What's new

Russia invades Ukraine

Whilst it was a well planned and executed attack, giving credit where it's due. The truck blew up whilst a fuel train was also on the bridge at the same time. The bridge is only partially damaged though. Trains will be running very soon and traffic is flowing through one Lane already. A partially successful attack, but look at how cpleigh and Robert are getting giddy over it.

So it was a truck bomb? Maybe with tonnes of fertiliser on board? Impressive. You’d think the Russians would be spot-checking trucks heading for the bridge though.
 
Col Douglas MacGregor, he was a pretty solid military commander. So much so Swedish officers are told to read his book. Well he said he expects the Russians to use their air force one week before the ground troops get involved.

If the planes can actually fly.

Iraq and yugoslavia are terrible examples because they couldn't fight back. NATO and their proxy can fight back.

Saddam had an integrated air defence system. Radar, SAMs, AAA and fighters. The Coalition took it to pieces in days.
 
Why aren’t liberals contemplating the same theory with the Nord pipeline? The Russians sabotaged their own assets?

I understand Liberals and NATO are hypocrites, but come on!

:)))
 
Most of ukranians Sam's are russian including their radars etc

It beggers belief how russia has not solved its own missile systems and not neutered them
 
When the Nord pipeline was attacked, it affected gas to Europe, NATO claimed - the Russians did it.

The Crimean bridge is attacked, it affects Russia, NATO claims, Ukraine did it.

This ladies and gentlemen is the very essence of propaganda.

Nazis don’t hold a candle to NATO propaganda.
 
Most of saddams system were russia


Also in yom kippur the arabs had air defences and aircraft

Putin needs to learn from Israel and usa how to fight

Again, wars are not fought conventionally now, but economically. Russia has won the economic war, the rest is just gravy for tabloid headlines.

NATO needs to learn it cannot bully a nuclear power or impose economic sanctions, it will backfire, oh wait.
 
When the Nord pipeline was attacked, it affected gas to Europe, NATO claimed - the Russians did it.

The Crimean bridge is attacked, it affects Russia, NATO claims, Ukraine did it.

This ladies and gentlemen is the very essence of propaganda.

Nazis don’t hold a candle to NATO propaganda.

What? Are u drunk?... The NORD pipeline didn't supply gas to Europe.

Your post doesn't make any sense as usual. Whats propogranda got to do with it
 
Again, wars are not fought conventionally now, but economically. Russia has won the economic war, the rest is just gravy for tabloid headlines.

NATO needs to learn it cannot bully a nuclear power or impose economic sanctions, it will backfire, oh wait.

You are a complete fantasist. U keep peddling rubbish about Russia winning the economic war, it's a dream of yours.
 
Now that I think about it, when Russians were accused of launching a chemical attack in the UK, Salisbury, why didn’t NATO declare article 5 then? Ahh yes, there was no concrete evidence, and of course, NATO brick it in front of Russia. So great is the fear of Russia, when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO fabricated the evidence.

All making sense now - Russia holds the marbles.

Bless.
 
You are a complete fantasist. U keep peddling rubbish about Russia winning the economic war, it's a dream of yours.

Just look at inflation rates and the value of the GBP and euro against the ruble before and after t he SMO.
 
Amreeka military ain’t all that powerful, they were sent packing home after Vietnam, Afghanistan (80s), and now Afghanistan again.

It is a fact, Amreeka have never won a war on its own.

Instead, they use their pawns and poodles to fight their wars for them - British, and now Europe, being examples.

All that Amreekan/NATO sabre rattling, my nuke is bigger than yours, my GDP is bigger than yours, my fighter jets are better than your - amounts to zilch.

Just a pity the NATO poodles do not see that they are being used by uncle Sam.
 
Russian rouble hits over 3-week high on eve of rate decision

MOSCOW, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The Russian rouble strengthened against the dollar on Thursday, touching a more than three-week high in early trade, with the market focused on Friday's central bank rate meeting.

At 0726 GMT, the rouble was 0.1% stronger against the dollar at 59.82, earlier touching 59.5025, its strongest showing since Aug. 22. It had gained 0.5% to trade at 59.64 versus the euro.

This year, the rouble has been the world's best-performing currency, buoyed by emergency capital controls rolled out by the central bank in a bid to halt a mass sell-off after Feb. 24 when Russia began what it calls "a special military operation" in Ukraine.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-rouble-hits-over-3-074307441.html

The news was from 3 weeks ago!

Sanctions are working! Sanctions are working! Repeat the lie long enough and it will be accepted as truth!

:)))
 
What kind of sanctions they are putting that the currency is gaining in value. LOL.

Very big mystery.

Ejected from SWIFT, bans on oil and gas trade, caps on oil and gas, sanctions on Russian diplomats - the West have tried every trick in the book.

Russia responded by passing SWIFT and fuelling trade with the East using MIR payments system, selling oil at a discount rate, and relaxing restriction on Russian commodities, and linking the Ruble to Gold which is priced in USD.

Meanwhile, inflation has accelerated thank to the war, the GBP hit a record low about a week ago, BoE had to intervene to prevent pension funds from collapsing, and the government has issued an energy load-shedding plan, and above all, interest rates have shot up, along with debt, meaning less disposable income for the average Brit, and as a result that government is announcing emergency budgets that torpedo the GBP!

Have not even started on the EU yet, but rest assured they will be heading back to the dark ages.
 
Last edited:
Amreeka military ain’t all that powerful, they were sent packing home after Vietnam, Afghanistan (80s), and now Afghanistan again.

It is a fact, Amreeka have never won a war on its own.

Instead, they use their pawns and poodles to fight their wars for them - British, and now Europe, being examples.

All that Amreekan/NATO sabre rattling, my nuke is bigger than yours, my GDP is bigger than yours, my fighter jets are better than your - amounts to zilch.

Just a pity the NATO poodles do not see that they are being used by uncle Sam.

And russia was sent packing in Afghanistan and the first chechen war.

Even if russia won in ukraine they would meet an insurgency .

Why don't you admit putin was trapped by nato to invade ukraine and it was a massive blunder india and China are not on the same page with russia.

And because of this invasion and imran khans foolish steps pakistan lost a proper prime minister and good pti goverment because our army chief who is a nato stooge was forced to remove him and now pakistan is in all sort of economic problems because of cherry blossom (shabaz sharif)
 
Just look at inflation rates and the value of the GBP and euro against the ruble before and after t he SMO.

The inflation was predicted to be about 10% even before the war started. The energy prices have been going up since last autumn and food prices since last spring.

The war and sanctions have added about 2% to the inflation and brexit another 2%.

Russia winning some economic war is hogwash. Other than the physical war being fought in Ukraine, the war between Europe and Russia is that of patience. The question is whether Europeans will give into the Russian energy play due to the hardships they will face winter, or will they holdout long enough (at least the whole of the winter) that Russian economy is in complete tatters. This war hasn’t finished yet, and will be deciding factor as to who prevails in Ukraine.
 
And russia was sent packing in Afghanistan and the first chechen war.

And? No one claims or boasts the Russian military is the best and most powerful in the world.

What's your point again?

Why don't you admit NATO are scared of going all out with Russia? It's no secret NATO love to bully weaker nations, what's stopping NATO?
 
Last edited:
The nukes is the reason not going all out. If we take nuclear option out of the equation. Russia is no match for nato. NATO will destroy Russia in a week. Having nuclear option and a crazy leader threatening to use them is the reason nato is not going all out.
 
Looks like a section of one bridge lane has fallen into the sea but I guess they can use a traffic light system on the other lane to keep vehicles flowing both ways.
 
The nukes is the reason not going all out. If we take nuclear option out of the equation. Russia is no match for nato. NATO will destroy Russia in a week. Having nuclear option and a crazy leader threatening to use them is the reason nato is not going all out.

NATO is a collection of countries. Russia is one country. Bit of an obvious statement isn't it?

However nato trained and supplied forces are being destroyed in large numbers in Ukraine. NATO are trying their darn hardest but with no luck.
 
The nukes is the reason not going all out. If we take nuclear option out of the equation. Russia is no match for nato. NATO will destroy Russia in a week. Having nuclear option and a crazy leader threatening to use them is the reason nato is not going all out.

Yeah. If there were no MAD threat, NATO would just bum-rush Russia out of Ukraine.
 
Like the farmers in Vietnam and Afghanistan?

You’re not comparing like with like.

The ten-thousand day Vietnam War was fought between Ho Chi Minh and firstly France, then USA, but never NATO. Indeed, Harold Wilson refused to deploy British forces there. USA won every single major battle, but lost troops to guerilla action at a steady rate until the peaceniks back home made enough fuss that the troops were called back Obviously, Ho was supported by huge numbers of Russian-built artillery pieces coming into Haiphong. He also had a small Air Force. So his army was more than just “farmers”.

Afghanistan was an attempt by the UN at national-building but the nation didn’t want to be built and collapsed into corruption. Eventually the international community withdrew all troops and let the Taliban rule again.

The difference is that Russians in Ukraine are an occupying army, not local patriots fighting for their homes like the NVA/VC and Taliban. Professional NATO forces would push them out of Ukraine like the incoming tide flattens sandcastles.
 
My YouTube news feed algorithm is so messed. None of the channels I watch come up in recommended, but MSM does. Anyways I see lots of coverage for the bridge attack but none for the cars running again.
 
You are a complete fantasist. U keep peddling rubbish about Russia winning the economic war, it's a dream of yours.

He also supports the Tories, who have been the most vocal anti-Putin people about. Even now Torie ministers were blaming Russians for woes.

Claims to be a strong Muslim yet supports the racist right wing Priti Patel types
Claims to be a strong Muslim yet supports the Royals who have a legacy of famines and slaughter and subjugation in South Asia
Claims to be an ethinc minority yet going by his immigration views Priti Patel is a left winger compared to him


This is the sum of the troll known as Techincs. Or either a very good right wing fantasist.
 
Google suggests that it seems to have come from a Ukrainian source. It was an odd statement for the BBC to post for sure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63181475.amp

Bones has denied every single massacre, torture and mass burial sites that have been committed by the Russian forces. It’s one thing to be a propagandist for an authoritarian regime buts it’s another to stick your head in the sand and deny everything that’s happening as fake news.
So of course he’s going to deny the latest one (regardless if it’s confirmed ) as he will just say it must be CIA and BBC propaganda.
You can be cautious as I know in the fog of war not everything that is said is true but there are more than enough reporters and cameras in Ukraine to tell us what is happening.
 
Some updates….



Russia has started arresting senior military figures in Moscow.

The Crimean road bridge will only be able to take tiny volumes of traffic in one direction.

The Russians aren’t going to stress-test the surviving section of barbecued concrete holding the remaining railway line: looks like they will just start running slow moving trains with low weight contents over it for propaganda purposes. Which obviously means that the bridge can’t carry any significant logistic supplies and that if they keep running trains it is likely to collapse.
 
I reckon Saddam could have held the modern Russian military off.

Apart from nukes - which both Russia and Ukraine inherited - Russia isn’t even in the world’s top fifty conventional military armed forces any more.

Their best soldiers are dead. Their best weapons were squandered trying to win land in Ukraine that they are losing right now.

They are struggling to find enough remaining Kalibr cruise missiles to retaliate for the bridge.

Russia is now almost as strong militarily as Eritrea, but nowhere near as strong as India or Pakistan or even Sri Lanka.
 
He also supports the Tories, who have been the most vocal anti-Putin people about. Even now Torie ministers were blaming Russians for woes.

Claims to be a strong Muslim yet supports the racist right wing Priti Patel types
Claims to be a strong Muslim yet supports the Royals who have a legacy of famines and slaughter and subjugation in South Asia
Claims to be an ethinc minority yet going by his immigration views Priti Patel is a left winger compared to him


This is the sum of the troll known as Techincs. Or either a very good right wing fantasist.

Yep the mask continues to slip indeed!
 
Lets stop beating round the bush. We knew this day would come when the threat of Nuclear War is real.

West should stop crying because:

- Amreeka is the only nation to have dropped nukes on another nation.

- Amreeka brought the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.

- Amreeka and its NATO poodles goad and threaten other nuclear powers such as Russia and China.

Play with fire and you will get burnt.

Stop crying and blaming others, go protest and bring about a democratic change in the West, values which liberals always champion and remind us of; go enforce a change which ushers peace, not war.
If you think that the Cuban missile crisis was the result of American action, take your keyboard, smash it to pieces and then burn your modem. You have peaked… it will not get any better from here. You have achieved peak stupid.
 
If you think that the Cuban missile crisis was the result of American action, take your keyboard, smash it to pieces and then burn your modem. You have peaked… it will not get any better from here. You have achieved peak stupid.

This would have to be the most sensible post in this entire thread.

Can I nominate it for post of the day, week and year.
 
In response to the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961, Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev agreed to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles on the island to deter a future invasion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

Amreeka goading Russia as always, funny how the West omits the finer details. Shame on millennials.

:)
 
Weekend markets pricing in a big drop. Nuclear threat is getting real.

Though now the Pentagon has chimed in by claiming the threat of Nuclear war is just noise.

NATO now starting to brick it.
 
And if the news turns out to be false, will the BBC issue a statement? No.

This is how MSM propaganda works.

I used to date the producer of the BBC1 Nine o’clock News at the time of the 1991 Gulf War.

There was no government control over the content at all. But there was an entire handbook on how to maintain neutrality on both domestic politics and world affairs.

I can assure you that they do all they can to be as neutral and objective as possible, and to be no more palatable to the government than to the opposition.

Any person who uses the expression MSM in this thread basically self-identifies as an outlet for Russian propaganda.
 
If you think that the Cuban missile crisis was the result of American action, take your keyboard, smash it to pieces and then burn your modem. You have peaked… it will not get any better from here. You have achieved peak stupid.

Are you saying America wasn't a factor in Cuban missile crisis?

Here's from Wikipedia:

The Cuban Missile Crisis, also known as the October Crisis of 1962 (Spanish: Crisis de Octubre), the Caribbean Crisis (Russian: Карибский кризис, tr. Karibsky krizis, IPA: [kɐˈrʲipskʲɪj ˈkrʲizʲɪs]), or the Missile Scare, was a 35-day (16 October – 20 November 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, which escalated into an international crisis when American deployments of missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of similar ballistic missiles in Cuba. Despite the short time frame, the Cuban Missile Crisis remains a defining moment in US national security and nuclear war preparation. The confrontation is often considered the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.[3]

Looks to me America provoked Russia first by placing missiles in Italy and Turkey.
 
Last edited:
I used to date the producer of the BBC1 Nine o’clock News at the time of the 1991 Gulf War.

There was no government control over the content at all. But there was an entire handbook on how to maintain neutrality on both domestic politics and world affairs.

I can assure you that they do all they can to be as neutral and objective as possible, and to be no more palatable to the government than to the opposition.

Any person who uses the expression MSM in this thread basically self-identifies as an outlet for Russian propaganda.

So, just because you dated a producer, you know everything about government control?

It is well-known who controls media. No need to beat around the bushes.
 
Looks to me America provoked Russia first by placing missiles in Italy and Turkey.

Ssssh! You will destroy the myth and propaganda they've been harbouring all their lives.

Amreeka has been the aggressor post WW2. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
 
So, just because you dated a producer, you know everything about government control?

It is well-known who controls media. No need to beat around the bushes.

The same BBC that suppressed the Jimmy Saville report.

Now we are told to accept impartiality of the BBC.

Honestly, when will the masses wake up from the MSM spell.
 
Yup. They were all silent about Jimmy Savile. I wonder why.

Calling BBC impartial is laughable.

And yet the British public believe the BBC when it comes to this war, despite knowing how impartial and unreliable the BBC is.

This is the empitome of MSM brainwashing and indoctrination.

Then of course you have the tabloids and broadsheets that literally influence and rig elections in the UK, and in the same breathe championing the phrase - free and fair elections.

This is why there was a remainer/liberal meltdown, when all the propaganda in the world couldn't get the UK to stay in the EU.
 
And yet the British public believe the BBC when it comes to this war, despite knowing how impartial and unreliable the BBC is.

This is the empitome of MSM brainwashing and indoctrination.

Then of course you have the tabloids and broadsheets that literally influence and rig elections in the UK, and in the same breathe championing the phrase - free and fair elections.

This is why there was a remainer/liberal meltdown, when all the propaganda in the world couldn't get the UK to stay in the EU.

Another example of BBC's biasness:

BBC was most pro-war of British networks

When giving evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into whether the British government had exaggerated the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify its planned war, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s director of communications Alastair Campbell made the following assertion:

“In the run-up to conflict there was an agenda in large parts of the BBC—and I think the BBC is different from the rest of the media and should be viewed as different from the rest of the media because it is a different organisation in terms of its reputation, in terms of its global reach and all the rest of it—and there was a disproportionate focus upon, if you like, the dissent, the opposition, to our position. I think that in the conflict itself the prism that many were creating within the BBC was, one, it is all going wrong.”

Contrast this with the statement on July 4 by Professor Justin Lewis, the deputy head of Cardiff University’s school of journalism, on the findings of an examination of the coverage of Iraq by the four main UK news broadcasters, the BBC, ITN, Channel 4 and Sky:

“Indeed, far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government in its war coverage. Either way, it is clear that the accusation of BBC anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis.”

In recent weeks, it has been commonplace for officials of the Blair government to echo the charge levelled by Campbell that the BBC sought to undermine the government by giving undue prominence to opponents of the war and running critical news items. The charge is not new. Most of the media were virulently pro-war and viewed any reporting that attempted even a semblance of balance, let alone opposition, as tantamount to treason. For this reason national newspapers such as the Times, the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph featured articles attacking the BBC as little more than a propaganda machine for the regime of Saddam Hussein.

One such article appeared in the Daily Telegraph on March 30 entitled “Listening to the World Service, I thought we were losing.” The author stated that, “Day after day, studio-based presenters and gloomy academics criticise every nuance of the coalition’s strategy. Determined resistance by Iraqi troops has been endlessly reported, alongside lengthy discussions about how the allies failed to anticipate that the enemy might fight back.

“Allied bombing raids on Baghdad are reported in the context of the civilian casualties that they may have caused. British and American troops are constantly described as being overwhelmed, unprepared and taken by surprise. Worst of all is the outraged reaction to the news that, shock, horror, the war might take longer than a few weeks.

“If Saddam Hussein listens to the BBC, he would be delighted. Any coalition soldier hearing the BBC’s coverage would probably want to go home. So it is hardly surprising that, according to the BBC, that’s exactly what many want to do.”

A more recent Telegraph article by right-wing columnist Barbara Amiel dated July 7 continued this theme and contained an unveiled threat to the BBC. It was entitled “Disinfect the BBC before it poisons a new generation.”

The opposition Conservative Party culture spokesman, John Whittingdale, said during the war, “People inside the BBC who are opposed to the conflict are imposing their own views. The BBC is our national broadcaster and it must make clear why we are asking British forces to risk their lives.”

The fever pitch of such commentary was so high that Rageh Omaar, a BBC reporter stationed in Baghdad throughout the invasion, felt obliged to write an article with the purpose of opposing “the allegations that we are being seduced by a slick Iraqi propaganda machine.”

Omaar will be remembered by many for his embarrassingly breathless and uncritical reporting of the staged toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in April by members of the Iraqi opposition recently flown in by the US. But during the war, he had reported from the city daily and of necessity had to cover events such as the devastating missile attack on the Al Sha’ab district in northern Baghdad on March 28 that killed and injured more than 50 people. Based upon what he was told by many immediate eyewitnesses and what he himself saw, Omaar reported that he believed the missiles had been fired by the US military. The attack was subsequently denied by the US and British military, and the journalist was subjected to a character assassination by sections of the media.

That the BBC’s reportage was labelled “anti-war” or “biased” indicates the debased state of much of what passes as news in Britain today. For it is the opposite of the truth.

The study conducted by Professor Justin Lewis, Dr. Rod Brookes and Kirsten Brander of the Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies department of Cardiff University finds that the BBC was in fact the least “anti-war” in its news reports—even when compared with Rupert Murdoch’s Sky.

The study reviewed the contents of prime-time evening news bulletins of the four broadcasters. These are the BBC1 news at 6:00 p.m., the ITV Evening News at 6:30 p.m., Channel 4 News at 7:00 p.m. and Sky News at 9:00 p.m.

Among its findings were:

* Over the three weeks of conflict, 11 percent of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin. This was the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters. The BBC used government sources twice as much as ITN and Channel 4 News.

* The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent sources of news such as the Red Cross. Channel 4 used these sources three times more often than the BBC, and Sky twice as often.

* The BBC placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties, which were mentioned in 22 percent of its stories about the Iraqi people. Numbers of casualties received most prominence on Channel 4 News, figuring in 40 percent of its reports about Iraqis, compared with Sky at 30 percent and ITN at 24 percent.

* The BBC was least likely to report on the opposition of the Iraqi population to the invasion.

* Across all four broadcasters, the bulletins were three times more likely to present the Iraqi population as pro-invasion than anti-invasion. The exception to the ratio was Channel 4, where it was just less than two to one.

Professor Lewis pointed out that the survey was “comprehensive” on the basis that previous research had found that “people are influenced by the general weight of TV coverage rather than by particular reports” from individual journalists.

Giving examples of the BBC’s coverage, Lewis said, “The team found, for example, that when Tony Blair accused the Iraqi regime of executing British soldiers—a story Downing Street were later forced to retract—the BBC was the only one of the early evening news bulletins that failed to examine the lack of evidence to support it, or to report the rather embarrassing government retraction the next day.

“And when it came to the many other stories from military sources that turned out to be false—such as the Basra ‘uprising,’ or the shooting of Scud missiles into Kuwait—Channel 4 was the only channel—rightly as it turned out—to offer a note of scepticism or caution. The BBC, ITN and Sky were, on the whole, much more trusting of US and British military sources.”

It is worth remembering that before the 2-million-strong anti-war protest on February 15 in London, the BBC deputy director of news, Mark Damazer, sent an e-mail to all newsroom staff requesting that certain categories of journalist not attend the march and rally in Hyde Park. Those instructed not to attend included anchor BBC news presenters such as Jeremy Paxman of the BBC’s flagship “Newsnight” program, newscasters Huw Edwards, Fiona Bruce and journalists including Political Editor Andrew Marr.

As well as these broadcasters, the e-mail banned all presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors and “anyone who can be considered a ‘gatekeeper’ of our output.”

Damazer’s e-mail stated that junior staff could attend the march, but only in a “private capacity with no suggestion that he or she speaks for the BBC.” A BBC spokeswoman commented, “There is a need to balance a respect for civil liberties with the BBC’s need to be impartial.”

The supposed “impartiality” of the BBC did not fool many opponents of the war, who correctly saw it as a voice generally supportive of the government and at all times articulating the interests of Britain’s ruling class. On March 29, for example, a demonstration by 400 anti-war protesters was held outside the BBC’s Oxford Road headquarters in Manchester. Those in attendance were criticising the reportage of the BBC for its pro-government and anti-Iraq coverage.

No one should take the attack being waged by the government on the BBC as evidence of a change of heart by “Auntie”. Nor should they see it as an occasion to soften their criticism of its role in disseminating political propaganda—even if this often needs to be more subtle than the right wing would like given the BBC’s worldwide presence. It only testifies to the desparate efforts of Blair and company to shift attention away from their own misdeeds.

Source: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/07/bbc-j10.html.
 
I see the Russian boys are in panic mode. I don’t know where the war will end , but the moment the Russians are getting their butts handed to them.
 
This would have to be the most sensible post in this entire thread.

Can I nominate it for post of the day, week and year.
You haven't bothered to read up on history either have you? It would help if before making such bold comments, someone gets the message right.
 
Looks to me America provoked Russia first by placing missiles in Italy and Turkey.

Always the same story. People uneducated on a topic asking others to do some research. We all know the Americans and their zionist leaders are the greatest aggressors. But sadly because these people get their facts from Hollywood and MSM, they call us uneducated.

Even now they are calling Russians the aggressors and claim America didn't provoke them.
 
Yesterday's bridge attack reminds me of what I read about the Germans and their celebration of what happened with the Luddendorrf bridge at Remagan in WW2. Yesterday morning everyone started to celebrate a terrorist attack only to realise that traffic was flowing again later that day albeit a little more slowly. It will soon be entirety repaired. An inconvenience to the civilians of crimea and more fuel to anger and galvanise the Russians. You won't see cpleigh, Robert or other pro-ukranian members acknowledge it was just pr win and nothing else.
 
‘Shrinking operation’: Russia names new Ukraine war commander
After weeks of battlefield defeats, Moscow appoints air force chief General Sergey Surovikin to lead the faltering war in Ukraine.

Russia has appointed a new general to lead the war against Ukraine after suffering a series of military setbacks that triggered rare criticism of the battlefield command.

General Sergey Surovikin was appointed “commander of the Joint Grouping of Forces in the areas of the special military operation”, the Russian defence ministry said on Saturday, using the Kremlin’s term for the invasion of Ukraine.

Surovikin, 55, marks Moscow’s third senior military appointment in the space of a week.

The change follows the reported sacking earlier this week of the commanders of two of Russia’s five military regions, as its forces have suffered dramatic reverses in northeastern and southern Ukraine in recent weeks.

According to the defence ministry’s website, Surovikin was born in Siberia’s Novosibirsk region, and has led Russia’s Air and Space Forces since 2017.

Surovikin had combat experience in the 1990s conflicts in Tajikistan and Chechnya and, more recently, in Syria, where Moscow intervened in 2015 on the side of Bashar al-Assad’s government. He was accused of overseeing a brutal bombardment that destroyed much of the city of Aleppo.

Until now Surovikin led the “South” forces in Ukraine, according to a defence ministry report in July.

The name of his predecessor has never been officially revealed, but some Russian media said it was General Alexander Dvornikov – also a general of the second Chechen war and Russian commander in Syria.

‘Shrinking of operations’
Alexandre Vautravers, from the Swiss Military Review, noted the beginning of the Russian invasion did not take place under a unified command, as there were five different army groups each leading autonomous operations.

That will change under Surovikin’s leadership of the war, he said.

“The reason it was not possible to have a unified command of all the Russian forces was the distance and lack of information technology to put together all of the command and control facilities and capabilities,” Vautravers told Al Jazeera.

“What we are seeing now is one person and one headquarters is going to plan out and direct the operation. But it is also a signal that from now on the operation will concentrate on one specific area. It may be Luhansk, it may be Donetsk, it may be in the south. What we are seeing is a shrinking of the operation of Russia.”

The decision to give Surovikin the war command – unusually made public by Moscow – comes after a series of crushing defeats suffered by the Russian army in Ukraine.

Russian forces were driven out of much of the northeastern Kharkiv region in early September by a Ukrainian counteroffensive that allowed Kyiv to retake thousands of square kilometres of territory.

Russian troops also lost territory in the southern Kherson region as well as the Lyman transport hub in eastern Ukraine.

‘A difficult period’
The setbacks led to growing criticism of the military leadership, including from Russia’s elite.

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov called for the firing of a top general last week, while a senior lawmaker, Andrei Kartapolov, urged military officials to stop “lying” about the situation on the battlefield.

Moscow has continued to suffer wartime losses.

On Saturday, a Kremlin-backed official in Ukraine’s Kherson region announced a partial evacuation of civilians from the southern province, one of four illegally annexed by Moscow last week.

Kirill Stremousov told Russia’s state-run RIA Novosti agency that young children and their parents, as well as the elderly, could be relocated to two southern Russian regions because Kherson was getting “ready for a difficult period”.

On Friday, Moscow said its forces captured ground in the eastern Donetsk region – the first claim of new gains since Kyiv’s successful counteroffensive that has rattled Moscow’s military campaign.

Donetsk, partially controlled by Kremlin-backed separatists for years, is a key prize for Russian forces, which sent troops to Ukraine into on February 24.

Al Jazeera
 
My YouTube news feed algorithm is so messed. None of the channels I watch come up in recommended, but MSM does. Anyways I see lots of coverage for the bridge attack but none for the cars running again.

Take it easy would be my advice. Not a single Russian or Ukrainian knows you exist. Diversify your YouTube watching habits: music, sport, food & drink, travel etc. are good bets.
 
Yup. They were all silent about Jimmy Savile. I wonder why.

Because fear.

Saville was extremely manipulative and threatening. He had clothed himself in respectability by raising tens of £millions for a children's hospital, He was extremely popular - Radio 1 DJs had a lot of influence back then. He had ingratiated himself with the power structure, even taking tea with Prime Minister Thatcher at Chequers, and making friends with several Chief Constables. Thatcher got him a Knighthood. She flatly refused to believe the rumours.

I think individuals at the BBC and NHS were scared to expose him, because it would have meant the loss of their jobs and potential ruination in libel court at the hands of Saville’s top-line legal team.
 
Yesterday's bridge attack reminds me of what I read about the Germans and their celebration of what happened with the Luddendorrf bridge at Remagan in WW2. Yesterday morning everyone started to celebrate a terrorist attack only to realise that traffic was flowing again later that day albeit a little more slowly. It will soon be entirety repaired. An inconvenience to the civilians of crimea and more fuel to anger and galvanise the Russians. You won't see cpleigh, Robert or other pro-ukranian members acknowledge it was just pr win and nothing else.

Clearly you don’t read what I post.
 
Because fear.

Saville was extremely manipulative and threatening. He had clothed himself in respectability by raising tens of £millions for a children's hospital, He was extremely popular - Radio 1 DJs had a lot of influence back then. He had ingratiated himself with the power structure, even taking tea with Prime Minister Thatcher at Chequers, and making friends with several Chief Constables. Thatcher got him a Knighthood. She flatly refused to believe the rumours.

I think individuals at the BBC and NHS were scared to expose him, because it would have meant the loss of their jobs and potential ruination in libel court at the hands of Saville’s top-line legal team.

Yeah. So, that's the point. BBC is not independent. They can't go off-script.

It seems like Savile was being protected by deep state. Not just him but also others like Ted Heath. Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier.
 
Yeah. So, that's the point. BBC is not independent. They can't go off-script.

It seems like Savile was being protected by deep state. Not just him but also others like Ted Heath. Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier.

I don’t believe in “deep state”. I believe that establishments close ranks to protect themselves and that powerless people are scared of powerful people.

I’m not talking about the BBC the corporation, I am talking about individual BBC employees. There was never one single Saville whistleblower in decades either at the NHS or BBC. All were too scared to come forward. Then after he died, hundreds started to come forward on the old FriendsReunited social media platform.

These days the culture has changed and the damage done by paedophiles is better understood. Children just weren’t believed back then - or worse, were actually blamed for the abuse they suffered. It often happened inside families or family networks, and families close ranks when threatened.
 
WorldNews subreddit in reddit is loaded with cpleigh clones.

It's amazing just how gullible people are. Ukraine is this faultless and well drilled fighting machine and Russia is this disorganised rabble. Lol. This disorganised rabble is fighting alone vs so many and winning.
 
The Savile coverage at the BBC was not government directed.

The story seemed unbelievable, and if true would mean that a major BBC celebrity had behaved criminally on BBC premises.

It was a typical case of middle management at a company trying to conceal their own company’s scandal.

The fact that the company was a TV company is largely incidental.
 
Because fear.

Saville was extremely manipulative and threatening. He had clothed himself in respectability by raising tens of £millions for a children's hospital, He was extremely popular - Radio 1 DJs had a lot of influence back then. He had ingratiated himself with the power structure, even taking tea with Prime Minister Thatcher at Chequers, and making friends with several Chief Constables. Thatcher got him a Knighthood. She flatly refused to believe the rumours.

I think individuals at the BBC and NHS were scared to expose him, because it would have meant the loss of their jobs and potential ruination in libel court at the hands of Saville’s top-line legal team.

Wow. Saville was so powerful a fugure in the 80's even the British royal family and the govt were afraid to call him out. A conspriacy theory to trump all conspriacy theories.
 
So it was a truck bomb? Maybe with tonnes of fertiliser on board? Impressive. You’d think the Russians would be spot-checking trucks heading for the bridge though.

Hmm.. interesting response. So is the a good terrorist attack as opposed to say a bad one when done by say Palestinians in occupied land or Afghans? I'm just trying to understand the difference here.
 
The Savile coverage at the BBC was not government directed.

The story seemed unbelievable, and if true would mean that a major BBC celebrity had behaved criminally on BBC premises.

It was a typical case of middle management at a company trying to conceal their own company’s scandal.

The fact that the company was a TV company is largely incidental.

I worked at the bbc for 2 and a half years..it is a toxic environment and is a racist organisation. BBC news are the worst. Regions are the best..some great people work there but the culture is nasty and I would not encourage black or Asian people to work there..
 
The Savile coverage at the BBC was not government directed.

The BBC is owned by the state.

The fact you are trying to defend the BBC in suppressing a report which concealed the truth from the public, says a lot.

Just goes to prove you support the BBC in concealing the truth when it matters, particularly when it comes to report the war in Ukraine.

Deary deary me.
 
At least 17 people have been killed by Russian missile strikes on the south-eastern city of Zaporizhzhia, the Ukraine defence ministry has said.

Dozens more were wounded, and several residential buildings destroyed.

The city is under Ukrainian control, but it is part of a region that Russia claimed it annexed last month.

Zaporizhzhia has been hit repeatedly in recent weeks, as Russia hits back at urban areas after suffering defeats in the south and north-east of Ukraine.

Parts of the Zaporizhzhia region, including its nuclear power plant - which is around 30 miles (52km) from the city - have been under Russian control since early in the invasion.
 
WorldNews subreddit in reddit is loaded with cpleigh clones.

It's amazing just how gullible people are. Ukraine is this faultless and well drilled fighting machine and Russia is this disorganised rabble. Lol. This disorganised rabble is fighting alone vs so many and winning.

Reddit now on your MSM list?

guillable.... coming from the guy who sits in his bedroom desperatley searching for any western 'miltary expert' to tell him what he believes from the Kremlin
 
Bakhmut is heavily fortified position for the AFU. The Wagner group are knocking on the door. This town is one of the most important in the entire conflict. Along with Popasnaya and Avdiivka it will probably pivotal to both sides.
 
Wow. Saville was so powerful a fugure in the 80's even the British royal family and the govt were afraid to call him out. A conspriacy theory to trump all conspriacy theories.

Do read what I post, Cap. Subject is Saville and the BBC.
 
Hmm.. interesting response. So is the a good terrorist attack as opposed to say a bad one when done by say Palestinians in occupied land or Afghans? I'm just trying to understand the difference here.

Didn’t say one was good and the other bad. All are attempts by an insurgency to strike back against an occupation force.
 
Wow. Saville was so powerful a fugure in the 80's even the British royal family and the govt were afraid to call him out. A conspriacy theory to trump all conspriacy theories.

It's no conspiracy. Andrew was caught hook line and sinker, and many prominent politicians have been implicated too.

What I find hillarious is that MSM fodder refuse to accept the ring was beyond Saville. Their lack of logic and critical thinking is baffling, though not surprising.

Anyway, the point is, the BBC were complicit and we have people still thinking and believing the BBC is impartial, honest, and full of integrity.
 
When the Nord pipeline was attacked, it affected gas to Europe, NATO claimed - the Russians did it.

The Crimean bridge is attacked, it affects Russia, NATO claims, Ukraine did it.

This ladies and gentlemen is the very essence of propaganda.

Nazis don’t hold a candle to NATO propaganda.

Bakhmut is heavily fortified position for the AFU. The Wagner group are knocking on the door. This town is one of the most important in the entire conflict. Along with Popasnaya and Avdiivka it will probably pivotal to both sides.

Every western military analyst I've seen interviews seem to be bemused by Russias obsession with taking it
 
Three members of the US Congress have introduced a bill to withdraw troops and missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia and the UAE in response to their decision to cut oil production.

OPEC+, a group of oil-producing countries, agreed on Wednesday to cut output by 2 million barrels per day, equal to 2% of global supply.

The decision was made as Western nations continue attempts to curb Russia’s oil trade as part of sanctions over the Ukraine conflict, while also grappling with soaring energy prices at home.

“Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s drastic cut in oil production, despite President Biden’s overtures to both countries in recent months, is a hostile act against the United States and a clear signal that they have chosen to side with Russia in its war against Ukraine,” Democrats Sean Casten, Tom Malinowski, and Susan Wild said in a joint statement on Thursday.

-----------

Amreekans are crying! Not only are they getting their back sides handed to them by Russia, but now they want to punish the Saudi Arabia and UAE for refusing to increase oil output.

Amreeka - what cry babies! At least Amreeka still have their European poodles in control.

:)))
 
Every western military analyst I've seen interviews seem to be bemused by Russias obsession with taking it

Just 5 seconds to look at a map and you'll see why. Behind Bakhmut and the adjacent Chasiv Yar is open fields for 20 miles until the next large town. If you don't take Bakhmut taking Kramatork and Sloviansk will be near impossible. North of those towns are forests.
 
It’s fascinating that people assume that the war will be frozen when winter sets in, in Russia’s favour.

Putin has put Russia in the role of Nazi Germany invading Russia in winter.

The Russians have terrible logistics and the damaged Kerch Bridge will further destroy the arrival of new supplies. An invading army short on food and weapons will be freezing without winter clothes.

HIMARS and winter will be a fearsome combination.
 
Back
Top