Other sources suggest the explosion happened underneath the bridge based on images and the truck was incidental (or collateral). Bridges are designed to take forces from above not below, special forces whether it was Ukraine or rogue Russian know that you go for the weak point with the minimum amount of effort get the maximum effect. The stationary train was probably planned
I wouldn't be surprised if @Lloyd 's post about the attack being caused by the Russians was true. Following the attack, Russia "counterattacked" by deliberately attacking civilian areas. The attack on the bridge was used as an excuse to escalate. It is possible that Russia wanted to start terrorizing the civilian populace to undermine support/morale and needed an excuse to do it, so engineered an attack on the bridge. It'll be interesting to see what comes out on this later. I'm sure more details will emerge eventually. But it is mind boggling that a check designed to look for explosives somehow failed to find them. Those checks were on the Russian side so it does make me a bit suspicious...
Russia hasn’t needed an excuse or a least a viable one, for targeting civilians so far. There have been ‘excuses’ by the barrel load, Nazis, biolabs, NATO expansion, Donbass violence etc. all of no justification for the destruction of people and their homes. The number of them points to the lack of any strong individual validity. I think the bridge is too important for them to sabotage themselves and it looks likely that Ukraine is able to undertake some operations in Russia. So my guess would be Ukraine. Owen Matthews is an interesting writer, but it would also be interesting to know the provenance of the info.
Fing is Moose . In the history of the World all conflicts have been won by the good guys . I mean , what are the odds ? And for sure , this time, the media will not lie about WMD or babies being flung out of incubators German soldiers bayoneting children etc . No Siree. This time . For sure. We are being told the truth. So let's hope "we" win this one, huh ? Whatever happened to Robin Cook btw ?
Robin Cook resigned over an invasion that we chose to carry out. I very much doubt he would have resigned over providing military aid to Ukraine in favour of Ukraine being invaded and brutalised by Russia.
.....and while I am at it @Moose being anti war , these days , makes you a Alt Right Fash Gammon Nazi. Who woulda thunk , back in the day , that the Left would be demanding nuclear war , and all over who controls the Donbas ?
Well that’s just wrong on both counts. The ‘Alt Right Fash Gammon Nazis’ are not ‘anti-war’. They are just happy to let the war happen and Russia win it. And no one on the left wants a nuclear war any more than you do. Simple and obvious analogy, we could have stayed out of WW2, but we got unhappy that the Germans invaded Poland. We could have signed a ‘non-aggression pact’ and kept out of it. Should we?
We’ve all been there, sat at the bar or waiting to be served when a Davy shambles over with a pint of best bitter in his hand and tells you what’s really going on in the world.
As opposed to your mirror/sun or God forbid Guardian version of what is happening Enjoy . Your . World . Your children will love you
Indeed. It's always amazing how they manage to use so many words without actually imparting any useful information at all.
Russia cruelly and systematically bombing power stations and water treatment plants. Going to be a very hard winter in Ukraine.
More great examples of propaganda on the BBC TV news this morning. Russia is complaining to the United Nations that Ukraine is preparing to use a so-called 'dirty bomb' with radio active material mixed with conventional explosives. We went over live to a man called Hugo Bachega. Unfortunately extensive googling fails to reveal anything much about Hugo's background or where he's obtained all his expertise. Nonetheless, Hugo is available to tell us with absolute certainty that the Russian accusations are (deep breath):- Transparently False Absurd Groundless Bizarre Rejected All of these words were repeated over and over. In fact, Hugo told us, there was "absolutely no suggestion" that Ukraine would use one. The obvious answer to that is, well Russia is suggesting it. In fact, Hugo continued, Russia was probably just saying it so that they themselves can use a dirty bomb, which seems a very odd tactic. The item concluded with Hugo listing out that the absurd claims were rejected by Ukraine and by Nato and by the United States. "..and the UK!" piped up the studio presenter, eager to join in the demonstration of just how rejected and absurd the claims were. When Ukraine accuses Russia of something - and accusations come very regularly - it's those accusations that are reported at length and then, if you're lucky, right at the end, they'll say something like "Russia continues to deny the allegations.." with much rolling of eyes and disbelieving tuts. It just doesn't seem very balanced reporting to me. In fact, rather than reporting, it seems to be more aimed at implanting the idea into viewers' heads what they should think about Russia's claims without the need to do any tiresome investigation of their own.
Russian claims have been obviously false though throughout the war and before. They were saying 24 hours before the invasion that they were not going to invade. They were just on exercise. Their soldiers have massacred civilians and we absolutely know this, but always denied. Before the war, they assassinate enemies with weapons only they have or use (like polonium and novichok) and then deny it. So it sends a clear message to enemies of the State ‘we will kill you’. In Salisbury they killed an ordinary working class woman and laughed in our faces about it. **** knows there is much that is wrong with the West and its aggression and sure we should treat much of what we are told with scepticism, but there does not appear to be a level of hell that the gangster Russian State won’t sink to. If this war leads to its overthrow, so much the better.
Agreed, but that is the part we can make our own minds up about. We don't need Hugo and Marjorie in the studio to tell us what to think. Ukraine hasn't been short of making accusations about the Russians and I think some of them have turned out to be false also. Accusations are just accusations and should be reported accordingly. A balanced way for Hugo to have reported it would have been: Russia have complained to the UN that Ukraine plans to use a dirty bomb in the war. (Video section detailing the Russian claims) Ukraine has vehemently denied the claims and is backed by NATO. (Video section detailing Ukrainian denials and counter accusations) Now back to you in the studio. That is really all we need to know. We don't need Hugo's thoughts on the veracity or otherwise of the claims. That's not news, it's opinion.
I don’t agree. It’s dubious to present news as all opinions having the same weight, take your pick. It’s the role of news to interpret as honestly as possible, but not to be passive. I wouldn’t be interested in investigative journalists who weigh the opinions and interests of ordinary people and unscrupulous landlords the same. The Russians practice unconventional warfare, using information even in peacetime. Threatening a dirty bomb is an instrument of panic, an attack on civilians by seeking to terrorise them. Unless there is evidence, it’s right to squash it.
Spot on. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Until Russia provides proof of what it is saying, there is every reason to be highly sceptical.
Clive, the place is in ruins. Thousands of working class housing blocks deliberately targeted, 10s of thousands killed or exiled, eye-witness accounts of rape, torture and execution, bodies exhumed from mass graves where the Russians have been driven out. What is it that the Ukranians need to prove? In this instance, Russia makes a claim without evidence, Ukraine denys it and blames it on them. These are not of equal weight. Russia is the invader and has already threatened the use of nuclear weapons. It has form in past conflicts, like Syria, for using outlawed weapons and blaming those it used them on. Unless it has evidence it’s a baseless claim worthy of any retort. After all, a dirty bomb is clearly on their minds.
wot about the ucrayoning biolabs m8 no1s talkin bout them https://twitter.com/thefeyd/status/1584616679208017920
Some very interesting details about life as an occupier/liberator in Kherson: https://twitter.com/saitomri/status/1585228271662166016 That poster on the blue wall: I *think* it's a shot from the masterpiece "Come and See" but I do know for *certain* what the text says: "If we leave - they will come". Reuters article here.
Seems the mystery of who blew up the Nordstream pipelines has been solved. It was us! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63437212
Apparently another Russian warship was hit today. Lots of videos online with surface marine drones heading towards their target, videos seeing a bit explosion out to sea and the Russian's have admitted that a ship sustained a small amount of damage (which basically means the damage was pretty significant).
I remember Lavrov a few years ago dismissing the UK as a tiny irrelevant country clinging to its past glories. Now we are apparently the source of everything wrong in the world. Ironic. I still vote we nuke the ****s and usher in a century of global peace.
