The War in the Ukraine

Kornet ATGM with thermobaric warhead hits a Ukrainian troop company under night vision.


Destroyed AFU T-72M1 at the outskirts of Rabotino.


Ukrainian train carrying equipment and supplies gets destroyed by Tornado-S rockets. The rockets explode just above the ground inflicting shrapnel over a wide area.



Attack geolocated 43km of Avdiivka.


Su-34 strikes with bombs using IMPK at the village of Lvivo in the Kherson region.



All out attack of Gerans, Onixs and Kalibers against Odessa. Many reported hits.


Odessa Hotel struck, possibly destroyed. Hotels are known to be used as narracks for foreign mercenaries or military headquarters.


FAB explosion near Kherson under Ukrainian camera.


Kadyrov posting. Battles at Kleeshevka continue. Situation is hot. Units of the Akhmat using FPV drones at AFU troop concentrations.


Tornado-G hits AFU deployment point near Marinka. Main footage starts around 1:12.

BoraTas said:

Nukes are absolute no go. A nuclear armed state using nukes against a non-nuclear one after invading it is just so unpalatable. I am sympathetic to Russian security concerns (I always had a darker view of international politics) but breaking the nuclear taboo would be totally inexcusable. In fact, I would go as far as saying it would make NATO intervention reasonable because nothing else is stopping widespread nuclear proliferation after that, which means nuclear wars would be common.

Click to expand...

And yet the US did precisely that in WW2.

The Russians won't do it because they consider Ukraine to be part of their own homeland. But you can be pretty sure they would use tactical nukes in a confrontation against NATO.

BoraTas said:

They tried that last winter with a lot of missiles. They didn't achieve anything beyond inconveniencing civilians with blackouts. Military needs were prioritized and were fulfilled despite the strikes. A lot of the damage is already repaired. Bombing the parliament would be a warcrime and wouldn't result in military advantage.

If Russia was capable of destroying critical infrastructure, it would destroy the roads and railways NATO weapons are flowing into Ukraine. They would also destroy whatever Ukraine is using to still fly fighters. These didn't happen.

Click to expand...

No they didn't. They briefly targeted substations and other components of the power grid. You can repair and replace those, but you can't do the same to an entire power station or water treatment plant.

BoraTas said:

As written on this thread. If they can't generate substantial effects on the frontline with their TacAir, how can they carpet bomb cities? Bombers are less survivable and cities are deeper within Ukraine.

Nukes are absolute no go. A nuclear armed state using nukes against a non-nuclear one after invading it is just so unpalatable. I am sympathetic to Russian security concerns (I always had a darker view of international politics) but breaking the nuclear taboo would be totally inexcusable. In fact, I would go as far as saying it would make NATO intervention reasonable because nothing else is stopping widespread nuclear proliferation after that, which means nuclear wars would be common.

Click to expand...

The nuclear taboo is the dumbest thing to exist. There's no moral difference between shooting someone in the head and killing them with a nuclear bomb. It's like saying Hiroshima is bad but bombing Tokyo is ok....

I don't know how America would respond to a nuclear attack, but concerns about American retaliation shouldn't supersede primary Russian national security. To put it another way, if Russia planned on fighting this war tiptoeing around perceived American red lines they should have just given up the Donbass and Crimea.

Abominable said:

The nuclear taboo is the dumbest thing to exist. There's no moral difference between shooting someone in the head and killing them with a nuclear bomb. It's like saying Hiroshima is bad but bombing Tokyo is ok....

I don't know how America would respond to a nuclear attack, but concerns about American retaliation shouldn't supersede primary Russian national security. To put it another way, if Russia planned on fighting this war tiptoeing around perceived American red lines they should have just given up the Donbass and Crimea.

Click to expand...

Nuclear explosions leaves tons of radiative elements floating in the air and in the water for millions of years. Way different from a regular bomb.

vincent said:

Nuclear explosions leaves tons of radiative elements floating in the air and in the water for millions of years. Way different from a regular bomb.

Click to expand...

Didn’t stop the U. S., U. K., or France from testing them all-over the earth!

Tam said:

Ukrainian train carrying equipment and supplies gets destroyed by Tornado-S rockets. The rockets explode just above the ground inflicting shrapnel over a wide area.
...
Tornado-G hits AFU deployment point near Marinka.

Click to expand...

We have been seeing way more strikes by Tornado-S recently. That clearly show it has been integrated in the drone kill chain and is more widely available. I expect this war to have finally led to increased "production" of Tornado-S and Tornado-G systems. After a significant period where there was a lack of investment in such systems.

Tornado-G enables the regular 122mm Grad to have similar range to a 220mm system like the Uragan.

Next to be expected will be the entry into service of the Coalition artillery.

vincent said:

Nuclear explosions leaves tons of radiative elements floating in the air and in the water for millions of years. Way different from a regular bomb.

Click to expand...

Nagasaki and Hiroshima seem to have been the exception.

SolarWarden said:

Nagasaki and Hiroshima seem to have been the exception.

Click to expand...

Tiny nukes compare to today's nukes and they were air bursts (less radiative dusts)

vincent said:

Nuclear explosions leaves tons of radiative elements floating in the air and in the water for millions of years. Way different from a regular bomb.

Click to expand...

That is not the problem, the US did that with depleted Uranium in Iraq and in chemical way in Vietnam, the real problem with killing people with nukes is that is exponentially easier that with any other weapon in human history, with conventional bombing you need to move a lot of assets and take time to be effective, may give civilians chance to take shelter and with modern "precision" weapons civilian causalities could be minimized.

A nuke in the other hand is different kind of beast, a flash of blinding light and is over, death come quick for hundred of thousands, no warning, no sirens, no nothing. Just death. Then another nuke and another. Pandora box is open.

Conventional weapons rely on the EM force. Nuclear weapons utilize the strong force. Completely different universes in terms of the kind of destructive power you can unleash per unit mass. The taboo exists because the mechanisms involved are completely different from normal weapons and have functionally no upper limit. Excusing the use of these weapons to commit genocidal violence against civilians on the basis that it has been done once before 80 years ago is stupid.