Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
HungryHippos said:
If there is a nuclear threat (even if it's blowing up a plant) then NATO may stop in more fully, especially if it's proven to be Russia and not Ukraine causing it.

Blowing up a plant threatens another Chernobyl, fallout will impact not just Ukraine civvies but anyone nearby, including other nearby countries.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to prove anything either way, without independent verifiers- and Russia can't allow that.

I can't see any reason Russia would shell their own fortress. As things stand, they have far more to gain from using it as an operational base.
 
Given the fact that the IAEA, despite being an independent body, reports directly to the UNGA and the UNSC, it would make sense for them to ask the Russian politely to **** off and then flood the place with blue helmets and white armour. Never going to happen though, because a.) the UN is way too chicken to get involved b.) they'd waste months/years just talking but doing nothing and c.) Russia would veto any such plan.
 
Artillery shells don't do 180's. The nearest Ukrainians positions are 15Km ish away across the river. Not 1Km away. It's not a fast moving front. The Russians artillery seems to have done ok in previous battles.
The Ukrainian soldiers have a pretty big incentive to stop Russians shelling them from around the power plant.
The Russians, as the Ukrainians did before these power plants were captured are making the best cover they can.
Hoping no one is daft enough to go big boom time counter on them...just in case.
Doesn't need false flag to shoot back at someone.

Zelensky could murder his own mother live on TV and the West wouldn't drop their support for him, so na.
 
Dis86 said:
Oh, so the Russians were intentionally attacking civilians then? Because I thought that was due to inaccurate fire?
Click to expand...
You're not talking about the reactor now...you've changed topics to generally collateral damage/indiscriminate bombardments/targeting civilians with artillery?
If you're still talking nuclear power stations then that was too much of a tangent statement.


Edit - Have changed topic. Yawn.
 
Last edited:
Custor said:
You're not talking about the reactor now...you've changed topics to generally collateral damage/indiscriminate bombardments/targeting civilians with artillery?
If you're still talking nuclear power stations then that was too much of a tangent statement.
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. The claims from many were that they hit the civilians areas by mistake. Why does that not apply to the plant?
 
Dis86 said:
Not in the slightest. The claims from many were that they hit the civilians areas by mistake. Why does that not apply to the plant?
Click to expand...
Because despite artillery systems having a margin of error...it isn't 15Km margin of error on a static front.
Blue on blue mistakes happen...but are rarer when opposing forces are static and separated by considerable distances.
But you know this already....clutching.
 
Custor said:
Because despite artillery systems having a margin of error...it isn't 15Km margin of error on a static front.
Blue on blue mistakes happen...but are rarer when opposing forces are static and separated by considerable distances.
But you know this already....clutching.
Click to expand...

Again...explain the hits on targets nowhere near military installations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom