putin soruces by yourself."
That is, representatives of the Kiev regime and the Ukrainian army are pro-Putin sources. Discouraging

The first link is just text. Where is the evidence there? On the second link, where is something other than unfounded accusations? There is again about the Bucha, the episode in which is disassembled every minute and at the very beginning the myth is dispelled with the help of its own video from the Ukrainian police, the first to enter the city. The third link shows that you don't own the information at all. Watch the continuation of this story, which tells that the video was recorded under blackmail. On the fourth link, there is a Bucha again, then Izyum and all this is thickly seasoned with the inventions of the former ombudsman of Ukraine, who later confessed to it (https://www.rbc.ru/politics/31/05/2022/ ... 366a1f34ad and https://www.eg.ru/politics/2282902-moje ... koy-armii/ and https://ruposters.ru/news/11-05-2022/ge ... yu-nasilii). You can see for yourself that there is not a single reference to evidence in the article. The fifth link shows a building in Kiev that was damaged by an explosion. How did you understand that this is the work of the Russian army? Another attempt to transfer the work of the Ukrainian air defense under the responsibility of Russia?

What to do with the sixth link, which tells about the elections in Ukraine? If you are trying to legitimize Zelensky in this way, then you did not succeed here either. The main point of Zelensky's election campaign was a promise to end the so-called anti-terrorist operation. Thanks to this promise, he was chosen. But after becoming president, he continued the policy of Poroshenko, who became president as a result of a coup d'etat. This also applies to the promotion of Nazism at the state level and the intensification of shelling of their own territories.

You first write that you do not need to contact pro-Putin sources (calling Kiev and the Ukrainian army such), and then give links to Wikipedia moderated by pro-Western people and links to pro-Western media. Split personality?

Let's show you what the real link to the incident analysis looks like. I am sure that you know how to use the translator. Just about the Bucha and based on Ukrainian sources - https://vk.com/wall-66283435_2067879 and https://vk.com/wall-31371206_1308984

And don't forget the summary of events, which in itself is suggestive -

March 31
The mayor of Bucha Anatoly Fedoruk recorded a video message about the release of Bucha, he did not mention the victims

April 1st
Ukrainian blogger Konstantin Liberov released a story from Bucha. Not a word about the corpses.
Ekaterina Ukraintseva, deputy of Bucha, forbids civilians to evacuate from the city in order "not to become a hindrance to the cleanup"

April 2
The National Police of Ukraine announced the beginning of the cleansing of Bucha from "saboteurs and accomplices of Russian troops." There is no mention of mass killings in the department's videos

April 3
The first shots of the dead appear. The bodies in the photos from different sources are moving (!). On many bodies, white armbands serving for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation throughout the conflict area are a sign - "I am peaceful, I do not pose a threat."

A dialogue appeared on the video of the Ukrainian side:
"-There are people without blue armbands, can you shoot at them?
- Yes **** of course!"

April 4th
Press tour of Western media in Bucha".

Holy shit, dude, how is Putin's ass tasting? Like chocolate, I bet? You a troll or a tankie or something? Weird that on a forum about metal, you only post anti-West, pro-Putin shilling...

The guy joined last week and 18 of his 19 posts are in this thread, deepthroating Putin. He is clearly not here to discuss/argue in good faith.

"Holy shit, dude, how is Putin's ass tasting? Like chocolate, I bet?"
I am not like you an expert and a lover of such perversions. Try it and find out, since you're so interested
It scares me that this is all you could answer. The highest level. Bravo

"The guy joined last week and 18 of his 19 posts are in this thread, deepthroating Putin. He is clearly not here to discuss/argue in good faith."
If I was registered a week ago, then all the facts I have cited are false, and the Kiev regime is a pro-Putin source. Brilliant. I learned a lot of new things here

Generally...an interesting place is this topic on the forum. I give links to facts and refute the misinformation of my opponents, and in response, one wrote to me about perversions with an a***, and the other about blo****. This is the level of discussion

If your crusade against self awareness weren't so apparent in everything you write, maybe, just maybe, you would get different responses, y'know.

So to quote an American general is that what you said? Or is it the same thing to ask about blowing up a dam? Is quoting official representatives of the Kiev regime and the Western press also this? By what logic? By what standards is a person who provides evidence and asks about evidence from others worthy of such humiliating answers?

Your "evidence" given so far is an ombudsman who was dismissed "for failing to facilitate humanitarian corridors in warzones, to prevent Ukrainians under Russian occupation from being deported to Russia, and to facilitate the protection and exchange of prisoners of war." and for her rhetoric concerning sexual crimes by Russian forces.

About that: In June (2022), Ukrainska Pravda published a report alleging that journalists and the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office had only been able to verify some of the rapes Denisova had spoken about publicly. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/06/28 ... tion-front

This is about a single official talking about unverified accounts as if they were verified. And she was removed for that. That doesn't mean all accounts were unverified, or false, or slander to attack Russia. (they could very well be true, just not verified yet)

And that's all your "evidence" is in the end. Russia did something bad? Nah, Western media ergo fake. Better stick to Russian facebook and state controlled media for the real facts. Just ignore the Wiki page with 396 references.

"Your "evidence" given so far is an ombudsman who was dismissed "for failing to facilitate humanitarian corridors in warzones, to prevent Ukrainians under Russian occupation from being deported to Russia, and to facilitate the protection and exchange of prisoners of war." and for her rhetoric concerning sexual crimes by Russian forces."
So...and what's the problem? Why in quotation marks? You yourself have just confirmed my words - and for her rhetoric, of which there was no proof.

"That doesn't mean all accounts were unverified, or false, or slander to attack Russia. (they could very well be true, just not verified yet)"
No charges have been proven. All the links given by my opponents are just words. Not a single proven episode

And you have considered only the question of Denisova. Nothing else to say?

"And that's all your "evidence" is in the end. Russia did something bad?"
Quoting the Western press and representatives of the Kiev regime is not proof? Are you kidding or what's wrong with you? So what has Russia done wrong?

"Better stick to Russian facebook and state controlled media for the real facts. "
Em...What are you talking about? That is, links to Ukrainian and Western media are not suitable for you and you need to give links only to Russian state media? But you yourself gave a link to a Meduza controlled by Western funding

"Just ignore the Wiki page with 396 references."
What's on Wikipedia? What are the links to there? Is it also just a text? Why shouldn't I ignore a site controlled by a Western agenda, where they even give out virtual rewards for following the Western narrative

I mean, you just dismissed the entirety of Wikipedia sourcing including every publication and organization any of us could ever quote to you, while you expect us to take vk posts seriously. It's easy to defeat your "opponents" if that's the headspace you're in and I'm stupid for even having entertained you. Why are you even on this forum? Does the Kremlin send you a batch of Dobry Cola for every post?

"I mean, you just dismissed the entirety of Wikipedia sourcing including every publication and organization any of us could ever quote to you"
Shouldn't I reject unsubstantiated sources?

"while you expect us to take vk posts seriously"
That is, videos posted in VK from the Ukrainian police and from the mayor of Bucha automatically become frivolous? And the post in the Washington post separately is also not serious?

"It's easy to defeat your "opponents" if that's the headspace you're in and I'm stupid for even having entertained you. Does the Kremlin send you a batch of Dobry Cola for every post?"
That is , you have nothing to say about the case ..it's sad

"Why are you even on this forum?"
Isn't it obvious? To communicate. To ask people who wrote so confidently about Ukraine. But here's the bad luck...after the first question to them, they and their friends start having tantrums. That's where the oddities began - insults, theses that words do not need to be proved and other nonsense

Better question, why is anyone even engaging with this stooge?

The New York Times put together an insightful and illustrated article on how the Kakhovka dam was likely destroyed:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... lapse.html

that one OSINT guy is going to call it a day

The article is not accessible for non subscribers. Do you mind sharing the article in here? Thanks!

I would but "You’ve reached your limit of free articles. Already a subscriber? Log in." I must have opened the article twice before without a problem. Maybe someone else can help?

Watch this very short instructional video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/y1Bgktoxxq8

Prigozhin wants to save Russia. He fears the country would divide if its current corrupted leaders continue to reign.

Anyway, I think they will try couping Putin and his minion (or is it other way around?!). Or push revolution in the country.

However, Wagner did not advance to Moscow, but camped in and are ready for negotiations.

Whether next leader(s) will be better, it is impossible to say.

Cheers Korgull, that's a neat little trick.
NYT article: https://archive.is/mNmj4

A necrology for Victoria Amelina, the writer who died from the rocket attack on Kramatorsk.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/03/novelist-andrey-kurkov-on-victoria-amelina

Thanks for posting this.


Here is a bit more - https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status ... 6218519554

I've stayed out of this thread since the beginning, mainly because despite feeling immense sadness for the Ukrainian people caught in this geopolitical mess, I could never help but think that certain western powers knew that this was gonna happen and let it happen anyway.

I know that this is not a popular opinion around here lest people be accused of being Putin stooges, which is such a loathsome thing to accuse someone of.

Russia has been a mafia-state for the good part of almost 15 years but that alone, and the disdain for Putin, I think colours people's eyeglasses about this conflict. How can most of you possibly think that this is some benevolent conflict where there is such a clear moralist right and wrong side, given everything that we have seen with Vietnam, the Iraq war, Afghanistan, etc.

Despite having some limited ancestry from Lviv, living in the "west" has allowed me a degree of objectivity which I think is sorely lacking in the western view of this conflict. None of this excuses the ridiculous ineptitude and corruption of the Russian MOD which got exposed by accident during this whilensordid affair. BUT what has spurred me to post for the first time is the recent announcement that the US will send cluster munitions to Ukraine. Since I am not nearly as eloquent as Glenn Greenwald, I'll reproduce some excerpts from a recent episode that he spoke on, which I agree with 100%:

"...the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine continues to escalate, still with no end in sight. With Ukraine and the U.S. now facing a serious shortage in artillery – not just Ukraine, but the U.S. – the Biden administration announced that it would furnish Kyiv with cluster bombs, a notorious weapon that kills civilians at a high rate, including children – especially children – for years after their use, for years after the conflict is over and is thus banned by more than 100 countries, including almost all of the U.S.'s Western European NATO allies. Last year, when reports surfaced that both Russia and Ukraine were using cluster bombs on the battlefield, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki accused Russia, but not Ukraine, of course, of committing what she called a “war crime” simply as a result of their use.

The multipronged cost to the U.S. from this war continues to escalate as well. As we have often reported, much of the world is exploiting the U.S. fixation in Ukraine to create confederations against American power, often to the benefit principally of China. While the war in Ukraine is seen in American corporate media and the establishment wings of both parties – and in Washington generally – as a noble crusade to defend democracy because everyone knows the U.S. government always wages war not for its own interests, but for the benevolent and selfless goal of delivering freedom to the peoples of the world. Much of the world views this war as little more than a naked attempt by the U.S. NATO not to save Ukraine, but to sacrifice Ukraine at the altar of the U.S. geopolitical goal of weakening Russia. The use by the U.S. of this despised and widely banned weapon will only exacerbate this cost. All of this has led even steadfast supporters of the Biden administration and its war policy in Ukraine to object to U.S. actions for the first time. That includes the New York Times editorial board and numerous Democratic House members. But that will likely matter little: Biden is being cheered on in his use of cluster munitions by the standard range of DC warmongers – from John Bolton to Lindsey Graham – and it is hard to remember the last time the bipartisan class of endless war advocates has lost any debate in Washington. As a result, this war is likely to grind on, with the U.S. continuously doing exactly that which it vowed it would never do because doing so would be too dangerous and escalatory. That's exactly how mission creep and escalation in wars always happen, and we are seeing it repeat itself yet again.

And then in breaking news that emerged just shortly before we went on the air tonight, the House Judiciary Committee released an extraordinary new report. It reveals that the FBI worked in tandem with Ukrainian intelligence agencies to pressure and even order Big Tech companies to remove content and postings about the war in Ukraine, including content posted by U.S. citizens and even some American journalists. The Judiciary Committee acquired these emails to Big Tech from the FBI as part of its ongoing investigation into the weaponization of the FBI and other powers of the U.S. security state for nakedly political ends.

Think about what this means. American citizens are funding the war in Ukraine endlessly, tens of billions of dollars, while at the same time, the Ukrainian government demands that our free speech be limited by working with the FBI to have Big Tech remove and suppress dissent about the war that we as American citizens are funding."

You may not be pro-Putin, but Greenwald certainly gives that impression. This is a guy who tried to raise suspicion over the Bucha massacres. Where was his outrage when Russia started dropping cluster munitions on the Ukrainian population?

Anyway, the remarks he makes are not so much about Ukraine as they are about US policy.

My personal opinion is that cluster bombs are bad and I support the push for a worldwide ban. Then again, the aggressor violates every law and we're asking the victim to show restraint. Imagine yourself in their situation. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

I think it's very fair to ask armed forces not to use cluster bombs that literally harm their own citizens long after war has ended. You don't react to an enemy that commits war crimes by adding more war crimes to the affair.

The equivalency implicitly drawn here isn't real, though. American cluster munitions are vastly, vastly less likely to result in duds-- and therefore present a lasting threat to civilians-- than Russian ones. Like, we're talking 2.5% of American munitions versus something like 35% of Russian munitions. And that 2.5% will not meaningfully exacerbate the post-war demining problem in Ukraine, which is already staggering just based on the hundreds of thousands of pieces of unexploded ordinance all over Ukraine at this point from Russian cluster munitions, landmines, aerial ordinance, artillery shells, etc.

Plus, these munitions, used effectively (and supposing the level of quality US munitions have), are extremely potent for overcoming some of the obstacles Ukraine has faced in waging its counteroffensive. And there really aren't effective alternatives that are available for transfer to Ukraine at this point.

There is this information:



https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/sta ... 0108471298

From what I read, this decision was made because the Ukrainian army lacks artillery shells (while Russia has a significant advantage in shells).