Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 2

a reply to: Grimpachi

How was the explosive triggered / set to detonate? And was it just explosives vs explosives and anti-personnel?

Some are made to hit the target for example. Some are made to detonate above the target. Same are made to detonate above the target to tekease shrapnel.

So. What was the explosive/warhead designed for, and what manner was it to be deployed ? How was it triggered to explode? Proximity fuse? Or was it set to explode at a certain height. And what type of warhead did it carry? Was it anti personnel for example?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That accounts for both missiles and would confirm that the mall was not hit.

The missile shown in Silicone Synapse's post shows the perspective from inside the factory compound looking toward the mall building.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
The aerial view of the mall in the above link shows the adjacent factory buildings are not damaged.
It also shows the metal structure to the right of the missile, and the small elevated hut that is to the left of the missile.

Which are also shown on the aerial view just to the north of the mall, toward the center of the building.

I'm not saying the mall was intentionally hit, but its clear that it was a direct hit on the mall.

Edit link

a reply to: Scrable







And here is the second strike. Both outside of the mall as I said

Just watching Jens Stolltenberg at the NATO conference-

Hes showing off this shiny new report on NATOs plans for the future,and outlined the main changes..
Russia has been officially re designated from a "strategic partner" to "the main threat of NATO"

Hes talking about more weapons to Ukraine,huge increases in NATO rapid readiness forces,equipment,R+D,new technologies etc etc.
Then he goes on to say how NATO is going to reduce its carbon footprint by 40 odd % by 2030,and be carbon neutral by 2050.

Am I the only one seeing a huge dissonance of thinking here?

You're going to beef up and upgrade everything,add 100s of thousands of soldiers and all the equipment/vehicles/weapons they need,maybe even end up at war with Russia...But its all going to be done magically,without causing any net increase to carbon production.

I am sooo relieved to learn from these great minds that as we slide into possible nuclear apocalypse,we do so in a carbon neutral,eco friendly manner.

a reply to: Grimpachi
I don't see how that makes your point.

Your picture shows the impact crater at the northeast corner of the mall.

a reply to: Scrable

I have repeatedly said the mall was not hit. I have also stated that the explosion could have been close but it wasn't a direct strike.

The video and satellite photos confirmed what I said.

On a side note for those that were going on about volcanos.


The difference in sites is attributed to compression. One hit a building which shaped the charge. The other hit basically an open area so the blast followed the path of least resistance. That is why there is a huge crater in one and not the other.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I have repeatedly said the mall was not hit. I have also stated that the explosion could have been close but it wasn't a direct strike.

Can you not make up your mind to exactly what your line of Russian propoganda is. Yesterday you said this.

The missile hit a heavy equipment factory behind the mall that was being used to repair military vehicles and store ammo.

A photograph was posted to show The Heavy Equipment Factory had not been hit and was fully intact.

You are actually turning into a bit of a comedian.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
Just watching Jens Stolltenberg at the NATO conference-


Hes talking about more weapons to Ukraine

Stolltenberg also stated that he intends to replace Ukraine's weaponry with NATO spec...................

Now if there's one way to blow this conflict up Stolltenberg just did it. Putin is going to go nuts when he hears this one.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Still a military attack that resulted in damaging a civilian target and killing civilians.

The same pattern dating all the way back to MH 17.

According to 🤡🤡🤡 the huge crater where the factory building was isn't hitting the factory nor is a missile striking the property of the factory with stored equipment hitting the factory.

Which is 🤡world logic.

🤡🤡🤡 denying reality.


The fact is both missiles struck the factory. Neither missile struck the mall.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

Stolltenberg also stated that he intends to replace Ukraine's weaponry with NATO spec...................

Now if there's one way to blow this conflict up Stolltenberg just did it. Putin is going to go nuts when he hears this one.

He didn't need to say that-and yes it may be picked up on by Putin as NATO directly joining the conflict,or at least not be seen as a helpful comment.

He didn't need to say it because the bulk of the weapons being given to Ukraine are already mostly NATO spec as they come from countries who are all NATO members and use such weaponry.

But these people supposedly choose their words carefully and know how they will be interpreted,so there must be a reason Stolltenberg said what he did..

originally posted by: Grimpachi
the huge crater where the factory building was

What crater? Your first image shows an circled area that doesnt seem hit at all in the second image because the circled area in that second image isnt the same area, it's circled way below it. The second image doesnt show any obvious crater, just debris - presumably from the mall.

And neither image seem to show the circle on any factory, unless you're saying its in that tiny little wooded area next to the... uh, big factory buildings that's still standing.

a reply to: merka

What crater?

In the video titled Kremenchuck Missile Strike in the same post as the pics you are referencing.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

Stolltenberg also stated that he intends to replace Ukraine's weaponry with NATO spec...................

Now if there's one way to blow this conflict up Stolltenberg just did it. Putin is going to go nuts when he hears this one.

He didn't need to say that-and yes it may be picked up on by Putin as NATO directly joining the conflict,or at least not be seen as a helpful comment.

He didn't need to say it because the bulk of the weapons being given to Ukraine are already mostly NATO spec as they come from countries who are all NATO members and use such weaponry.

But these people supposedly choose their words carefully and know how they will be interpreted,so there must be a reason Stolltenberg said what he did..

Spot on those words were carefully scripted by Stlltenberg's handlers. Our state brainwashing media machine the BBC made those NATO weapons the main starter for the headlines. They must be gearing on to make this conflict another Vietnam / Afghanistan but on the edge of civilised Europe that can't be a good idea

a reply to: ufoorbhunter
I was thinking something similar the other day when all the huge news outlets were showing the same clip from the G7,with the leaders sat round the table taking the piss out of putin and saying they need to show him who is toughest..

Almost as though by running with that footage they were trying to bait Putin...

Foolish IMO-but not a foolish mistake-the comments were intended to wind up putin.

We don't need schoolyard infantile comments from our so called leaders at this point in time.
This is serious.
Act like adults FFS

a reply to: Grimpachi

The point is the FIRE was a RESULT of a missile strike and still ended up destroying the mall due to hot schrapnel catching it on fire. If they would not had hit the deserted factory the mall would still be standing and no one would be dead.

a reply to: yuppa

Don't store weapons and ammo in a civilian structure and it won't become a military target.

And the point others were making/claiming was that Russia targeted a mall which was a lie. They claimed the missile hit the mall which was a lie.


If your point is the fire was a result, AKA collateral damage from the missile strike, at least that is true when NATO countries do it, then I was not directing my comments at you.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The fact is both missiles struck the factory. Neither missile struck the mall.

Um, while I would normally defer to your view on this, being - as you are - a top-notch expert in ballistics and explosions, rather than an armchair anorak watching YouTube, I would respectfully point out...

1. The attack follows similar atrocities, not least the attack on a crowded theatre in Mariupol killing an estimated 600, or the attack on a train near Kramatorsk which killed 59. Numerous other examples of purposeful, or accidental destruction by Russian arms. Russia does not care.
2. Russia has been bombing and rocketing Kyiv since they started the conflict. This one just claimed more lives.
3. Russian modus operandi with its propaganda is to throw out many conflicting theories to muddy the truth and confuse. We have seen that with this atrocity in Kyiv, and every past atrocity.
4. On balance, on the evidence I have seen flitting around, Russian past behaviour and the amount of disruptive propaganda, I think that Russia committed another atrocity.

Warning. I am not a ballistics expert, nor skilled in the science of explosions.

a reply to: Grimpachi
On this page you said:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"The article does lie and say the mall was hit with a missile as well."

The picture you posted with the yellow circle drawn is at the northeast corner of the mall.
There are no factory buildings there. It appears to be railroad tracks, and the mall that were hit.

In this post you said:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"In short, this is the impact crater at the factory. It is what you expect from a caliber or Oniks missile strike."

And yet the picture you used as proof is a picture of the mall, looking at it from the north.
The sign you see in your picture reads "Comfyoja" which translates to Comfy Store.

"

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: yuppa

Don't store weapons and ammo in a civilian structure and it won't become a military target.

And the point others were making/claiming was that Russia targeted a mall which was a lie. They claimed the missile hit the mall which was a lie.


If your point is the fire was a result, AKA collateral damage from the missile strike, at least that is true when NATO countries do it, then I was not directing my comments at you.

There were no secondaries so those "weapons" must had been non existent though. We do not target places anymore that are that close to civie buildings these days. That what ground troops are for.