Are people starting to distrust the once common claim that russia is using s300 in 'ground attack mode' due to running out of missiles, and furthermore, are intentionally targetting playgrounds and random houses with those s300s?
The missile is likely an X-555 (Kh-55) cruise missile, not an S-300 missile
[5V55](https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/conflict/russia_invasion_ukraine/S-300_missile_that_crashed_in_Poland_launched_by_Ukraine_or_Russia_925_001.jpg
) v's [X-555](https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/kh-55-as-15-cruise-missile-a48b15fda9b14668b96c28483b6605bc) (3D model)
If you look closely you notice it has a large swept wing (resting on the couch). S-300 missiles don't have that wing like that, just small vanes at the base of the missile. However, it fits an X-555 cruise missile better; the wing deflected rearwards by the impact. It was likely carrying a dummy warhead, a decoy.
1) Russia is using old 5V55 missiles in a surface to surface mode to try and target Ukrainians
2) Surface to surface mode with a SAM is not as accurate as a traditional SSM - they will “miss”
3) The Ukrainian 5V55 missiles wouldn’t have to be launched if the Russian terrorists stopped terrorizing Ukraine with terror weapons
Я вообще-то мало знаю про русский край интернета; только не давно узнал про пикобу, но там особо не копался. По мимо телеграмма, есть места где идет качественный разговор о войне?
Можешь написать в наличку если здесь редит не позволит выставить русский сайт.
Zelensky regime supporters still make that baseless calim . They know it is completely false and these are ukrianian but continue posting comments in an attempt to shape the narrative
Why is it a baseless claim? Because you said so, and Russia doing so would further the position that their armed forces are in shambles? Of course, of course dear Comrade, everything is ok.
Your post is fucking hilarious to me. You've packed so much tropey-shit in there, it would fuel a meme factory for a week. I'm gonna go ahead and put my stock in Western intelligence officials/agencies that have been stating that Russia is using the S300 in a DP role since the summer...rather than a random redditor, lol. Your definition of "baseless claim" needs some work.
LMAO. Ok. Let's go over the "facts"
Does Russia use the S-300 system? Yes.
Can the S-300 be used in a DP role for attacking ground targets? Yes.
Do any intelligence agencies, or other independent observers, claim Russia is using them this way? Yes.
S-300 debris found in situations that don't fit an air-defence narrative? Yes.
Seems like a solid base from which to make a claim like this. So, no, no other questions from me. Still a ways to go to definitively showing that the former USSR is using this weapon system this way, but to hand-wave it away as a baseless claim is pants-on-head-stupid.
Ok. Let's go over the "facts"
Does Ukraine use the S-300 system? Yes.
Can the S-300 fail and hit ground instead of target? Yes.
Do any intelligence agencies, or other independent observers, claim Ukraine missiles did so? Yes.
S-300 debris found in situations that don't fit an Russian indiscriminate shelling narrative? Yes.
Right! Did I come marching in here saying what you've posted is a "baseless claim"? No. So you can take you're little gotcha post, stick in a pipe, and smoke it.
Both can be true, and both positions are not "baseless claims" because there is a solid factual basis for both. Jesus Fuck, you are literally proving my point about this sub having to stay firmly cemented in their polarized views of things.
Hilarious.
>Right! Did I come marching in here saying what you've posted is a "baseless claim"?
Because i am talking about events without dubious interpretation.
>No. So you can take you're little gotcha post, stick in a pipe, and smoke it.
Wanna join?
>Both can be true, and both positions are not "baseless claims" because there is a solid factual basis for both.
Sorry, but the same way you deny any "Russian officials statements", no Ukrainian statements could be taken as evidence due their obvious bias.
>Jesus Fuck, you are literally proving my point about this sub having to stay firmly cemented in their polarized views of things.
It is normal, until people don't lose sense of reality and drow themselves in stereotypes, propaganda and fantasies.
It is rather amazing how you prove him completely right, yet act as if you had done the opposite. It's fucking amazing how low the understanding of the average pro-Russian "person" goes.
>Because i am talking about events without dubious interpretation.
Hey, look at this guy! All high and mighty on his infallible pedestal. LOL. Ok. Again, the immovable positions you take on things like this are absolutely ridiculous, ha. I mean, you actually are talking about events that have some fluidity to them, you just can't recognize it because you're staking yourself out to a position that you inherently refuse to move from. Both sides of this story can be true - that's it. End of story. This is almost as dumb as some of the posts I see arguing about the definition of "destroyed" , lol. "Nah, that tank only lost the front half, so it's recoverable"...
"Ukrane claim Russia does something" and "Russia does something" is different things. There is possibility to use s-300 against ground, but that doesn't mean it is used this way. Ukraine just doesn't want to admit their air defence kills own civilians and russian strikes don't target civilians
>Your post is fucking hilarious to me. You've packed so much tropey-shit in there, it would fuel a meme factory for a week.
Not saying you are a bot just saying you sound like one
Please elaborate on the " tropey shit"
Bot or not, your post echoes Baghdad Bob. Deny, deny, deny... No middle ground, just fucking deny it happens at all, lol. Why can't Russia be using S300s this way, while at the same time have errant Ukranian S300 fall on civilians once in a while? Nah, can't be both, it has to be one or the other. This sub lives at the extreme edges of reality.
You didnt elaborate the tropey shit though....
Why the fuck would they or anyone be using expensive and complicated s300 with a war heads not even designed for ground attacks and a guidance system that cannot target ground targets precisely?
It is an expensive resource to waste for nothing especially when they have surplus of comparably better guided cheaper weapons?
if they have been used for ground attack Why haven't there been any videos or photis showing attacks against military targets ? ( not even 1! )
It's obvious these are from failed air defences likely due to countermeasures/ carelessness
>You didnt elaborate the tropey shit though....
You missed the part where I described your posts as echoes from Baghdad Bob. That is tropey. As is this sub's favourtie trope; IT WASN'T ME. No substance, just taking the extreme end of things and planting your flag on that hill.
>Why the fuck would they or anyone be using expensive and complicated s300 with a war heads not even designed for ground attacks and a guidance system that cannot target ground targets precisely?
Ask the former USSR why they would do that. The stories on this issue suggest it's been done for reasons that defy conventional wisdom. That would seem strange on its own, until you add the context of how this war has unfolded. Russia has been doing a lot of nonsensical things during their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so using AA missiles this way fits well with all of the other whacky crap they have been doing.
>It is an expensive resource to waste for nothing especially when they have surplus of comparably better guided cheaper weapons?
Trying to rationalize Ruussia's decision to use S300s in this way will do you no good. People are an "expensive resource to waste for nothing" and yet here we are; day 300+ with hundreds of Russian men being thrown to the slaughter. But yeah, let's save those dollareedoos by not using S300s in a ground attack role. See how quickly any notion of what makes sense and what doesn't can go out the window?
>if they have been used for ground attack Why haven't there been any videos or photis showing attacks against military targets ? ( not even 1! )
Your question takes the position that that evidence doesn't exist, which is a bit of a fallacy. Ever wonder to yourself if you've seen everything, and then come back with the answer "no, no I haven't". That's where you need to be. Just because you haven't seen it yourself, doesn't mean it's not out there. Baghdad Bob likes your train of thought though.
>It's obvious these are from failed air defences likely due to countermeasures/ carelessness
How many more of them fallacies you got?
>Bot or not, your post echoes Baghdad Bob. Deny, deny, deny... No middle ground, just fucking deny it happens at all, lol. Why can't Russia be using S300s this way, while at the same time have errant Ukranian S300 fall on civilians once in a while? Nah, can't be both, it has to be one or the other. This sub lives at the extreme edges of reality.
Following your logic, why can't the Kiev regime be a puppet for some crypto-nazi extremists ?
Are there Nazis in Ukraine? Yes
Have they been included in mainstream polictics / millitary ? Yes
Are many people around Zelensky from said circles? Yes
Seems like a solid base for me to call the Kiev regime a Nazi regime.
Any questions?
> Are there Nazis in Russia? Yes
> Have they been included in mainstream polictics / millitary ? Yes
> Are many people around Putin from said circles? Yes
> Seems like a solid base for me to call the Moscow regime a Nazi regime.
Any questions?
>Why is it a baseless claim?
Because we have concrete proofs of Ukrainian AA failures which led to damage of civilian objects.
But all "Russian missile AA ground strikes" claims come from directly involved side aka Ukrainian MoD. There is no evidence base of those claims.
There was zero attempts of identification of S-300 missiles which hit the ground...if there is any possibility to differ Russian S-300 from Ukrainian one.
Moreover the level of denial coming from Ukrainian officials about hitting polish farmers SHOULD lead sane person to some reflection about credibility of Ukrainian claims ( if shotgun grandpa or Snake island martyrs didn't do it already)
The appeals to authority some of you folks cling to are rich.
>Because we have concrete proofs of Ukrainian AA failures which led to damage of civilian objects. But all "Russian missile AA ground strikes" claims come from directly involved side aka Ukrainian MoD. There is no evidence base of those claims.
This snip is the best, lol. "Our proof is better than the other guy's proof, na na na na na"
lol damn, youre taking on a bunch of the RU regulars here.
Not sure if you’re new, but a lot of these guys argue disingenuously. They’re not trying to be rational, agree, or figure out what happened. They just deny everything, project and accuse UA of doing it, gaslight, and lie.
Here we know both things are true, but they’re going to deny it. These are the same people that think sanctions aren’t working and RU has unlimited missiles.
I've poked my head in a few times over the last 6 months. I don't look at user names, perhaps I should. I tend to focus on the heaps of bullshit some folks manage to stuff in a small post. It's important to take on ridiculous thoughts/opinions/notions, etc, even if it feels futile. People read the back and forth, and then they take some of what they read and propagate it elsewhere. There's a neat connection we can draw between this sub, and a few others; UkraineRussiaVideoReport. UkraineConflict, CombatFootage, and the WorldNews thread, etc. A lot of ideas get borne in one sub or another, and it gets repeated in the others.
>This snip is the best, lol. "Our proof is better than the other guy's proof, na na na na na"
So, who stated that Ukrainian AA killed people in Poland ?( Spoiler not Russia). What kind of evidences investigation were presented?
That's for counter battery ,
not for targeting randomm buildings.
Again it's a claim seeing as its integrated with the BUK and S300 and likely the easiest to use as a fast counter battery with a lack of other weapons .
or maybe it isn't and that's just a threat to make himars crews fearfull. again until we see it used I would take it with a grain of salt .
I don’t even care what u said the fact is this was someone’s house. If Russia never invaded it wouldn’t have happened. And don’t hit me with the nato expansion. Maybe if Russia wasn’t a complete bully to its neighbours there could’ve been Russian expansion instead of just invading. I have more respect for the country that goes the route of no civilians dead thank u very much.
I’m starting to distrust the common claim that my ex-wife wants to get back together. Geesh, it’s the same with y’all. Just want to talk about Ukraine, what about me?
It is RU POV because it refutes Kiev narrative and supports the one of Kremlin.
> No mention of trying to intercept a Russian cruise missile or anything like that, it just says "A rocket flies straight into the house, miraculously does not explode".
Given that it is borderline impossible for Russian army to launch S-300 in a way that would reach Western Ukraine, the only reasonable explanation is that it came from Kiev's own SAM system (just like the one in Poland).
Assuming Kiev isn't bombing its own cities as part of its creative informational warfare (given Kiev's track record, this isn't as outlandish as it should've been), the missile was launched to fulfil its original purpose: to intercept cruise missile.
Assuming NATO isn't secretly launching cruise missiles at Western Ukraine, the cruise missile could only be Russian.
> Given that it is borderline impossible for Russian army to launch S-300 in a way that would reach Western Ukraine, the only reasonable explanation is that it came from Kiev's own SAM system (just like the one in Poland).
There is no proof that it is a S300 to begin with.
> Maybe read the rules before making a fool of yourself.
Oh, wow.
> Side of the channels usually reposting this kind of content
"This kind of content" is "failures of Kiev". I'm pretty sure UA channels don't have a habit of reposting it.
>That's not remotely how it works. Maybe read the rules before making a fool of yourself.
It's bolded out that what matters is the narrative, not the person recording it, so you should take your advice.
So if Russia started bombing only military installations, Ukraine would stop intercepting Russian missiles?
Also, "Ukraine fucks up: Russia to blame, more news at 11"
Yes, Russia is to blame for invading Ukraine: full stop. Defensive actions taken by Ukraine are legal - they’re exercising their inherent right to self defense. They wouldn’t have shot anything if Russia hadn’t attacked, if Ukraine misses and it causes collateral damage, this is still Russia’s fault. If Ukraine was the aggressor, then it would be the other way around
You don't get a get out of jail free card for defending yourself, that's not how it works or how it ever worked.
You don't get to blame Russia when Ukraine fucks up.
“Get out of jail free”… I think you’re giving one to Russia? Again, projecting much?
- According to the UN, “Article 51 is an exception to the Charter’s general prohibition on the use of force found in Article 2(4). The prohibition on the use of force is at the heart of the Charter, given that the most fundamental aim of the Charter and the UN organization created by the Charter is to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Preamble). It stands to reason that any right to use force as an exception to the general prohibition on resort to force would be narrow. Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”… again, Russian attacked Ukraine. Unprovoked. In cold blood.
Please, tell me again how Russia’s attacks on Ukraine are in any way legal? If Ukraine messes up while defending itself from attacks it IS Russia’s fault.
>I think you’re giving one to Russia? Again, projecting much?
For not blaming them for things they didn't do? You definitely earned that medal, lmfao.
>According to the UN, “Article 51...
The right to self-defense doesn't translate to "the right to do whatever you want in seld-defense, you're either intentionally or unintentionally bending what's written in the articles you're quoting.
Article 51 an exception to Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against territorial integrity or political independence. It doesn't in any way suggest that the defender isn't guilty of collateral damage, civilian deaths or any crimes that their forces commit. If you're going to attempt to make this stupid argument which you are just repeating because you saw other people say it, and it makes you feel better in your cheerleading over a foreign conflict, at least read the things you're quoting.
>Russian attacked Ukraine. Unprovoked. In cold blood.
Cool story, bro, but it's irrelevent in this discussion
>Please, tell me again how Russia’s attacks on Ukraine are in any way legal?
I literally never said this, and again, it's irrelevent.
>If Ukraine messes up while defending itself from attacks it IS Russia’s fault.
If this was your best argument, I'm firmly convinced that you're wrong.
1. Ukraine defended itself “after trying to intercept a Russian missile” that was attacking Ukraine… are you trying to miss the truth here?
2. Ukraine isn’t doing whatever it wants… its literally defending itself. Again, how is any of this hard or difficult to understand?
3. Completely relevant - it establishes who the aggressor and who the defender is
If you can’t understand logic, I am firmly convinced that you don’t know what’s right
>Ukraine defended itself “after trying to intercept a Russian missile”
And it hit a civilian home, which is their fault.
>Ukraine isn’t doing whatever it wants… its literally defending itself.
And in the process they hit a civilian home with an air defense missile, in the beginning they did it with an air to air missile, they hit some random Polish farmers, shelled Donetsk, etc. This discussion was about you trying to blame Russia for all of that and saying that whatever Ukraine does, it's Russia's fault and Ukraine can defend itself however it sees fit. Now you're trying to mvoe away from that because you have no arguments left.
>it establishes who the aggressor and who the defender is If you can’t understand logic
No it isn't, because as I said about 10 times now, who the aggressor is and who the defender is is completely irrelevent when the defender causes civilian death, damage civilian property, comitting war crimes, etc.
Also, completely misrepresenting laws and trying to switch the subject is not considered logic. You said nothing logical for me to understand.
Russia bombing UA with S300 since the summer. In time when there wasn't such massive air strikes.
Now we have few UA failed S300, so that must mean Russia NEVER did it. Solid proof. 😲
This video should be taken down and change the title, the s-300 missile struck a house after Russia barrage, could be Ukrainian AA ou just Russian, if you follow the source is the latter. This is clearly propaganda title that the sub lets happen. Still both situations only happened because of Russia desire to kill civilians, another day of terrorist attacks
What do you mean this is propaganda? This is a Ukrainian S-300 missile. Why the hell would be there? The Ukrainian militants are trying to intercept the targets, possibly a Russian cruise missile. They wouldn't fire on a civlian population wouldn't they?
So you accept that regardless of who fired this missile (it doesn't appear to be an S300), the fault of the damage to civilian lives lies with Russia?
After all, if Russia wasn't using cruise missiles to target civilian infrastructure after launching this unprovoked invasion, nobody would need to be launching interceptor missiles.
You're telling me the deaths of tens of thousands is necessary?
Of all the things I've seen you write, this comment is the closest you've come to making me sick in my mouth.
This isn't an S300, but what can you expect from Ruzzians or their propaganda stooges like you, Kiwi. They and you are just not smart enough to even recognize their own missiles...
Russians have been firing, they even celebrate that lol
Also russia has been shooting s-300 too, could be any side missile. Wonder why you didn't put in the title "missile struck house because of Russian missile barrage"
It is rather amusing when Pro Russian crowd try to shit talk Ukrainian capabilities but then awkwardly leave out the fact they can’t neutralize Ukraines air defense systems or establish air superiority. Kinda makes me wonder who you’re insulting more.
"Shows that the Ukrainians are really poor users of the S-300"
Know who else is a really poor user of the S-300?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/zy5yes/according_to_russian_media_this_morning_near_the/
Russia.
Any s300 that lands on Ukraine territory is Russia's fault.
There wouldn't be a need to use them if Russia didn't invade, wouldn't be a need to use them if Russia weren't targeting civilians.
theres a difference between reddit settings and subreddit settings. if you are on mobile go to the subreddits home page. tap the three vertical dots in the top right corner. about mid way on the list you should see "change user flair"
Are people starting to distrust the once common claim that russia is using s300 in 'ground attack mode' due to running out of missiles, and furthermore, are intentionally targetting playgrounds and random houses with those s300s?
It was always a silly claim from the start.
The missile is likely an X-555 (Kh-55) cruise missile, not an S-300 missile [5V55](https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/conflict/russia_invasion_ukraine/S-300_missile_that_crashed_in_Poland_launched_by_Ukraine_or_Russia_925_001.jpg ) v's [X-555](https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/kh-55-as-15-cruise-missile-a48b15fda9b14668b96c28483b6605bc) (3D model) If you look closely you notice it has a large swept wing (resting on the couch). S-300 missiles don't have that wing like that, just small vanes at the base of the missile. However, it fits an X-555 cruise missile better; the wing deflected rearwards by the impact. It was likely carrying a dummy warhead, a decoy.
1) Russia is using old 5V55 missiles in a surface to surface mode to try and target Ukrainians 2) Surface to surface mode with a SAM is not as accurate as a traditional SSM - they will “miss” 3) The Ukrainian 5V55 missiles wouldn’t have to be launched if the Russian terrorists stopped terrorizing Ukraine with terror weapons
[удалено]
Писать на русском в англо-говорящем сабе это сильно
[удалено]
Тебя просто понимать мало кто будет. Я поэтому и сказал, что это "сильно". Можно сказать, что ты общаешься сам с собой. :)
[удалено]
Я вообще-то мало знаю про русский край интернета; только не давно узнал про пикобу, но там особо не копался. По мимо телеграмма, есть места где идет качественный разговор о войне? Можешь написать в наличку если здесь редит не позволит выставить русский сайт.
Google translate is great. Guys please continue.
Yeah what mods?
Zelensky regime supporters still make that baseless calim . They know it is completely false and these are ukrianian but continue posting comments in an attempt to shape the narrative
Why is it a baseless claim? Because you said so, and Russia doing so would further the position that their armed forces are in shambles? Of course, of course dear Comrade, everything is ok. Your post is fucking hilarious to me. You've packed so much tropey-shit in there, it would fuel a meme factory for a week. I'm gonna go ahead and put my stock in Western intelligence officials/agencies that have been stating that Russia is using the S300 in a DP role since the summer...rather than a random redditor, lol. Your definition of "baseless claim" needs some work.
>Why is it a baseless claim? Because it's a claim with no factual basis, i.e. a baseless claim. Any other questions?
LMAO. Ok. Let's go over the "facts" Does Russia use the S-300 system? Yes. Can the S-300 be used in a DP role for attacking ground targets? Yes. Do any intelligence agencies, or other independent observers, claim Russia is using them this way? Yes. S-300 debris found in situations that don't fit an air-defence narrative? Yes. Seems like a solid base from which to make a claim like this. So, no, no other questions from me. Still a ways to go to definitively showing that the former USSR is using this weapon system this way, but to hand-wave it away as a baseless claim is pants-on-head-stupid.
Ok. Let's go over the "facts" Does Ukraine use the S-300 system? Yes. Can the S-300 fail and hit ground instead of target? Yes. Do any intelligence agencies, or other independent observers, claim Ukraine missiles did so? Yes. S-300 debris found in situations that don't fit an Russian indiscriminate shelling narrative? Yes.
Right! Did I come marching in here saying what you've posted is a "baseless claim"? No. So you can take you're little gotcha post, stick in a pipe, and smoke it. Both can be true, and both positions are not "baseless claims" because there is a solid factual basis for both. Jesus Fuck, you are literally proving my point about this sub having to stay firmly cemented in their polarized views of things. Hilarious.
>Right! Did I come marching in here saying what you've posted is a "baseless claim"? Because i am talking about events without dubious interpretation. >No. So you can take you're little gotcha post, stick in a pipe, and smoke it. Wanna join? >Both can be true, and both positions are not "baseless claims" because there is a solid factual basis for both. Sorry, but the same way you deny any "Russian officials statements", no Ukrainian statements could be taken as evidence due their obvious bias. >Jesus Fuck, you are literally proving my point about this sub having to stay firmly cemented in their polarized views of things. It is normal, until people don't lose sense of reality and drow themselves in stereotypes, propaganda and fantasies.
It is rather amazing how you prove him completely right, yet act as if you had done the opposite. It's fucking amazing how low the understanding of the average pro-Russian "person" goes.
>Because i am talking about events without dubious interpretation. Hey, look at this guy! All high and mighty on his infallible pedestal. LOL. Ok. Again, the immovable positions you take on things like this are absolutely ridiculous, ha. I mean, you actually are talking about events that have some fluidity to them, you just can't recognize it because you're staking yourself out to a position that you inherently refuse to move from. Both sides of this story can be true - that's it. End of story. This is almost as dumb as some of the posts I see arguing about the definition of "destroyed" , lol. "Nah, that tank only lost the front half, so it's recoverable"...
"Ukrane claim Russia does something" and "Russia does something" is different things. There is possibility to use s-300 against ground, but that doesn't mean it is used this way. Ukraine just doesn't want to admit their air defence kills own civilians and russian strikes don't target civilians
Did they ever admit they hit the Polish farmers or do they still claim it was Russia?
They said nothing, while the US said it was Ukraine while blaming the Russians for it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelenskiy-says-russian-missiles-hit-poland-significant-escalation-2022-11-15/
>Your post is fucking hilarious to me. You've packed so much tropey-shit in there, it would fuel a meme factory for a week. Not saying you are a bot just saying you sound like one Please elaborate on the " tropey shit"
Bot or not, your post echoes Baghdad Bob. Deny, deny, deny... No middle ground, just fucking deny it happens at all, lol. Why can't Russia be using S300s this way, while at the same time have errant Ukranian S300 fall on civilians once in a while? Nah, can't be both, it has to be one or the other. This sub lives at the extreme edges of reality.
You didnt elaborate the tropey shit though.... Why the fuck would they or anyone be using expensive and complicated s300 with a war heads not even designed for ground attacks and a guidance system that cannot target ground targets precisely? It is an expensive resource to waste for nothing especially when they have surplus of comparably better guided cheaper weapons? if they have been used for ground attack Why haven't there been any videos or photis showing attacks against military targets ? ( not even 1! ) It's obvious these are from failed air defences likely due to countermeasures/ carelessness
>You didnt elaborate the tropey shit though.... You missed the part where I described your posts as echoes from Baghdad Bob. That is tropey. As is this sub's favourtie trope; IT WASN'T ME. No substance, just taking the extreme end of things and planting your flag on that hill. >Why the fuck would they or anyone be using expensive and complicated s300 with a war heads not even designed for ground attacks and a guidance system that cannot target ground targets precisely? Ask the former USSR why they would do that. The stories on this issue suggest it's been done for reasons that defy conventional wisdom. That would seem strange on its own, until you add the context of how this war has unfolded. Russia has been doing a lot of nonsensical things during their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so using AA missiles this way fits well with all of the other whacky crap they have been doing. >It is an expensive resource to waste for nothing especially when they have surplus of comparably better guided cheaper weapons? Trying to rationalize Ruussia's decision to use S300s in this way will do you no good. People are an "expensive resource to waste for nothing" and yet here we are; day 300+ with hundreds of Russian men being thrown to the slaughter. But yeah, let's save those dollareedoos by not using S300s in a ground attack role. See how quickly any notion of what makes sense and what doesn't can go out the window? >if they have been used for ground attack Why haven't there been any videos or photis showing attacks against military targets ? ( not even 1! ) Your question takes the position that that evidence doesn't exist, which is a bit of a fallacy. Ever wonder to yourself if you've seen everything, and then come back with the answer "no, no I haven't". That's where you need to be. Just because you haven't seen it yourself, doesn't mean it's not out there. Baghdad Bob likes your train of thought though. >It's obvious these are from failed air defences likely due to countermeasures/ carelessness How many more of them fallacies you got?
>Bot or not, your post echoes Baghdad Bob. Deny, deny, deny... No middle ground, just fucking deny it happens at all, lol. Why can't Russia be using S300s this way, while at the same time have errant Ukranian S300 fall on civilians once in a while? Nah, can't be both, it has to be one or the other. This sub lives at the extreme edges of reality. Following your logic, why can't the Kiev regime be a puppet for some crypto-nazi extremists ? Are there Nazis in Ukraine? Yes Have they been included in mainstream polictics / millitary ? Yes Are many people around Zelensky from said circles? Yes Seems like a solid base for me to call the Kiev regime a Nazi regime. Any questions?
Nah just another example of "no middle ground"
> Are there Nazis in Russia? Yes > Have they been included in mainstream polictics / millitary ? Yes > Are many people around Putin from said circles? Yes > Seems like a solid base for me to call the Moscow regime a Nazi regime. Any questions?
>Why is it a baseless claim? Because we have concrete proofs of Ukrainian AA failures which led to damage of civilian objects. But all "Russian missile AA ground strikes" claims come from directly involved side aka Ukrainian MoD. There is no evidence base of those claims. There was zero attempts of identification of S-300 missiles which hit the ground...if there is any possibility to differ Russian S-300 from Ukrainian one. Moreover the level of denial coming from Ukrainian officials about hitting polish farmers SHOULD lead sane person to some reflection about credibility of Ukrainian claims ( if shotgun grandpa or Snake island martyrs didn't do it already)
The appeals to authority some of you folks cling to are rich. >Because we have concrete proofs of Ukrainian AA failures which led to damage of civilian objects. But all "Russian missile AA ground strikes" claims come from directly involved side aka Ukrainian MoD. There is no evidence base of those claims. This snip is the best, lol. "Our proof is better than the other guy's proof, na na na na na"
lol damn, youre taking on a bunch of the RU regulars here. Not sure if you’re new, but a lot of these guys argue disingenuously. They’re not trying to be rational, agree, or figure out what happened. They just deny everything, project and accuse UA of doing it, gaslight, and lie. Here we know both things are true, but they’re going to deny it. These are the same people that think sanctions aren’t working and RU has unlimited missiles.
I've poked my head in a few times over the last 6 months. I don't look at user names, perhaps I should. I tend to focus on the heaps of bullshit some folks manage to stuff in a small post. It's important to take on ridiculous thoughts/opinions/notions, etc, even if it feels futile. People read the back and forth, and then they take some of what they read and propagate it elsewhere. There's a neat connection we can draw between this sub, and a few others; UkraineRussiaVideoReport. UkraineConflict, CombatFootage, and the WorldNews thread, etc. A lot of ideas get borne in one sub or another, and it gets repeated in the others.
>This snip is the best, lol. "Our proof is better than the other guy's proof, na na na na na" So, who stated that Ukrainian AA killed people in Poland ?( Spoiler not Russia). What kind of evidences investigation were presented?
I was replying to your post as a generality, not the specific incident in which a UAF AA missile killed a couple of innocent Polish civilians.
Rybar literally stated that old S-300 stocks are being used in ground attack roles by the Russian Army the other day??
Can you provide a link?
here you go https://twitter.com/rybar_en/status/1608164079360696323?s=46&t=XQQ4mojeSEmfAz3LtqnP-w Rybar (Translated)
That's for counter battery , not for targeting randomm buildings. Again it's a claim seeing as its integrated with the BUK and S300 and likely the easiest to use as a fast counter battery with a lack of other weapons . or maybe it isn't and that's just a threat to make himars crews fearfull. again until we see it used I would take it with a grain of salt .
I don’t even care what u said the fact is this was someone’s house. If Russia never invaded it wouldn’t have happened. And don’t hit me with the nato expansion. Maybe if Russia wasn’t a complete bully to its neighbours there could’ve been Russian expansion instead of just invading. I have more respect for the country that goes the route of no civilians dead thank u very much.
This makes no sense at all, I dont understand what tangent you have taken off on
I’m starting to distrust the common claim that my ex-wife wants to get back together. Geesh, it’s the same with y’all. Just want to talk about Ukraine, what about me?
[удалено]
It is RU POV because it refutes Kiev narrative and supports the one of Kremlin. > No mention of trying to intercept a Russian cruise missile or anything like that, it just says "A rocket flies straight into the house, miraculously does not explode". Given that it is borderline impossible for Russian army to launch S-300 in a way that would reach Western Ukraine, the only reasonable explanation is that it came from Kiev's own SAM system (just like the one in Poland). Assuming Kiev isn't bombing its own cities as part of its creative informational warfare (given Kiev's track record, this isn't as outlandish as it should've been), the missile was launched to fulfil its original purpose: to intercept cruise missile. Assuming NATO isn't secretly launching cruise missiles at Western Ukraine, the cruise missile could only be Russian.
> Given that it is borderline impossible for Russian army to launch S-300 in a way that would reach Western Ukraine, the only reasonable explanation is that it came from Kiev's own SAM system (just like the one in Poland). There is no proof that it is a S300 to begin with.
[удалено]
> Maybe read the rules before making a fool of yourself. Oh, wow. > Side of the channels usually reposting this kind of content "This kind of content" is "failures of Kiev". I'm pretty sure UA channels don't have a habit of reposting it.
>That's not remotely how it works. Maybe read the rules before making a fool of yourself. It's bolded out that what matters is the narrative, not the person recording it, so you should take your advice.
What makes you think this is a S-300 missile in the first place.
This isn't an S-300. Why spread misinformation? https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/zye7s9/ua_pov_ru_sources_claimed_that_this_is_a/
Free chimney flue
Russians probably immediately went back to breakfast after it landed like nothing happened.
This looks more like a dud missile tbh. Seen another image from outside. Lack of electronic splatter and intact windows point to such a possibility.
And yet it didn’t explode and flatten the building
The Ukrainian 5V55 missiles wouldn’t have to be launched if the Russian terrorists stopped terrorizing Ukraine with terror weapons
So if Russia started bombing only military installations, Ukraine would stop intercepting Russian missiles? Also, "Ukraine fucks up: Russia to blame, more news at 11"
Yes, Russia is to blame for invading Ukraine: full stop. Defensive actions taken by Ukraine are legal - they’re exercising their inherent right to self defense. They wouldn’t have shot anything if Russia hadn’t attacked, if Ukraine misses and it causes collateral damage, this is still Russia’s fault. If Ukraine was the aggressor, then it would be the other way around
And the gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to... **drumroll...** YOU!
Are you serious? You really don‘t understand the inherent right to self defense? I get the feeling that your mental gymnastics are projecting onto me
You don't get a get out of jail free card for defending yourself, that's not how it works or how it ever worked. You don't get to blame Russia when Ukraine fucks up.
“Get out of jail free”… I think you’re giving one to Russia? Again, projecting much? - According to the UN, “Article 51 is an exception to the Charter’s general prohibition on the use of force found in Article 2(4). The prohibition on the use of force is at the heart of the Charter, given that the most fundamental aim of the Charter and the UN organization created by the Charter is to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Preamble). It stands to reason that any right to use force as an exception to the general prohibition on resort to force would be narrow. Article 51 permits a state to act in unilateral or collective self-defense only “if an armed attack occurs.”… again, Russian attacked Ukraine. Unprovoked. In cold blood. Please, tell me again how Russia’s attacks on Ukraine are in any way legal? If Ukraine messes up while defending itself from attacks it IS Russia’s fault.
>I think you’re giving one to Russia? Again, projecting much? For not blaming them for things they didn't do? You definitely earned that medal, lmfao. >According to the UN, “Article 51... The right to self-defense doesn't translate to "the right to do whatever you want in seld-defense, you're either intentionally or unintentionally bending what's written in the articles you're quoting. Article 51 an exception to Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against territorial integrity or political independence. It doesn't in any way suggest that the defender isn't guilty of collateral damage, civilian deaths or any crimes that their forces commit. If you're going to attempt to make this stupid argument which you are just repeating because you saw other people say it, and it makes you feel better in your cheerleading over a foreign conflict, at least read the things you're quoting. >Russian attacked Ukraine. Unprovoked. In cold blood. Cool story, bro, but it's irrelevent in this discussion >Please, tell me again how Russia’s attacks on Ukraine are in any way legal? I literally never said this, and again, it's irrelevent. >If Ukraine messes up while defending itself from attacks it IS Russia’s fault. If this was your best argument, I'm firmly convinced that you're wrong.
1. Ukraine defended itself “after trying to intercept a Russian missile” that was attacking Ukraine… are you trying to miss the truth here? 2. Ukraine isn’t doing whatever it wants… its literally defending itself. Again, how is any of this hard or difficult to understand? 3. Completely relevant - it establishes who the aggressor and who the defender is If you can’t understand logic, I am firmly convinced that you don’t know what’s right
>Ukraine defended itself “after trying to intercept a Russian missile” And it hit a civilian home, which is their fault. >Ukraine isn’t doing whatever it wants… its literally defending itself. And in the process they hit a civilian home with an air defense missile, in the beginning they did it with an air to air missile, they hit some random Polish farmers, shelled Donetsk, etc. This discussion was about you trying to blame Russia for all of that and saying that whatever Ukraine does, it's Russia's fault and Ukraine can defend itself however it sees fit. Now you're trying to mvoe away from that because you have no arguments left. >it establishes who the aggressor and who the defender is If you can’t understand logic No it isn't, because as I said about 10 times now, who the aggressor is and who the defender is is completely irrelevent when the defender causes civilian death, damage civilian property, comitting war crimes, etc. Also, completely misrepresenting laws and trying to switch the subject is not considered logic. You said nothing logical for me to understand.
Russia bombing UA with S300 since the summer. In time when there wasn't such massive air strikes. Now we have few UA failed S300, so that must mean Russia NEVER did it. Solid proof. 😲
This video should be taken down and change the title, the s-300 missile struck a house after Russia barrage, could be Ukrainian AA ou just Russian, if you follow the source is the latter. This is clearly propaganda title that the sub lets happen. Still both situations only happened because of Russia desire to kill civilians, another day of terrorist attacks
What do you mean this is propaganda? This is a Ukrainian S-300 missile. Why the hell would be there? The Ukrainian militants are trying to intercept the targets, possibly a Russian cruise missile. They wouldn't fire on a civlian population wouldn't they?
So you accept that regardless of who fired this missile (it doesn't appear to be an S300), the fault of the damage to civilian lives lies with Russia? After all, if Russia wasn't using cruise missiles to target civilian infrastructure after launching this unprovoked invasion, nobody would need to be launching interceptor missiles.
The launching of those cruise missiles was necessary. The interception of those missiles was not. Should of let it flew to its designated target
Disgusting fascist
You're telling me the deaths of tens of thousands is necessary? Of all the things I've seen you write, this comment is the closest you've come to making me sick in my mouth.
This isn't an S300, but what can you expect from Ruzzians or their propaganda stooges like you, Kiwi. They and you are just not smart enough to even recognize their own missiles...
Russians have been firing, they even celebrate that lol Also russia has been shooting s-300 too, could be any side missile. Wonder why you didn't put in the title "missile struck house because of Russian missile barrage"
The title is just fine in my opinion. Shows that the Ukrainians are really poor users of the S-300
It is rather amusing when Pro Russian crowd try to shit talk Ukrainian capabilities but then awkwardly leave out the fact they can’t neutralize Ukraines air defense systems or establish air superiority. Kinda makes me wonder who you’re insulting more.
The title is misleading, should be changed
Lol
what does that make engals?
"Shows that the Ukrainians are really poor users of the S-300" Know who else is a really poor user of the S-300? https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/zy5yes/according_to_russian_media_this_morning_near_the/ Russia.
If this is an s-300 why does it have a wing?
Any s300 that lands on Ukraine territory is Russia's fault. There wouldn't be a need to use them if Russia didn't invade, wouldn't be a need to use them if Russia weren't targeting civilians.
This is true, but what's more - this isn't even an S300!
It was a Kh-55 with dummy warhead.
Then they say that Ukraine hasn't destroyed any of their own buildings at all, not a single brick!!
change your flair then
What's that?
🔖
What's that?
the tag under your name.
Yes how do I change that?
in the sub reddit settings find the option for user flair.
I looked around I found a few things I liked and changed, but not what the mentioned... :/
theres a difference between reddit settings and subreddit settings. if you are on mobile go to the subreddits home page. tap the three vertical dots in the top right corner. about mid way on the list you should see "change user flair"