Ukraine war/President/news

[DataCruncher]

I take no sides, however came across a short clip showing the moment of explosion at the bridge.
Video title reads : 'Crimea Bridge Suicide Truck Bombing'

From what I see, that heading and any mention of it being a truck-bomb may be false.

Have a look at the clip and see a shower of sparks and smoke coming from the far right, thereafter moving towards the left of the screen.
I considered wind, though if it had taken place on the bridge, by a truck, wouldn't the after-effects of the blast be raining down evenly, and not off from the right side of that bridge?

Regardless, the escalations are not looking good.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QDl26gZR0lIa/

[Silverstarqueen]

Cause of fire on bridge is simple, Russian officials say a fuel tanker caught fire.

[Ka-El]

*removed*

[Mazdatruck]

Why can Finland join NATO, but Ukraine can't?

Why can't Mexico form a military alliance with the Chinese and place Chinese military bases and missiles complexes in Mexico?

Is Mexico independent?

[Silverstarqueen]

Why can Finland join NATO, but Ukraine can't?

Why can't Mexico form a military alliance with the Chinese and place Chinese military bases and missiles complexes in Mexico?

Is Mexico independent?

Ukraine Russia war NEWS

[The_quiet_one]

Why can Finland join NATO, but Ukraine can't?

Why can't Mexico form a military alliance with the Chinese and place Chinese military bases and missiles complexes in Mexico?

Is Mexico independent?

[Even Steven]

I bet now they wish they did not attempt to blow up the bridge.

[my5cents]

??? DID SOVIETS INVADE A NATO MEMBER IN 1962 ? NO

That was exactly my point. Soviets back then did NOT invade a NATO member to provoke such a reaction from the US. They just wanted to turn Cuba into a Warsaw Pact member, a stone-throw from the American soil. Exactly what Ukraine is aspiring nowadays.

Off topic so final comment.... Taking action against Cuba in 1962 had nothing to do with NATO or the invading of anything. It had to do with an antagonistic government (cold war) Soviet Union, placing nuclear weapons in a country near the US.

The Ukraine (if they do) joining NATO does not present a threat to Russia UNLESS Russia invaded.

I suppose, actions (as on display in Ukraine) speak better than words. The "despot", as you put it, may not be our favorite figure, but we've got to give him a credit for being very pragmatic.

• prag·mat·ic
  /praɡˈmadik/
  adjective
  dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

I think Putin, launching rockets at civilian target in Ukraine, is the opposite of pragmatic. When you have invaded a country the invaded country has the right to defend themselves. Defending, includes attempting to interrupt supply lines. Doing so is just good military stategy.

Retaliating for such an act by bombing civilian targets, is not militarily advantages, well at least not for the aggresor. What it does do is it expends munitions and demonstrates poor leadership and a lack of understanding of military stategy.

All this talk about "was Ukraine responsible for the attack on the Kerch, oh it's so bad". Malarky, it was great military stategy, if the Ukraine did it (and I think they did), they have absolutely nothing to appoligize for.

Really,,,, Russia invades a soverign country, and that county blows up a bridge that is use to supply and re-supply invading forces, and Russia cries that it was a terrorist act ????

• ter·ror·ism
  /ˈterəˌrizəm/
  noun
  the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

So bombing a bridge used by an agressor to aide in the invation of a country, seems very legitimate and warranted and part a legitimate defensive military stategy. Invading a soveriegn country, and now sending rockets into civilian areas of that country that have no military value, in retaliation of a sound military tactic sure sounds more like terrorism to me.

Any banana republic can launch rockets into civilian areas, a strong well lead military picks their fights with the other country's military, but that takes good intel, good planning, good leadership and competant personel all lacking in the Russians. They are demonstrating their ineptness, I'm sure to the relief of the allies.

A bully has picked a fight with a perceived weakling, and is getting a leason. I feel sorry for the Russian people, they are being horribly mislead, like some on these forums.

[my5cents]

I bet now they wish they did not attempt to blow up the bridge.

It was wrong and is wrong to bomb civilians period. However I think military strategists supporting Ukraine see this retaliation as clear message that Putin doesn't know what he's doing.

This is like the bully picking a fight with a smaller kid and getting his butt kicked, so the bully then goes and smacks the smaller kid's sister in retaliation. This wasn't a sign of strength, it was a sign of weakness.

[Mazdatruck]

*removed*

[my5cents]

*removed*

[Mazdatruck]

*removed*

[Thinktank]

Re: Ukraine Russia war NEWS

Russia Now Devastating Ukraine In Latest Escalation


So everyone knows, it's better for the environment for Germany to buy gas from Russia
but USA made the war so they could sell more expensive, worse for the environment - liquified gas to Europe.

Like every other war, USA )and Canada) is killing Ukrainians for their own financial gain.

[WESTman]

It was wrong and is wrong to bomb civilians period. However I think military strategists supporting Ukraine see this retaliation as clear message that Putin doesn't know what he's doing.

This is like the bully picking a fight with a smaller kid and getting his butt kicked, so the bully then goes and smacks the smaller kid's sister in retaliation. This wasn't a sign of strength, it was a sign of weakness.

You do realize when NATO bombed Serbia, Iraq and Libya they went after civilian infrastructure, right? Many western military analysts I'm sure were puzzled why Russia didn't do this on the first day of the conflict. Imagine if they had bombed every bridge over the Dnieper river, would have made it very difficult to supply the Ukrainian military on the whole eastern side of the country.

[PoplarSoul]

When you have invaded a country the invaded country has the right to defend themselves. Defending, includes attempting to interrupt supply lines. Doing so is just good military stategy.

So bombing a bridge used by an agressor to aide in the invation of a country, seems very legitimate and warranted and part a legitimate defensive military stategy. Invading a soveriegn country, and now sending rockets into civilian areas of that country that have no military value, in retaliation of a sound military tactic sure sounds more like terrorism to me.

Any banana republic can launch rockets into civilian areas, a strong well lead military picks their fights with the other country's military, but that takes good intel, good planning, good leadership and competant personel all lacking in the Russians. They are demonstrating their ineptness, I'm sure to the relief of the allies.

Land grab is not as easy as what war criminal Vladimir Putin first thought.