Ukraine

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,491
3,419
PNW
The road across the dam is damaged, the dam is not.

And I have seen reports that the rail bridge is ok for light stuff and the Russians have put wood over the rails for that purpose. But either they are alternating that with rail (which seems unlikely) or its not strong enough for rail
So far so good.

The reservoir behind that dam is enormous, it'd be truly catastrophic if it gets destroyed - for the devasting downstream flooding and then for the longer-term water supply and power impacts.


1659034297609.png
 
Last edited:

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,491
3,419
PNW
from here, bold mine, yikes


The bridge is the main crossing over the Dnieper River in the Kherson region. The only other option is a dam at the hydroelectric plant in Kakhovka, which also came under Ukrainian fire last week but has remained open for traffic.
 

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,687
1,098
Not according local sources. Unfit for trains. Which make sense, why hit all bridges in the area but not that one.
be curious - what source? Which specifically says it cannot be used now for trains? I see some somewhat unsubstantiated reports it was hit (by 2 projectiles) but it is hard to actually take out a bridge with 'airy' structure like that with arty (or with bombs as US has found a couple of times).
 
Last edited:

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,491
3,419
PNW
Listened to a piece on BBC Radio just now, with a bunch of interviews from Kherson. Seems there is a fringe of 10% on one side who feel fervently that the soil belongs to RU and 10% feeling the same about it being UKR soil. The 80% in the middle are simply praying that they and city do not get decimated by either side - that is what's most important to them by far.
 
Last edited:

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,491
3,419
PNW
Estar, source, one of them, a few posts back.

Stingray, again, BBC has nobody there. Or you or the BBC makes stuff up.
Believe what you want to. Shrug

Most peoples' highest priority is in not getting freaking bombed, is what the consensus was.
 
Last edited:

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,687
1,098
Estar, source, one of them, a few posts back.
I can see no link which is a source for this on this page or the prior page. Would you please repeat the link?

ISW has current detailed commentary on the road bridge (and new ferry) situation, but they do not say anything about the rail bridge being out of action. In a previous report, they suggest two projectiles were fired at the rail bridge and that it 'sustained damage' but not that it was out of action (as they did specifically say about the road bridge). I looked up ISW's source footnote and it merely says (I have translated) 'The Armed Forces of Ukraine made an attempt to strike at the railway bridge.' Which is not very compelling.

As a side comment, because of how important rail is to the Russian military, they have significant specific specialist units dedicated to rail repairs (and greenfield laying).
 
Last edited:

LeoV

Super Anarchist
13,046
4,021
The Netherlands
Evan, it is on this page, day 154 recap.

Built in 1954, simple steel truss construction. Reason it is out of use could be as simple as an overloaded train damaging structure or a partisan hit. Or the rail infrastructure is damaged further along the track.

This is new info;
 

LeoV

Super Anarchist
13,046
4,021
The Netherlands
Believe what you want to. Shrug

Most peoples' highest priority is in not getting freaking bombed, is what the consensus was.
Oh I believe you make shit up. Intentional or not, I do not know.

So went to look for latest BBC visit to Kherson area, BBC Rusia never went there, not allowed.
Western BBC did.
Sasha believes many of those who have remained in the city are ready to stay and fight; those I've spoken to say support for Russian rule is minimal and the searches, detentions and beatings in recent months have shrunk that still further.
"When the army starts to invade, then people will be ready and will help," Sasha says.

After his own brutal experience in Russian custody, Oleh is already back on the southern front to fight for his hometown, alongside Ukraine's partisan army.
"They can take the land, but they can't take the people," is how he puts it. "The Russians will never be safe in Kherson, because the people didn't want them there. They don't like them. They won't accept them."

 

LeoV

Super Anarchist
13,046
4,021
The Netherlands
In #Russia, the federal statistics agency Rosstat reported that in January-May 2022, country's #population decreased by record 430,300. This was a 60% acceleration in population decline compared to 2021. Every month Russia is losing 86,000 people.


People fleeing Russia, dead on Ukrainian soil, poverty in the rural areas, not enough births to off set the dying of age.
Not a healthy trajectory.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
3,993
2,054
Earth
In #Russia, the federal statistics agency Rosstat reported that in January-May 2022, country's #population decreased by record 430,300. This was a 60% acceleration in population decline compared to 2021. Every month Russia is losing 86,000 people.


People fleeing Russia, dead on Ukrainian soil, poverty in the rural areas, not enough births to off set the dying of age.
Not a healthy trajectory.
Way back at near the start of this thread I posted a link to an article which postulated that the decreasing population in Russia was a major reason for Putin starting this war. He needed Ukraine to get his future headcount back up for the army.

And if that weren't ironic enough, there was that video the other day of the Russian State TV talk programme saying that the west was doomed to extinction because we have so many LGBT people that our birth-rate would tend to zero.
 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
17,267
1,807
South Coast, UK
So went to look for latest BBC visit to Kherson area, BBC Rusia never went there, not allowed.
Western BBC did.

I'm not sure what you mean by BBC Russia. BBC News stopped operations within Russia in March. https://www.thenational.scot/news/1...k-russia-independent-journalism-criminalised/

BBC is present in Kyiv and Sarah Raynsford of the BBC (who was expelled from Moscow) is at present in "Southern Ukraine" (exact location not given, perhaps for good reason). A 5 minute piece of hers was on BBC News this morning, including interviews with partisans active in Kherson. That would be linked to the text piece you posted above. There was footage from there, probably taken by partisans, there was no indication she'd personally been in the city. The piece was highly pro-partisan, with which I have no issue. There was close-up footage of damage to a bridge, I've forgotten the name - I'd have to be very desperate to risk driving across it.

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherson is to be believed, and I've no reason to doubt it, then before the war, Kherson was 20% ethnic Russia and in the 2020 local elections, characterised as fair, parties described as pro-Russian and anti-EU won 30% of votes. So it is likely that opinion in Kherson is split. Furthermore, given the damage caused by street to street fighting in Mariupol and Severodonetsk, it might not be surprising if some in Kherson might prefer that not to be visited on their city, whether they are pro-Russian or not.

"Sasha believes many of those who have remained in the city are ready to stay and fight; those I've spoken to say support for Russian rule is minimal and the searches, detentions and beatings in recent months have shrunk that still further."

Well, maybe. He's a partisan, what would you expect him to say?

Would I be happy if UKR took back Kherson? Yes I would but it is pretty easy to sit here 1500 miles away and shrug off the mayhem others will suffer. We should never forget that.

P.S. It seems Kherson is pronounced "Here-son". Maybe everyone else knows that but I didn't.
 
Last edited:

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,687
1,098
Evan, it is on this page, day 154 recap.

Built in 1954, simple steel truss construction. Reason it is out of use could be as simple as an overloaded train damaging structure or a partisan hit. Or the rail infrastructure is damaged further along the track.

This is new info;

ok, thanks. (what I was looking for was the actual sourcing behind that 2nd or 3rd 'reporting')

I hope the UKR counterattack in this area will succeed. It would be a big morale boost. Certainly hitting all these logistic choke points makes sense for the Ukr.

I personally still don't find the totality of evidence on this point (that the rail bridge has been seriously damaged) very convincing - unlike the road bridges where we have first-hand pictures. And ISW (just for instance) seems to be equally skeptical (atm) and is being quite careful about making statements about damage to the rail bridge.

It seems clear the supply lines have certainly narrowed and slowed, and that is all to the good and well worth doing, however the headlines about 'Russian troops being now vulnerable' (because of the road bridges) seem overblown to me. I prefer to be realistic about the actual situation. They still have the heavy-duty dam road, still apparently running some traffic over the rail bridge (unclear how much, but as I mentioned they have specific units dedicated to fixing this sort of rail infrastructure and both the American (Paul Doumer Bridge) and Russian military (Pidyomnyy Mist) have specific experiences with how hard it is to seriously knock out truss rail bridges.), have pontoon bridges, and a ferry.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
3,993
2,054
Earth
I understand the scepticism.
I could point at reports that the railway bridge has been damaged, however nothing that I would like to state with confidence.

However the report about the Russian troops there becoming vulnerable, whilst in the first instance coming from the BBC, originally came from the UK MOD intelligence report. They have been pretty conservative up to now (to the point of being uninformative). So I do put credence behind that.

It is true that the Russians do rely on rail a lot, but that does have its limitations, and they have (supposedly) 15 BTGs to supply in Kherson. That is 10,000 to 13,000 troops to support.
 

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,687
1,098
UK MOD ..... So I do put credence behind that.

... That is 10,000 to 13,000 troops to support.
ok, fair points.

I will admit to some 'prejudice' about these sorts of reports because during my life there has been a preponderance of overly optimistic US military assessments of conflict developments. Has made me a bit of a skeptic until shown well-sourced evidence.

If the Russians have 15btgs/10,000 to 13,000 troops - do we know (even a general ballpark) what Ukr is fielding (will potentially be fielding) to attack them there? There was prior talk that they were standing up 30,000 for this counterattack, but I have not seen anything recently to tell if that is really happening or was optimistic.
 

LeoV

Super Anarchist
13,046
4,021
The Netherlands
Kherson was 20% ethnic Russia
Again, ethnic Russia does not mean they want to be Russian. We have thousands of ethnic Russians living here who hate Putin.
Again, BBC does not walk around in occupied Kherson, so have no clue what they think there. And BBC would be very careful to make statements as Stingray does.
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,491
3,419
PNW
Again, BBC does not walk around in occupied Kherson, so have no clue what they think there. And BBC would be very careful to make statements as Stingray does.
Quit blaming me for shit you may not want to hear. I posted about a radio report on BBC, yes from occupied Kherson, where they heard from a variety of people and, as I said, the reports suggested that there is a big middle-ground who - no matter if they typically vote for pro-UKR or for pro-RU candidates during elections - have a much higher priority: To not get bombed.

As DW pointed out above, there was also a BBC segment, this one was on TV instead, where they interviewed 'the resistance' and also from inside occupied Kherson - mostly armed men wearing face coverings and carrying weaponry - partisans who of course were virulently anti-RU.

Regardless how many lean one way or the other, then if most of them just want peace either way, then the prospect of an attack on Kherson could be devastating to civilians of all stripes.

To repeat, my hope is that UKR can end military supplies to RU forces on the west side of the river, especially ammo; and that an escape route for the RU forces will be left (because the fewer to fight the better for everyone); and that RU will have to abandon whatever heavy gear they already have in there, during a retreat.

Unfortunately there are recent reports, including as stated by Pres Z last night, that RU is doing the opposite and instead moving more forces into Kherson. For that reason too, I hope the civilians are offered a way out of the possibly-coming hell, and for their sakes I don't care what direction they go.
 
Last edited:

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,491
3,419
PNW
@Stingray~ was on the money again. Germans are stockpiling wood. ;-)

Will no-one think of the poor trees?

Oh no! Thanks, yikes, yes they have very-real reasons for doing so..

Mature, aged, cut cords of firewood are readily available where I am because it's just normal and for just in case of a winter-storm power outage. I keep a small part of it under cover to stay especially dry, for use as fire starters. As you can see at bottom right, gas is the other emergency option.

1659122837025.jpeg
 
Last edited:




Top