Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia Masses Military Equipment Near Ukraine Borders: A Prologue to WWIII?


Grim Reaper 6
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ukrainian artillery is the best in the world at the moment. 

Click the link if you don't mind seeing some sunflowers, it's thermal vision so there's no actual gore. 

It's the already legendary crushing of Wagner at Bakhmut petrol station. (They tried last night again with the same result :lol: )

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1598033123719188484

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's starting to get cold in Ukraine. I just saw some photos of the first orcsickles. 

 

'nite, guys. My self-censoring chip is overheating :D 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example of Ukranian counter intelligence

Basically early on in the war Ukraine started to print out pictures of damaged/destroyed hangers onto sheet metal that made up the top of the hangers.  Due to limited Russian intelligence gather ability they believed these hangers were still destroyed and came to the conclusion that Ukraine must be using underground hangers

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Nope, I'm serious.  They won't work.  Moscow knows it too.  Why threaten to use a dirty bomb if they have real reliable nukes?  Answer:  They don't have working nukes, just a few dirty bombs.  Look at the state of maintenance of Russian equipment.  It's non-existent.  The conclusion is obvious.

Are you trolling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Are you trolling?

I think he is.

Russia is the lead nuclear power. It has the most nukes, and the most advanced nukes. With the hypersonic ones which can pretty much hit anywhere in Europe they are undefendable. And fired from Moscow it`s just 2 mins 21 secs to hit London.

NATO countries have interceptor missiles which don`t come anywhere near the speed needed to intercept them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there really any proof that Russia has Hypersonic nukes? Seems mostly claims by Putin. I saw the video about the 7000 mph missile , but honestly it looks like a propaganda video and doesn't look much different than any other missile, even the one they claimed to use in Ukraine has been disputed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, razman said:

Is there really any proof that Russia has Hypersonic nukes? Seems mostly claims by Putin. I saw the video about the 7000 mph missile , but honestly it looks like a propaganda video and doesn't look much different than any other missile, even the one they claimed to use in Ukraine has been disputed. 

If it’s true or not is really neither here nor there to be quite honest.  @Cookie Monster seems to be a bit of a hypersonic fanboy, but it’s not the hypersonic aspect that is supposedly the thing that sets the Russian Kinzhal apart from other weapon systems.  Most nations that can field advanced weapons have missiles that might be considered hypersonic.  Russia’s weapon can supposedly manoeuvre at hypersonic speeds making any interception problematic.  It kinda sounds like a game changer, it’s kinda not though to be honest.

Sure if one is launched it will strike its target.  But it is a tactical weapon, and if Russia launches a nuke, it risks triggering the deterrent.  So what if it can reach London?  the presence of this weapon changes nothing in the long run.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

If it’s true or not is really neither here nor there to be quite honest.  @Cookie Monster seems to be a bit of a hypersonic fanboy, but it’s not the hypersonic aspect that is supposedly the thing that sets the Russian Kinzhal apart from other weapon systems.  Most nations that can field advanced weapons have missiles that might be considered hypersonic.  Russia’s weapon can supposedly manoeuvre at hypersonic speeds making any interception problematic.  It kinda sounds like a game changer, it’s kinda not though to be honest.

Sure if one is launched it will strike its target.  But it is a tactical weapon, and if Russia launches a nuke, it risks triggering the deterrent.  So what if it can reach London?  the presence of this weapon changes nothing in the long run.

I know Russia claims a lot of stuff , but i have never seen any footage of a maneuvering hypersonic missile . Look at how they hyped up their army .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, razman said:

I know Russia claims a lot of stuff , but i have never seen any footage of a maneuvering hypersonic missile . Look at how they hyped up their army .

To be fair, both sides claim a lot of stuff. It's just that some people here chose to believe one side over the other.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

To be fair, both sides claim a lot of stuff. It's just that some people here chose to believe one side over the other.

Hi Occult

Yes there are 2 sides, one is an aggressive invader killing, raping and torturing civilians of a sovereign country simply because of greed and self interest. The other side is the invaded that are fighting to stay a free and sovereign nation so how hard can it be for a person to chose to side with the oppressed nation. The reality is it is not difficult at all for someone like me that enjoys the freedoms that I can and do have and would wish we could all enjoy.

You claim to be from the west and yet idolize the Russian perspective of crush destroy and dominate so do have to wonder how you live with yourself in a democratic nation. I can only imagine how it burns you like a hot baked potatoe pushed up your butt. Why not just move to Russia and relish in their glory?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Occult

Yes there are 2 sides, one is an aggressive invader killing, raping and torturing civilians of a sovereign country simply because of greed and self interest. The other side is the invaded that are fighting to stay a free and sovereign nation so how hard can it be for a person to chose to side with the oppressed nation. The reality is it is not difficult at all for someone like me that enjoys the freedoms that I can and do have and would wish we could all enjoy.

You claim to be from the west and yet idolize the Russian perspective of crush destroy and dominate so do have to wonder how you live with yourself in a democratic nation. I can only imagine how it burns you like a hot baked potatoe pushed up your butt. Why not just move to Russia and relish in their glory?

Do you support negotiation between Ukraine and Russia? If not, how can you even claim to be on the side of peace?

Edited by Occult1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Do you support negotiation between Ukraine and Russia? If not, how can you even claim to be on the side of peace?

Hi Occult

Given history no I do not support negotiations for peace unless Russia leaves all Ukrainian territories including those that they are occupying prior to Feb 2022.

Rest assured there will be peace one way or the other either by them ceding to the above terms or by being completely disabled through the conflict they started. The Ukraine nor the west will back down.

 Russia implemented war measures to divert funds to the military a couple of months back so health, education, infrastructure and employment will be an issue internally. Putin is asking India to supply them for 500 products that they cannot get due to sanctions and much of that would be desperately needed to maintain fighting. They cannot produce the weapons they need. You just on this page posted a link that they are now again increasing their military budget by 50% which will have a major impact on citizens in Russia that will add to domestic problems. Other small Baltic countries may join in fighting when they see how weak and strained the Russian government and military are and take an opportunity to free themselves from Russian rule.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Do you support negotiation between Ukraine and Russia? If not, how can you even claim to be on the side of peace?

The only way for lasting peace is for Russia to leave Ukraine. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is attacking Ukraine's power grid a war crime?

[...]With certain limitations, parts of a country's electrical grid can be considered legitimate targets if they are used to power military facilities.

This is true even if the targets have a civilian as well as a military purpose, so long as destroying the object would "offer a definite military advantage".

Iraq's energy infrastructure was attacked by US forces in 1991 - a strategy that has been heavily criticised. Nato forces also targeted the power grid in Serbia in 1999. In both cases, the civilian population was affected by the resulting power outages.

In fact, there may be times when neutralising a military facility by taking out its power supply is preferable to hitting the facility directly with missiles or artillery.

"Would I rather deprive part of the civilian population of electricity for a limited period, rather than risk killing civilians because of the collateral effects of using kinetic weapons? Yeah, I would think so," Michael Schmitt - professor emeritus at the US Naval War College - told the BBC.[...]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63754808

 

The mainstream media now admits the West has destroyed other countries' critical energy grid in the past.

Edited by Occult1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Occult1 said:

Is attacking Ukraine's power grid a war crime?

[...]With certain limitations, parts of a country's electrical grid can be considered legitimate targets if they are used to power military facilities.

This is true even if the targets have a civilian as well as a military purpose, so long as destroying the object would "offer a definite military advantage".

Iraq's energy infrastructure was attacked by US forces in 1991 - a strategy that has been heavily criticised. Nato forces also targeted the power grid in Serbia in 1999. In both cases, the civilian population was affected by the resulting power outages.

In fact, there may be times when neutralising a military facility by taking out its power supply is preferable to hitting the facility directly with missiles or artillery.

"Would I rather deprive part of the civilian population of electricity for a limited period, rather than risk killing civilians because of the collateral effects of using kinetic weapons? Yeah, I would think so," Michael Schmitt - professor emeritus at the US Naval War College - told the BBC.[...]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63754808

 

The mainstream media now admits the West has destroyed other countries' critical energy grid in the past.

The west has never intentionally tried to shut down a counties entire power grid. They have destroyed portions of the power grid that supplied power to specific areas for tactical reasons, but to my knowledge unless you can provide a source that proves otherwise. However, in the situation in the Ukraine destroying their power grid was not limited to Military facilities, it was designed to shut the entire grid down based upon the locations that were targeted. Under these circumstances when a country is doing it to effect the Nations people, yes it is a War Crime.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Occult1 said:

Are you trolling?

No.  Look at the lack of maintenance at every level of the Russian military.  Strategic missiles are always the least well maintained.  Even the US has trouble with their arsenal.  Its an expensive "white elephant" that you never use and never want to.  The Russian Military has a habit of letting things that don't matter slide to a degree that is astonishing.  Add to that endemic corruption.  Then add that many of the weapons are 60 years old now, and should have needed complete overhauls at least 6 times by now due to the half-life of tritium triggers amongst other things.  Add to that the fact that this maintenance was non-existent during the Yeltsin years as Russia simply couldn't afford it, and likely still can't. Then there is the fact that Russia started off saying they might use a tactical nuke in Ukraine but downgraded the threat to a dirty bomb.  That speaks volumes as to the state of the Russian nuclear deterrent.  It's a paper tiger.  Britain, France, and China likely has a larger working nuclear arsenal than Russia right now.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Occult1 said:

To be fair, both sides claim a lot of stuff. It's just that some people here chose to believe one side over the other.

Its Putin psychosis.

I don`t know why some people are prone to the old brain switching off, even when watching the most absurd claims through the media lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Occult1 said:

To be fair, both sides claim a lot of stuff. It's just that some people here chose to believe one side over the other.

That’s not really true though.

Before February, the entire world held Russian propaganda at its word.  Russia carried out attacks on NATO soil and the responses were weak.

Pre February the term Spetsnaz was whispered in certain circles, and ask anyone with any military experience about this and they would have displayed a grudging respect at the reputation of Russian special forces, watch any one of thousands of special forces comparisons you can find on you tube and you’ll find spetsnaz on there.

There was even a thread here I recall that compared a U.S. and Russian armed forces recruitment video, and there was an incredible amount of awe for Russian forces.

The thing is, Russian lies are being exposed.  People no longer choose to believe Russian propaganda because it is being proven false in real time.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

No.  Look at the lack of maintenance at every level of the Russian military.  Strategic missiles are always the least well maintained.  Even the US has trouble with their arsenal.  Its an expensive "white elephant" that you never use and never want to.  The Russian Military has a habit of letting things that don't matter slide to a degree that is astonishing.  Add to that endemic corruption.  Then add that many of the weapons are 60 years old now, and should have needed complete overhauls at least 6 times by now due to the half-life of tritium triggers amongst other things.  Add to that the fact that this maintenance was non-existent during the Yeltsin years as Russia simply couldn't afford it, and likely still can't. Then there is the fact that Russia started off saying they might use a tactical nuke in Ukraine but downgraded the threat to a dirty bomb.  That speaks volumes as to the state of the Russian nuclear deterrent.  It's a paper tiger.  Britain, France, and China likely has a larger working nuclear arsenal than Russia right now.

Countries like russia, N Korea iran focus alot of their resources into missiles and now drones. I think alot of putlers nukes are operational. Not all of them but alot of them. Enough to wipe the worlds population out multiple times.

Now whether or not they'll use them is a different kettle of fish. I personally don't think they'd be used unless maybe nato was on Moscow's doorstep. Even then i don't think they'd be used.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

I think alot of putlers nukes are operational. Not all of them but alot of them. Enough to wipe the worlds population out multiple times.

I used to think that too.  I no longer do.  I've learned a lot more about missile and warhead maintenance, and there's no way the Russians have done enough.  They simply couldn't afford to in the early 2000s, and then they became seriously corrupt and the maintenance budgets all went on hookers and blow, hence the current catastrophe.  Russia hasn't been able to afford to maintain the arsenal for decades now.

The real smoking gun however is when the Russians started threatening to use a tactical nuke, then scaled back the threat to a dirty bomb.  Why?  Because a dirty bomb is what you get when a tactical nuke no longer works properly... If it goes off at all.

In short, Russia doesn't have working nukes.  They're bluffing... badly... as usual...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

I used to think that too.  I no longer do.  I've learned a lot more about missile and warhead maintenance, and there's no way the Russians have done enough.  They simply couldn't afford to in the early 2000s, and then they became seriously corrupt and the maintenance budgets all went on hookers and blow, hence the current catastrophe.  Russia hasn't been able to afford to maintain the arsenal for decades now.

The real smoking gun however is when the Russians started threatening to use a tactical nuke, then scaled back the threat to a dirty bomb.  Why?  Because a dirty bomb is what you get when a tactical nuke no longer works properly... If it goes off at all.

In short, Russia doesn't have working nukes.  They're bluffing... badly... as usual...

Sincerely hope thats the case but doubt it. If NATO knew putlers nukes didn't work, he wouldn't be in power. And NATO don't just have satellites over russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, razman said:

There you go , the Pentagon is learning , tell the world what you want them to hear and do what your gonna do anyway. Just like Russia does. Deny , Deny , Deny. For all we know they could be training Ukraine in use of these since the war started. 

i seriously doubt that they haven’t.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Sincerely hope thats the case but doubt it. If NATO knew putlers nukes didn't work, he wouldn't be in power. And NATO don't just have satellites over russia.

NATO (and everyone else) does have satellites over russia. So russia occasionally threatens to take satellites down too, only they never explain how exactly they'd take a someone else's satellite down on purpose. (Not only putler's invasion destroyed the propaganda image of russian military might, it also gave the West the motive and the justification for poking intelligence nose in every little thing in russia.) 

The reason why the West is so reluctant to crush russia is (in my truly humble opinion) not nuclear and not military at all. It's the fact that no one wants 100 million lepers starving, listening to the complaints that it's due their total defeat in an open war against NATO, so it's NATO countries' job to feed russians. All of them. 

It's much wiser to let them implode on their own, at their own pace. Their future has to be their own fault. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wie schööön ^_^ (How niiiice)

Seriously. Gepards were on the top of Ukrainian wish list and there comes 7 of them more :clap: Also, because Swiss are blocking munitions for Gepards (they've found the worst moment to be neutral like... well, Switzerland), German Rheinmetal will start producing it, especially for Ukraine.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.