"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Jabberwocky said:
Couple of open source intelligence types reporting the Moskva has stopped all transmissions. This could be because all crew has left the ship, or because its sunk to the bottom of the Black Sea.

At least one report claims to have intercepted Russian radio transmissions from rescue craft a few hours ago, stating the ship had rolled onto its port side and was still on fire.
Click to expand...

There are unconfirmed reports that she is sinking. Apparently the crew has abandoned ship.

Please be true, and way to go Ukraine!
 
If this is true, it could affect the final battle for Mariupol, which is very important for both sides in my view. Moskva is and/or was a powerful missile cruiser.
 
Jabberwocky said:
Reuters has a statement (via Interfax, a Russian state owned news agency) from Russia's MoD that the Moskva had a fire at sea and suffered an "ammunition detonation" and was "seriously damaged" although all crew had been evacuated. No word on the cause of the ammunition detonation though....

Ukraine claims two hits with Neptunes on Moskva. The same day, Russia says the ship suffered an ammunition detonation. It doesn't take a genius here to draw some conclusions, even though full confirmation on what actually happened will probably remain in the realm of intelligence professionals.

Either way, a fire and ammunition explosion on a 12,500 tonne ship is bad news. If it survived, it looks like it will be out of the fight for a while.

Another expensive embarrassment for Russia.
Click to expand...
nah - it was just small accident, probably selfignition - it happen in the navy...😁
 
ThomasP said:
re the video of the Ukrainian tank shooting up the BTRs.

""

I am sure that most of the video is a simulation. Possibly some of the last 15 sec or so is not, although the overhead close-up of the burning vehicle is fake.
Click to expand...

That's realtime footage, not a simulation.

The annotations (flags) were layered over, after, of course.
 
7D13F914-EA4D-4E9E-B9AF-B5B8FE548B0F.jpeg
 
nuuumannn said:
This is tiresome. They act on behalf of their own government, so their national interests come first. NATO acts based on the requirements of its own members, so NATO's "politicians" are NOT specifically NATO's, but those of member states acting in accordance with the collective wishes and agendas of member states. Call them politicians, call them ambassadors, diplomats, call them what you will, but NATO itself is a gathering of individuals representing the interests of member states. If a member state's agenda was different to the collective wishes of those at a NATO meeting, the NATO stuff comes second, you can guarantee that.

Again, Jagdflieger, just because a NATO member state acts, does NOT necessarily mean it is directly or always linked to NATO
Click to expand...
Your are stretching your goal-posts now to the indefinite, and are now just reiterating my post-reply in regards to your absurd statement that NATO doesn't have politicians. aka isn't run
by politicians. And even telling me to read up onto NATO.
As for your last statement it wasn't part of my reply at all - so why bring up another assumption of yours, who's content was never expressed by me as you now forward it

Regards
Jagdfllieger
 
XBe02Drvr said:
You think Medvedev was ruling Russia? He was just the mouthpiece for Putin, who was calling the shots. And where were you then? Were you out of diapers yet?
Click to expand...
Talk, talk, talk, blah, blah blah, - bring in proof if you want to state something-not just baseless assumptions.
Since you got no idea as to how old I am - keep your insinuating and insulting gossip to your self.

Jagdflieger
 
Sorry, I wish the video was real, but it is not.

1. The muzzle flash of the Russian auto cannon is wrong, as are the projectile tracer . . traces?
2. The fire from the knocked out vehicle, in the middle of the video, is made up of a series of repeated images/movements.
3. The panning of the drone camera is fake . . there is no movement of the drone platform itself, subtle change of LOS angle movement that is noticeable in real drone camera footage.
 
Jagdflieger said:
Talk, talk, talk, blah, blah blah, - bring in proof if you want to state something-not just baseless assumptions.
Click to expand...
If you were reading and watching what was going on in the world at the time, it was pretty obvious who was pulling the strings. Your take on it smacks of somebody reading a history book years after the fact.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Irrelevant, no one ever claimed there would be one.

My point simply was you keep throwing around your personal view which in itself has no foundation if anything either. You keep saying others have a lack of understanding on how NATO works, yet you seem to be no different. You post long copy and paste articles or info, highlighting in bold that support your view and glossing over and ignoring other parts that don't support it.

All of you have good points, but its rather obvious that they are clouded by personal opinions based on your personal bias, and in some ways some negativity that is derived from opinions rather than fact.

Make sense comrade?
Click to expand...
No not at all - besides that you are clearly showing that you are biased towards facts. - and even declaring these to be just my personal views.

My question to you was upon you siding with another poster in regards to - supplying weapons is by "international understanding" a declaration of war.
Me then asking you to show me were in the UN statutes it says so. - your answer: irrelevant, no one ever claimed......
Another guy states that there are no politicians in NATO and tells me to read up upon NATO - your answer: highlighting in bold that support your view and glossing over and ignoring other parts that don't support it.
Show me in the text I forwarded were it states anything which I had ignored because it doesn't support my view.
And that isn't even just my "view" - that NATO is run and staffed by politicians is a "Fact". That no UN declaration or statute exists towards conventional weapon deliveries - is a "Fact".

Maybe some people here need to learn about the vast difference between stating a "view" and "facts" before posting general statements?

If reasonable, fact based discussions and posts are not favored in this Forum - kindly let me know.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
874
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
560
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
350
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
M
USAF Provides More Proof That UFOs are Real!
Replies
0
Views
377
MIflyer
M
Back