Ukrainian War Developments

meckhardt98 said:

Bucha/Irpin region is a large area and most of the supposed killings happened near the border with Hostomel; what likely happened is some sort of confrontation between Russian Forces and locals snowballed into confrontation which lead to mass-killing within a local area; I wouldn’t say that the Russian military or any authoritative body within the region ordered the execution of civilians, rather it most likely started off as an accident or localized event by nervous and or tense Russian soldiers; which are mainly minimally trained conscripts.

This has been observed before by American forces in Vietnam; such with the My Lai massacres by poorly trained and anxious conscripts.

That said there is also the possibility of Russian soldiers and or local regiments denying the Ukrainians potential man power that would otherwise not cooperate with Russian Forces in the region; it could be said that they could have been actively contesting Russian Forces in the area; although that possibility is also slim.

Bodies found in different regions would seem to support this fact of it being a bunch of isolated interconnected events, and it is possible like you said that they were simply moving already dead bodies into mass graves; however it remains that there are a-lot of unanswered questions from the Russian withdrawal from the greater Kyiv Oblast however it can be said that based on provided evidence that both sides are guilty of committing war crimes and are actively attempting to blame one another for committing them; since wars are partially won psychologically.

Click to expand...

Are there any evidence or witness testimony to support any of these suggestions, or are we just trying out different plausible scenarios to see if anything sticks? Because some of the above and from before are self contradictory. Was it deliberately planned cold blooded massacres or just wonton drive-by cruelty? Bodies littering the street suggest haste, yet they had time to tie hands and dig mass graves?

Speaking of witness testimony, it’s curious there has been no first hand accounts of Russian atrocities and war crimes from liberated locals yet isn’t it?

You’d think they would be rushing out with tearful tales soon after the first Ukraine units went in if the Russians did all the horrors being accrued of them.

Also funny no one managed to escape as all this was happening with word of all these horrors as the Russians were committing them. Because that would be quite a feat of organisation, disciple and skill that seems rather at odds with how the Russians have fought the rest of this war.

Darkon112 said:

Yeah, that does not explain the bodies looked like they were killed recently instead of being four days old. Doesn't explain why it took Ukrainians such long time to report about this. While usually they flood twitter, the very instant something happens.

This is likely either result of the shelling by Ukrainians when the Russian where already out of there or and executions by Ukrainians of Pro-Russian Ukrainians. Would also explain the ribbons.


Would also go with Ukrainian modus operandi. As they have executed civilians and also used them as human shields.

Click to expand...

What stood out to me is all of those corpses in the video are all intact, with no clear sign of what killed them and there is no sign of blood or dried blood on the road. Also, are there any leftover ammunition shells on the road?

Coalescence said:

What stood out to me is all of those corpses in the video are all intact, with no clear sign of what killed them and there is no sign of blood or dried blood on the road. Also, are there any leftover ammunition shells on the road?

Click to expand...

There were some images that indicated shrapnel but it's not conclusive.

Unfortunately, whatever happened either this will be buried or blamed automatically on Russians whatever they are guilty or not.

Phead128 said:

The problem with this theory is it assumed NATO will risk nuclear WW3 by intervening against Russia.

I did not see any indication that NATO was willing to risk nuclear WW3 by getting involved in Ukraine, and Putin likely had the same assessment, which is why he invaded knowing NATO won't get involved.

Biden only reinforced 5K troops to Poland/Baltics, far insufficient to intervene against 200K Russian troops. Biden repeated dismissed notion of US troops in Ukraine, only promising to defend 'every inch of NATO territory' only, not Ukraine. Russia intelligence agency likely agreed that NATO involvement was minimal likelihood, hence invasion went forward.

Click to expand...

Did Russia risk WWIII when they flew paratroopers into Belgrade at the end of the Kosovo war?

5K troops would not be anywhere near enough to stop the Russians in a fight, but what happens if a unit of NATO troops just stood in the way of a major Russian advance and refused to move? Are the Russians going to open fire first on NATO troops flying NATO colours?

Also, given the absolute chaos that is the Biden Presidency and the mess of conflicting interests that is NATO, could anyone guarantee there couldn’t have been a tail wagging the dog situation where an US underlying forced the issue by make a call out in the field or a rabidly anti-Russian power like Lithuania or Poland might have taken things into their own hands?

Given the colossal costs and consequences, what degree of risk would you have been willing to bet that it won’t happen to take no precautions or safeguards?

A few thoughts on what Phase 2 may look like in comparison with Phase 1

Darkon112 said:

There were some images that indicated shrapnel but it's not conclusive.

Unfortunately, whatever happened either this will be buried or blamed automatically on Russians whatever they are guilty or not.

Click to expand...

If there's shrapnel then the source is likely from shelling. Why would Russia shell their own defensive position if they were retreating? Also, if it was shelling, why do most of the corpses look intact? Death by shellshock?

Lapin said:

In 1943, Hitler appointed Guderian to reconstruct the depleted Panzerwaffe.
Guderian wanted the Wehrmacht to stay on the strategic defensive on the Ostfront in 1943, hoping to resume offensive
campaigns with a reinvigorated Panzerwaffe in 1944.

Hitler insisted that it was imperative for Germany to launch a major offensive (upon the Kursk salient) in 1943.
He made essentially an argument based upon prestige. Hitler would lose face if Germany did not attack.
Guderian retorted: "How many people in the world even know where Kursk is? It's a matter of indifference to the world
whether Kursk is held by us or the Russians." In the end, Hitler rolled the dice with Operation Citadel.

My point is that military campaigns tend to get into trouble when decisions are made based upon political prestige.

Click to expand...

i think that is merely a standard story designed to highlight the conventional narrative that Hitler was a overreaching strategic incompetent. Hitler was often a reaching strategic incompetent, but on this Occassion he was not nearly as incompetent as narrative made him out to be, and Guderian certainly had a narrow field commander’s mind and most certainly was clueless about Germany’s overall predicament as opposed to the operational challenges on the eastern front.

Basically, 1943 was likely the last opportunity Germany has to dictate the course of a campaign season in the east. 1944 will likely see Anglo-american invasion of France, Italy and possibly Norway. Germany’s relative material strength vs the USSR would in any case have declined sharply even without accounting for the diversions to address these very potent new challenges to Germany’s land strength. There was no way Germany would have the strength to launch a major strategic offensive in the east after 1943. In 1943 Germany had one last chance to decisively improve her defensive position and depth to face what would likely be at least 2-3 upcoming years of pure defensive operation on the east against a now very experienced and much stronger red army

Alternatives to zitedelle for Germany in 1943 all depends on the German army at the operational level holding the same advantage over the Soviet army derived from the tightness of their OODC decision loop. They would need to keep the same advantage throughout 1943 that they had held in 1942 and the beginning of 1943. Hitler could see the Soviets learn from their mistakes and are tightening up their own OODC loop. So it would be even more risky to give up large territories to the Soviets essentially for free, and then count on the Soviets making the same mistakes and exhibit the same slow reactions to German maneuvers as during the follow up of Stalingrad to gain them back.

So prestige was not the driving force for hitler’s decision to commit to the Kursk battle. The fact that Germany was back against a wall and out of other real options was.

Coalescence said:

A twitter thread on the points the Russian side made on debunking the Bucha massacre.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1510760127615406084

Russia is escalating the discussion to the UN security council:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Seems like they are determined to debunk the narrative of Bucha massacre. If they succeed then this will become a massive propaganda boost for their domestic audience on the narrative that Ukraine committing false flag and warcrimes, and ruin subsequent chances for convincing the Russian population that their own military might be committing war crimes. if they fail, it will be a massive self-own lol

Click to expand...

See, the problem there is the Russians are publishing articles actually calling for the genocide of Ukrainians:

Maikeru said:

See, the problem there is the Russians are publishing articles actually calling for the genocide of Ukrainians:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1510908227202002947

Click to expand...

Jesus, the author describing Ukraine like some sort of country to be colonized. I wonder how mainstream that view is in Russia and, whether Putin and his inner circle of elites think the same.

I'm not sure if this is a clear indication of what majority of Russian think about this, but here's the reacts to the article


It seems like its 50/50, unless most of the dislikes are coming from Ukrainian bots.

Coalescence said:

Jesus, the author describing Ukraine like some sort of country to be colonized. I wonder how mainstream that view is in Russia and, whether Putin and his inner circle of elites think the same.

Click to expand...

As direct source would be better. The article in question BTW.