Ukraine War - the Narrative is Slowly Changing

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Here is how Ukraine helped civilians in Mariupol. This is one of the videos from phones that were partially destroyed and recovered from inside Azovstal.

I can't tell what that video is showing. I can't see the driver, so I don't know if it's a military target or not.

I've been finding that a lot of these videos don't actually have "the goods" they claim to have. If what you are accusing were really a thing, there would CERTAINLy be AT LEAST ONE video that isn't vague, depicting it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I can't tell what that video is showing. I can't see the driver, so I don't know if it's a military target or not.

I can tell you what it shows. It shows them firing at a civilian car with no markings on it without them having any way to identify if they were friend or foe when they opened fire.
It also shows that the windows were up so forget the driveby scenario.

If what you are accusing were really a thing, there would CERTAINLy be AT LEAST ONE video that isn't vague, depicting it.

Did the part about destroyed phones in Azovstal escape you? They also cut power to the city over a week before it was invaded. Just in case you were wondering why there isn't a lot off of civilian footage.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I can't tell what that video is showing. I can't see the driver, so I don't know if it's a military target or not.

I can tell you what it shows. It shows them firing at a civilian car with no markings on it without them having any way to identify if they were friend or foe when they opened fire.

It also shows that the windows were up so forget the driveby scenario.

Gotta understand how an artillery war works.

99.99999999% of victory is just getting your enemy's coordinates.

If the guy in that car has a radio, he will kill you much much much much... more dead than if he had a gun.

They probably told civilians not to drive in that area, and most likely indicated to the driver that he needed to turn around and go back very clearly. If he kept going, you could be 99.9999999% certain he was a spotter for enemy artillery.

If what you are accusing were really a thing, there would CERTAINLy be AT LEAST ONE video that isn't vague, depicting it.

Did the part about destroyed phones in Azovstal escape you? They also cut power to the city over a week before it was invaded. Just in case you were wondering why there isn't a lot off of civilian footage.

So.... hearsay??

You can upload video from a phone to a server, or another phone (outside the war zone) pretty quickly. So destroying phones does not equal destroying footage.

It's more likely an attempt to stop plain clothes intelligence officers from spotting for enemy artillery.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

At least you are not arguing that they were not targeting civilians. You are just saying that they could have been spotters.

UA instead of defending Mariupol decided to use the city and population as cover would shoot and kill civilians because any one of them could have been a spotter.

POWs already confirmed that was what they were doing.

Hapless civilians that ran out of food and water became targets of UA when they went out in search of it.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: bloodymarvelous



UA instead of defending Mariupol decided to use the city and population as cover would shoot and kill civilians because any one of them could have been a spotter.

It's impossible to defend a city from any position except inside it. If you try to position yourself outside of it, the enemy will just waltz in and occupy it.

I'm sure they told civilians not to go near their positions. When a person goes where they have been explicitly told not to , you gotta figure there's probably a reason why they're doing that.



And this the most frustrating thing you are not getting: There is no POSSIBLE way the UA's soldiers were safer inside the city than outside of it.

Outside the city, they know the terrain and they can move around to avoid artillery fire. They have wider areas to reposition around. Those building structures don't stop enemy shells, not the really big ones.

The Russian army does FAR WORSE against UA forces when it tries to fight them out in the open than it does when they are positioned inside a city.

But if you let them take a city, the Russian military can resupply by pillaging the locals. This is why Russia NEEDS to take cities.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It's impossible to defend a city from any position except inside it. If you try to position yourself outside of it, the enemy will just waltz in and occupy it.

I'm sure they told civilians not to go near their positions. When a person goes where they have been explicitly told not to , you gotta figure there's probably a reason why they're doing that.

Told people not to be near their positions? They used the entire city as cover. Thy didn't have anyone going around telling people where they were. You just got finished saying that people could call in their positions. Now you are saying their positions should have been obvious.

You also can't defend a city when you use it as a military base, cover, and concealment. You turn every building you occupy into a target.

They were not defending the city. They used it and the people as shields to defend themselves.

And this the most frustrating thing you are not getting: There is no POSSIBLE way the UA's soldiers were safer inside the city than outside of it.

Outside the city, they know the terrain and they can move around to avoid artillery fire. They have wider areas to reposition around. Those building structures don't stop enemy shells, not the really big ones.

Only in opposite world. A city can provide cover and concealment. It offers a differentiated terrain and many firing positions. They are tank traps. They limit artillery. They restrict aviation support.

You really have no clue of what you are talking about. The cities are the only places where UA is having any success in stopping or slowing Russians. The Opposite is true in open terrain where Russia outguns them with artillery and air support as well as use their superior air defense systems to shoot down drones and incoming missiles. The best UA can do is use trench systems as cover in those situations.

The Russian army does FAR WORSE against UA forces when it tries to fight them out in the open than it does when they are positioned inside a city.

That is 100% false and there is tons of video footage proving it. More is posted daily.

But if you let them take a city, the Russian military can resupply by pillaging the locals. This is why Russia NEEDS to take cities.

The Russians are supplying the cities. Bringing in humanitarian aid daily. Not the other way around. Cities do not provide food, ammunition, or fuel, which is what a military needs to be effective.

The only thing a city can provide is cover and concealment.

Standard military doctrine is that it takes a 3 or 4 to 1 superiority of force to take a city because it offers the ones occupying it an advantage.

I have no idea who has put all this nonsense into your head about cities and where Russia or Ukraine holds the advantage but that is what it is. Nonsense.

Ukraine uses city structures as fortifications and the people as shields to keep Russia from standing at a distance to flatten the buildings with artillery. Russia has to go in and fight building to building, block by block to drive UA back. All while trying not to completely destroy those buildings because civilians may be in the basements.

a reply to: Grimpachi

How do you defend a city from outside it?

Which, by the way, the Russians have flattened.

How did Russia defend Stalingrad? From outside the city?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It's impossible to defend a city from any position except inside it. If you try to position yourself outside of it, the enemy will just waltz in and occupy it.

I'm sure they told civilians not to go near their positions. When a person goes where they have been explicitly told not to , you gotta figure there's probably a reason why they're doing that.

Told people not to be near their positions? They used the entire city as cover. Thy didn't have anyone going around telling people where they were. You just got finished saying that people could call in their positions. Now you are saying their positions should have been obvious.

The city is multiple square kilometers. It narrows the range of possibilities, but random bombardment would simply level the whole city, making it impossible to pillage.

Every time a city is besieged, Zelensky gets on the phone with the Russians and tries to negotiate evacuation corridors.

But you're making it sound like the only way the UA could show they cared about the civilians would be to unconditionally withdraw and let the Russians freely take it.

You also can't defend a city when you use it as a military base, cover, and concealment. You turn every building you occupy into a target.

If you are going to take position in a contained area like a city, you dam well better use the buildings to hide.

Outside the city there would be hills and trees you could use.

Again, you're trying to set a goal post in a position so ridiculous even Chuck Norris wouldn't live up to your expectations.

They were not defending the city. They used it and the people as shields to defend themselves.

You realize, right, that the whole West of Ukraine is still not a warzone, right? All the soldiers have to do in order to be perfectly safe is move 20 or 30 km back from the front lines.

There is zero benefit to camping out in a contained zone where the enemy can potentially surround you.

And this the most frustrating thing you are not getting: There is no POSSIBLE way the UA's soldiers were safer inside the city than outside of it.

Outside the city, they know the terrain and they can move around to avoid artillery fire. They have wider areas to reposition around. Those building structures don't stop enemy shells, not the really big ones.

Only in opposite world. A city can provide cover and concealment. It offers a differentiated terrain and many firing positions. They are tank traps. They limit artillery. They restrict aviation support.

You really have no clue of what you are talking about. The cities are the only places where UA is having any success in stopping or slowing Russians. The Opposite is true in open terrain where Russia outguns them with artillery and air support as well as use their superior air defense systems to shoot down drones and incoming missiles. The best UA can do is use trench systems as cover in those situations.

You kidding? The Russians are getting pushed back on multiple fronts.

The cities are where Ukraine is suffering the heaviest losses.

Out in the open they've got NATO satellites spotting targets for them, and using the new mobile HIMAR systems they can fire off a volley and be moved to another position kilometers away before Russian artillery has time to respond.

The Russian army does FAR WORSE against UA forces when it tries to fight them out in the open than it does when they are positioned inside a city.

That is 100% false and there is tons of video footage proving it. More is posted daily.

And ten times more videos proving it true.

Right now UA has better artillery (provided by NATO) than Russia does. They can hit more precisely from farther away.

Add to that "home court advantage" making it easier for them to spot Russian positions, and letting the cities fall would make the most sense. Except the Russians would use them as supply depots.

The biggest worry when you take up a static position in an artillery war is the enemy can cut off your supply lines. In fact that is exactly why Mariupol eventually fell. Soldiers simply ran out of ammunition.

That problem will never happen out in open terrain.

But if you let them take a city, the Russian military can resupply by pillaging the locals. This is why Russia NEEDS to take cities.

The Russians are supplying the cities. Bringing in humanitarian aid daily. Not the other way around. Cities do not provide food, ammunition, or fuel, which is what a military needs to be effective.

What kind of cool aid are you drinking?

They can't even supply themselves. How would they supply a city?

The only thing a city can provide is cover and concealment.

Standard military doctrine is that it takes a 3 or 4 to 1 superiority of force to take a city because it offers the ones occupying it an advantage.

It take 3 or 4 to 1 superiority to take any position against a defender.

I have no idea who has put all this nonsense into your head about cities and where Russia or Ukraine holds the advantage but that is what it is. Nonsense.

Ukraine uses city structures as fortifications and the people as shields to keep Russia from standing at a distance to flatten the buildings with artillery. Russia has to go in and fight building to building, block by block to drive UA back. All while trying not to completely destroy those buildings because civilians may be in the basements.

And if Ukraine simply withdrew from the City, they would face the exact same problem taking the city back.

Do you operate under the illusion that, when Ukraine pushes the Russians back to the same city, the Russians will honorably withdraw?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The city is multiple square kilometers. It narrows the range of possibilities, but random bombardment would simply level the whole city, making it impossible to pillage.

Who is pillaging?

And ten times more videos proving it true.

Right now UA has better artillery (provided by NATO) than Russia does. They can hit more precisely from farther away.

No, there are far more videos posted by Russia. You are not going to see them unless you look for them. Try Telegram.

They have very few NATO artillery pieces compared to what Russia has. M777s without special ordinance has a comparable range to Russias, They have 4 MLRS HIMARS platforms. Maybe a few more. Russia has hundreds many with comparable range. The CEASER system is something special. It doesn't outrange Russia but it is rapidly deployed and fast to extract. They have few in number. 2 have been destroyed and 1 captured. The remaining Russian make artillery Ukraine has is running low on ammunition. Russia fires more artillery shells than Ukraine in a day than Ukraine does in a week. A lot of that has to do with them capturing the second largest armory in Europe from Ukraine early in the war. Russia also still has it's war manufacturing facilities intact in the rear which are able to produce more ammunition.

Every time a city is besieged, Zelensky gets on the phone with the Russians and tries to negotiate evacuation corridors.

Yes, I have heard that. They agree on corridors and then Ukraine claims that Russia shells those corridors. Which doesn't make any sense. It would be much easier to take a city without having to worry about civilian casualties. There are hundreds of civilian accounts of Ukraine firing on civilians trying to flee. There are a few videos of it. Many civilians say they were never even notified of green zone corridors.

But you're making it sound like the only way the UA could show they cared about the civilians would be to unconditionally withdraw and let the Russians freely take it.

If UA cared about civilians they wouldn't set up firing positions where civilians are congregated. They wouldn't drive to where those civilians are and launch their artillery. They wouldn't use schools, hospitals, and kindergartens as bases.

That is all documented by Western sources. UA calls it total defense.

If you are going to take position in a contained area like a city, you dam well better use the buildings to hide.

Outside the city, there would be hills and trees you could use.

Again, you're trying to set a goal post in a position so ridiculous even Chuck Norris wouldn't live up to your expectations.

No, I have been very clear about this. Ukraine wasn't defending the cities or the civilians in them. They used them as shields and cover. That is all.

You realize, right, that the whole West of Ukraine is still not a warzone, right? All the soldiers have to do in order to be perfectly safe is move 20 or 30 km back from the front lines.

There is zero benefit to camping out in a contained zone where the enemy can potentially surround you.

I really want you to think about what you wrote. If every time Russia came into range Ukraine withdrew 20 to 30kms what is stopping Russia from advancing?

And again, UA uses the cities as concealment and cover. It takes more effort and manpower to take a city than it does to match or overcome them in open terrain. This is basic war doctrine.

You kidding? The Russians are getting pushed back on multiple fronts.

The cities are where Ukraine is suffering the heaviest losses.

Out in the open they've got NATO satellites spotting targets for them, and using the new mobile HIMAR systems they can fire off a volley and be moved to another position kilometers away before Russian artillery has time to respond.

What fronts do you think Russia is being pushed back on? Also, FYI Russia has satellites and MLRS systems that are comparable to HIMARS and they have a lot more of them than Ukraine.

Add to that "home court advantage" making it easier for them to spot Russian positions, and letting the cities fall would make the most sense. Except the Russians would use them as supply depots.

The biggest worry when you take up a static position in an artillery war is the enemy can cut off your supply lines. In fact that is exactly why Mariupol eventually fell. Soldiers simply ran out of ammunition.

That problem will never happen out in open terrain.

Now we have satellites, UAVs, and thermal imagers. Home court counts in cities, not open terrain. Russia has what is considered the best air defense system in the world. Ukraine losses jets and UAVs every day from trying to penetrate it while Russia is virtually unopposed in most regions. Yes, stingers are good but they don't have radar and they can't hit what they don't know is there.

As for running out of ammo, that is false. It is a story like the claim they were evacuated. Entire stocked armories have been taken under Azovstal.

What kind of cool aid are you drinking?

They can't even supply themselves. How would they supply a city?

They are happily supplied. Videos every day are posted of them bringing in humanitarian aid. Their supply lines are secured where UA can't touch them. I don't know where you are getting your info from but they are lying.

It take 3 or 4 to 1 superiority to take any position against a defender.

Not a defender. A city.

And if Ukraine simply withdrew from the City, they would face the exact same problem taking the city back.

Do you operate under the illusion that, when Ukraine pushes the Russians back to the same city, the Russians will honorably withdraw?

Russia has done so several times now. So I don't know where you are coming up with this. Ukraine doesn't even have the strength to take back cities anymore.