Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Jimbuna]

Hospitals in occupied Kherson region cannot cope with flow of wounded Russians, - General Staff

The General Staff of AFU released operational information on number of wounded Russian occupants and their placement in medical institutions of temporarily occupied territories.

As informs Censor.NЕТ, it was reported in official General Staff Facebook.

The report states: "The enemy continues to suffer losses. Local hospitals in the temporarily occupied areas of Kherson region cannot cope with the flow of wounded occupants.

It was confirmed that up to thirty wounded invaders arrived to the children's clinical hospital in Lysychansk, Luhansk region. Additional medical staff has been sent to the said institution". Source: https://censor.net/en/n3372388

[Jimbuna]

"Most protected in world": since beginning of full-scale war, Russian authorities assured of "impossibility" of attack on Crimean bridge. PHOTOS

From the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Russian authorities assured about the impossibility of an attack on the Crimean bridge. These assurances were widely reproduced in the Russian propaganda media.

This is reported by Censor.NET.

In response to statements about possible plans of Ukrainian troops to attack the Crimean bridge, the Russian authorities stated that this was impossible due to the supposedly reliable protection of the object. There were even claims that the Crimean bridge was supposedly "the most protected bridge in the world."

Thus, the puppet of the Kremlin in the occupied Crimea, Serhii Aksyonov, said on May 7 that "any attempts to harm the Crimean bridge will be stopped, and the control of the bridge will be carried out around the clock."

On June 16, 2022, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, assured that the Russian army is taking note of all threats regarding the attack on the Crimean bridge and all plans in this regard will fail. On the same day, the press secretary of the Russian president, Dmytro Peskov, said: "The security of Crimea is guaranteed by those preventive measures and those additional measures that are currently being taken by our military." Source: https://censor.net/en/n3372370

[Dargo]

Russian soldiers started fleeing from Crimea in cars to Berdyansk, from where they then leave for the territory of Russia, - Mayor of Melitopol, Ivan Fedorov. "We see panic among the occupiers. A significant movement from the Crimean side to Berdyansk began. Because now the only route by which you can leave the temporarily occupied territory is through Melitopol, Berdyansk, Mariupol, and then to the territory of the Russian Federation. Today, this route is busy, a large number of cars have left Crimea and are going to the Russian Federation," Fedorov said. https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/st...17723257102337

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Crimea bridge "reopened". One of the car traffic lanes, apparently.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...its-fuel-train

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...osion-12715241


Whatever struck the bridge earlier - more of that, please!

Current status of the Crimean Bridge - Russian authorities ran a 15 car test train across the damaged section of the rail span. A slightly sketchy crossing has been created along the part of the road span only partially damaged by the explosion. Current reports state that the road span is handling about 20 cars per hour. Per Russian state media, the current capacity of the damaged Crimean Bridge road span in 3.5 tonnes https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/s...16745485529088

[mapuc]

The truck version becomes more and more less plausible

As Denys says in the video-Truck goes through an x-ray before they drive onto the bridge. this is a safety thing.



Markus

[Skybird]

This analysis goes far beyond what the media usually say about the likelihood of nuclear war. Recommended read! Not just profane bluffing but psychological automatisms is the name of the game, and that is what makes it so dangerous. AdG writes:
------------------------------------
How likely is a nuclear war in Europe?

Putin has indirectly threatened to use nuclear weapons. How credible is this declaration of war? Let's play through the conceivable scenarios of a nuclear escalation.

Putin has indirectly threatened to use nuclear weapons and declared that he is not bluffing. But this is where things get complicated. Someone who is not bluffing cannot convince the other person who thinks he is bluffing that he is not bluffing by saying he is not bluffing, because that would probably be expected of someone who is bluffing. The only way Putin could safely prove to the West that his threat to use nuclear weapons is not a bluff would be to use nuclear weapons. The West's only way to find out whether it is a bluff or not is to call his bluff. If the military situation comes to a dramatic head, if there is a widespread collapse of the Russian Front, for example, the question of "bluff or no bluff" becomes a matter of fate.

The danger of nuclear escalation is not grasped by the broader public because of a misconception of how nuclear war might occur. The image of the red button possessed by the Russian and American presidents who, by pressing the same, would usher in the end of the world, is misleading. The scenario is different, namely that of gradual escalation, which is much more dangerous because it sets in motion a spiral in which each further turn is associated with greater risk, without either side feeling fully responsible for the escalation. The lines between bluff and actual intent become blurred, and what was meant to be a bluff can become reality.

What needs to be understood is this: The dynamic does not begin when the Kremlin deploys the first tactical nuclear weapons, but before that, when it deploys the delivery systems of those tactical nuclear weapons, because then the White House is under direct pressure to move. The U.S. knows, through satellites and spying, virtually in real time where these delivery systems are and where they are going. The Russians know that the Americans know, and the Americans know that the Russians know. That is, as soon as the delivery systems move, the Russians use that to send a signal to the United States. That message was: to influence the Ukrainians to call off their offensive because, on the other hand, Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are being used.

The question would be: Who will draw his colt first?

If this were a bluff and the U.S. put this pressure on the Ukrainians, this strategy would work and the U.S. would have to worry that the Kremlin would use this method again later. So instead, they could call their bluff and gamble that the Russians will not use the tactical nuclear weapons they have set in motion. If that's the case, Putin's bluff would be called and there would be no denying that he's left bare. This would have far-reaching consequences, because from now on every threat would come to naught and the Kremlin's nuclear armament would be exposed as a toothless tiger. As good as this may sound to Western ears, it comes with a serious problem. For this very reason, Putin would be under extreme pressure to actually use the weapons he has threatened to deploy.

The situation becomes even more complicated. We are dealing with escalation stages where assumptions about later stages influence earlier stages. Because the U.S. is also aware of this dilemma, it is reasonable to think that Putin may feel compelled to actually use the tactical nuclear weapons. This puts pressure on the U.S. to prevent Ukraine from such a strike and not wait for the first nuclear warhead to strike Ukrainian soil. Former U.K. and NATO biological, chemical and nuclear weapons defense force commander Hamish Bretton Gordon told CNN that he assumed Biden had made it clear to Putin: "If you move your tactical nukes, NATO will destroy them with precision-guided long-range missiles."

The United States would be able to use a conventional preemptive strike to knock out the delivery systems of tactical nuclear weapons and make the Kremlin's nuclear strike impossible. The question would be: Who will draw his Colt first? Even if we assume that the Biden administration would not choose to do so, the sheer possibility has repercussions for the Russians' course of action. Since they would have to reckon with such a conventional strike against their tactical nuclear weapons, they would have to strike as quickly and as massively as possible because they only have one opportunity to shoot down their tactical arsenal. In turn, the Americans know this as well, which also puts them under severe pressure to quickly eliminate tactical nuclear weapons.

How would Biden respond?

There is something to be said for the Ukrainians' assumption that the U.S. will protect them in this way against attacks with tactical nuclear weapons and can therefore act in such a cold-blooded manner. Putin, in turn, could now aim to call the U.S. guarantees as a bluff by targeting his tactical nuclear weapons. If he does that, but the U.S. makes no move to do anything about it, that may increase nervousness on the Ukrainian side and thus Moscow's threat potential against Ukraine. That will increase Ukrainian pressure on Biden to take the Russians' tactical nuclear weapons out of play with a preemptive strike. However, that may be a trap and exactly what the Kremlin wants to achieve. The U.S. would look like the aggressor in one fell swoop, the Russian people would rally behind its leadership, and large segments of the world community would condemn the United States.

In other words, once the Russian launchers start moving, the 79-year-old Biden will have a very short period of time to decide whether to take the risk that the Russians are not bluffing and carry out the nuclear decapitation strike against Ukraine or to strike conventionally against the launchers himself. The pressure on him will be enormous, and what the old man decides to do in this situation is an open question. If he chooses to take out the Russian delivery systems with conventional weapons, that would effectively be the U.S. declaring war on Russia. The problem with a preemptive strike is that you end up having difficulty proving that you actually preempted the attacker.

By attacking Russian territory, Putin would have a free hand politically, but would face the problem of not being able to hold a candle to NATO conventionally. The only arsenal of weapons the Russians would have left to counterattack after destroying tactical nuclear weapons would be strategic nuclear weapons, which are widely believed to be impossible to disable. The Kremlin would probably not attack the United States directly, but would go to the next higher level of escalation. That would be an attack with strategic nuclear weapons on military bases in NATO countries that do not have nuclear weapons themselves, i.e., countries like Germany, Poland, or Italy. In Germany, this would probably affect southern Germany and the Rhine-Main region.

Nuclear powers: suicide out of loyalty to the alliance?

NATO would then be faced with the question of whether to respond with a nuclear strike on Russian territory. In this case, however, the nuclear powers USA, France and the United Kingdom would have to reckon with the fact that they themselves would be the target of Russian nuclear weapons as a further counterattack. The question is whether Biden, Macron and Truss would launch their nuclear weapons at Russian targets, even though they would in turn be directing Putin's missiles at them. Then, at the latest, all decision-makers would reach the point where they would have to decide whether to commit suicide in solidarity with their NATO allies. This would be the last chance to stop the escalation and to settle the conflict, admittedly over a destroyed Central Europe, but at least without the downfall of mankind and of their own nation.

The very fact that it is not certain which of the two variants would occur makes the variants before it more likely. For both sides, the Western nuclear powers and Russia, a last lifeboat remains until the end. It is precisely this lifeboat that makes the scenario more likely. This is an old dilemma from the Cold War era. The interests of nuclear weapons states are different from those of countries that do not have nuclear weapons. NATO's deterrence is based on the promise that the nuclear powers are prepared to go down together with the non-nuclear-weapon states. If there are serious doubts about this solidarity to the death, i.e., Moscow considers it a "bluff," the nuclear umbrella for the non-nuclear states no longer works.


One might ask why it is worthwhile to even bother with such horror scenarios, which represent the unlikely worst-case scenario. Because these escalation scenarios make it understandable why actors currently behave the way they do. The worry that caused German chancellors from Konrad Adenauer to Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl to our present day sleepless nights was the gloomy vision that, in the event of conflict, Washington and Moscow would only be able to come to an agreement over the ruins of a destroyed Germany. Early enough not to destroy themselves and the whole world, but too late to prevent nuclear escalation on the European continent. This may explain why Scholz is not exactly overenthusiastic in his support for the Ukrainian offensive in the east.

https://www.achgut.com/artikel/wie_w...rieg_in_europa

------------------------------------


Thats why I think since long more European nations need nuclear weapons.

Yes. Including Germany. (And Japan, Australia and South Korea).

[mapuc]

^ Two words to summarize your interesting post.

Psychological warfare.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Russia ramped up security on its only bridge to Crimea after a huge blast destroyed sections of it on Saturday.

President Vladimir Putin has now ordered the country's Federal Security Service (FSB) to oversee the key connector to the occupied peninsula.

The bridge is also a pivotal symbol of Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. The blast killed three people, Russian investigators said.

Officials said work to fix the damaged sections would begin immediately.

Russia's deputy prime minister ordered the destroyed parts of the bridge to be taken down immediately, and said divers would begin investigating damage below the waterline on Sunday morning, Russian news agencies report.

Hailed by Russian media as "the construction of the century", the bridge has been crucial to Russia for the movement of military equipment, ammunition and troops into southern Ukraine.

But new satellite images released on Saturday showed smoke and fire near the collapsed areas of the 19km (12-mile) bridge, which was opened with much fanfare four years after Moscow annexed Crimea.

Since it plays a strategic role in the war, Ukrainian authorities have said it is a legitimate target, as they vow to retake the peninsula.

Ukrainian officials responded with thinly-veiled approval to the explosion - but have not indicated that their forces were behind the attack.

President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged the incident in his nightly address on Saturday, saying: "Today was not a bad day and mostly sunny on our state's territory."

"Unfortunately, it was cloudy in Crimea. Although it was also warm," he added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63189627

[Gorpet]

Yes,You are with us or against us.I think an old ex republican president said that on a forgotten day a long time ago.Fast-forward we have a new Dynamic Party and figure head that represents a new way for the future.And a new war for the freedom of yet another Country, The "Ukraine" the United States and it's bought and paid for NATO allies.America and the leaders of your country will tell you, We are the Light against the Dark and we and you our allies will prevail as a Tribe of nations we must defeat evil at all cost.

Ya know i would like to know what that cost is.The Politician's of the United States did not ask for a vote from the people if we wanted to leave a 20 yr. war in Afghanistan to go right into a proxy war in Ukraine.And send billions of the taxpayers money into another war. So much for Democracy where every individual has a say.And we choose as a country and a nation a united friken tribe of the USA in harmony and by the right to vote!!!. If we want to as a whole back and support any country in another war. My god have the politician been lying to us. ? How will we ever get to Utopia if the people don't get their say?

[Jimbuna]

Total combat losses of Russia since beginning of war - about 62,500 people, 266 planes, 235 helicopters, 2,486 tanks, 1,477 artillery systems, 5,133 armored vehicles. INFOGRAPHICS

The Russian occupiers, who invaded the territory of Ukraine, continue to suffer losses. As of the morning of October 9, the loss of enemy personnel are approximately 62,500.

This is reported by Censor.NET with reference to the press center of the General Staff.

As noted, the total combat losses of the enemy from 24/02 to 09/10 are approximately:

personnel - about 62,500 (+440) people were eliminated,
tanks - 2486 (+14) units,
armored combat vehicles - 5133 (+22) units,
artillery systems - 1477 (+18) units,
MLRS - 348 (+3) units,
air defense equipment - 180 (+0) units,
aircraft - 266 (+0) units,
helicopters - 235 (+1) units,
UAVs of operational-tactical level - 1086 (+7),
cruise missiles - 247 (+1),
ships/boats - 15 (+0) units,
automotive equipment and tank trucks - 3890 (+15) units,
special equipment - 136 (+0). Source: https://censor.net/en/n3372445

[Jimbuna]

Representatives of occupying authorities of Nova Kakhovka take their families to territory of Autonomous Republic of Crimea, - General Staff

The occupiers from Nova Kakhovka are taking their families to the temporarily occupied Crimea - on October 7, a convoy of 12 minibusses left for Sevastopol.

This is reported by Censor.NET with reference to the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

"The enemy and his henchmen are fleeing, frightened by the successes of the Defense Forces of Ukraine. Representatives of the occupying authorities of Nova Kakhovka are taking their families to the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. According to available information, on October 7, a convoy of 12 minibusses left for the city of Sevastopol. A similar situation is observed in the Luhansk region. So, collaborators began to be evacuated from Starobilsk to Luhansk," the report says. Source: https://censor.net/en/n3372419

[Jimbuna]