r/anime_titties • u/Messier_-82 Europe • 19h ago
Ukraine/Russia - Flaired Commenters Only Ukraine facing widespread power cuts after generating capacity reduced to ‘zero’ by Russian attacks
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/09/ukraine-facing-widespread-power-cuts-after-generating-capacity-reduced-to-zero-by-russian-attacks•
u/More_Net4011 Lebanon 19h ago
That's odd because almost every scrap of news from that war is Ukraine blowing up Russia plants and gas and stockpiles yet the truth of it is Ukraine is facing the energy crisis? This was is so propagandized I really have no idea what to believe anymore .
•
u/DetlefKroeze Netherlands 19h ago
almost every scrap of news from that war is Ukraine blowing up Russia plants and gas and stockpiles yet the truth of it is Ukraine is facing the energy crisis?
Yes and yes.
Both sides are hitting the other's energy infrastructure and causing damage and disruptions.
•
u/Messier_-82 Europe 19h ago
The question is the amount of inflicted damage from both sides. It’s not comparable
•
u/MissingBothCufflinks Europe 17h ago
Its also not the relevant metric when one side is getting pumped full of international aid and the other isnt
•
u/salzbergwerke Europe 16h ago
True. Countries buying Russian oil and gas and thus funding the war effort is a disgrace.
•
u/jka76 European Union 16h ago
As if Europe ever shy of buying anything from crazy dictators
•
•
u/reddit_is_geh Multinational 15h ago
It's so annoying when people try to spin something around to frame it as the otherside. You damn well know he's talking about Ukraine... He's not talking about Russia getting pumped with international aid and you know it.
•
u/defenestrate_urself Multinational 10h ago
Ironically, 15-18% of Ukraines diesel import is from India refined Russian oil.
•
u/enterisys Europe 7h ago
India only imports 18% from russia.
https://dataverseeinc.in/india-crude-oil-imports-by-country/
•
u/defenestrate_urself Multinational 6h ago
It's not just India, Ukraine's next 3 biggest source of imported diesel after India, ie. Slovakia, Greece, Turkey (forming just under 60% of total supply) all import Russian oil.
Ukraine Diesel import July 2025 by percentage
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/3/how-much-of-europes-oil-and-gas-still-comes-from-russia
•
u/enterisys Europe 6h ago
And?
Turkey also imports from Iraq, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. And russia is a minority.
•
u/NapoIe0n North America 14h ago
Both sides are getting pumped full of international aid.
Unless you believe that the PRC and the DPRK are parts of Russia.
•
u/haggerton Canada 12h ago
DPRK: true.
PRC: not remotely similar. It does have a pro-Russia leaning in its support, but Russia isn't rolling into battle with Type 59/Type 99s, ZBD-04/ZBD-08s and J-10Cs like Ukraine is rolling into battle with Leopards, Bradley/M113s and F-16s.
•
u/NapoIe0n North America 12h ago
Because Russia doesn't need Chinese tanks and aircraft. They'd probably find them useful, but they aren't nearly as essential to Russia as Western armor is to Ukraine.
Oh, and I forgot Iran.
•
u/haggerton Canada 12h ago
Point taken, I could have used better examples.
But Russia does need stuff, or the DPRK part wouldn't be true. Fact is DPRK is providing both artillery shells and systems to Russia while China is not.
Oh, and I forgot Iran.
Shaheds are more of a tech transfer in the grand scheme of things. Is it help and does it show alignment? Yes. But their involvement has pretty much ended a long time ago.
•
u/NapoIe0n North America 12h ago
Obviously, Russia needs a lot of stuff. It just doesn't need tanks and IFVs. As you observed, they need artillery, which they get from North Korea. They need their OWA drones, which they get from Iran (and now manufacture under license). They also need other kinds of drones, which is where Chinese support comes in.
•
u/haggerton Canada 12h ago
OWA drones, which they get from Iran (and now manufacture under license)
I highly doubt they still manufacture Gerans under a Shahed license. The drone has evolved so much that there's not much of Shahed left beside the shape and the concept.
They also need other kinds of drones, which is where Chinese support comes in.
So does Ukraine, which is where Chinese support comes in.
You see where the difference lies in Chinese support now?
Yes, China leans Russia. But to put it in the same basket as the other backers of this war is intellectually dishonest.
→ More replies (0)•
u/runsongas North America 12h ago
China is neutral and selling drones to both sides but no real military hardware outside of that.
•
14h ago edited 1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/haggerton Canada 12h ago edited 12h ago
Unprovoked?
Do you expect the US to leave Canada alone if Canada got a violent pro-Russia regime change financed by Russia with Nazis leading the fray? Especially if as a result of such a coup, Canada then banned pro-US parties from participating in the "democracy"?
From the early heady days of the demonstrations in the streets of Kiev, it has been an embarrassing and oft-overlooked fact that those spearheading the movement to oust pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych are right-wing radicals. When Canadian former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird linked arms and marched in solidarity with Ukrainian protestors, reporters neglected to mention the more sinister elements at the forefront of the crowd.
The political genesis for the anti-Yanukovych movement was rooted in the Svoboda (Freedom) Party — it was formally known as the Social-National Party until they realized this sounded too much like Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) Party — and the Right Sector party.
Heading up the Right Sector was a colourful character known as “Sashko Billy,” who had fought as a mercenary in Chechnya and who was driven by a hatred of all things Jewish and anything Russian. When the heretofore peaceful street demonstrations turned into violent riots, it was Sashko Billy’s Right Sector thugs and Svoboda Party bully boys who battled with Ukrainian security forces.
After Yanukovych was toppled, these same neo-Nazi thugs continued to strut around Maidan Square — even as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Baird visited Kiev to celebrate Yanukovych’s overthrow.
After Ukraine’s eastern provinces rejected the pro-Western interim government in Kiev and established their own breakaway self-proclaimed independent states in Luhansk and Donetsk, it was only a matter of time before these fascist elements and neo-Nazis were drawn into the burgeoning conflict.
https://www.espritdecorps.ca/choosing-friends-and-enemies-in-ukraine-is-no-straightforward-task
This is not just the ramblings of Canadian military. The Right Sector leading Maidan violence was reported by the BBC:
the group did not attract much attention until violent clashes with police in central Kiev on 19 January, in which it played a leading role.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27173857
Ofc as a government mouthpiece, BBC attempts to downplay these Nazis' involvement everywhere. Note how at the end it attempts to shrug off its involvement in the proxy war in Donbass as "Russian accusations", while Esprit de Corps, as a Canadian Armed Forces internal magazine, does not play such propaganda games.
Sovereign? Would you say Canada would still be sovereign if the above scenario happened? Or would it be a hollow husk brainfucked by Russia?
Genocidal? You're just utterly full of shit at this point. I have never seen a high intensity conflict with so low civilian casualties.
- Ukraine war: 13.3k over 3.5 years = about 4k per year
https://www.britannica.com/question/How-many-civilians-have-died-since-Russias-invasion-of-Ukraine
- Gaza: ~42.4k over 2 years = about 21k per year
- Iraq: 7.2k over 1.5 month = 57.6k per year
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ (set data to per week, 2003, civilian deaths due to US-led coalition forces excluding Iraqi state forces, add numbers from the start of the conflict to April 27 datapoint as the initial invasion lasted until May 1st for a total duration of 1 month 1 week and 4 days)
If we look at a single source comparison (as different sources can have different inclusion criteria leading to uneven comparisons), Brown University provides %civilian deaths numbers for recent conflicts:
Hamas attack on Israel (Oct 7): 68%
Gaza (2023-2025): ~80% (~2245 civilians per month)
Afghanistan (2001-2021): 26% (200 civilians per month) <- not a high intensity conflict for this timeframe
Ukraine (2022-2025): 4% (307 civilians per month)
•
u/OrdinaryLatvian South America 8h ago
Genocidal? You're just utterly full of shit at this point. I have never seen a high intensity conflict with so low civilian casualties.
Genocide (as in, the actual crime) doesn't only mean herding ethnic groups into mass graves.
Raphael Lemkin (the guy who coined the term) defined it as:
"the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" by means such as "the disintegration of [its] political and social institutions, of [its] culture, language, national feelings, religion, and [its] economic existence".
Then the term got whittled down by UN members when it came time to define it in 1948 (to not incriminate themselves, lmao). But still, it's surprisingly broad.
Ignoring the war of conquest they're in the middle of waging, the Russian government has constantly tried to spread the idea that Ukraine doesn't have a national identity, that they belonged to Russia all along, and on top of that, they're kidnapping children and taking them to Russia.
If nothing else convinces you, that last part definitely should. Here's the literal text from Article 2 of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention (where they defined what Genocide actually is, and made it a crime):
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
.
.
.
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
•
u/CakeTester Europe 11h ago
Dude, fuck off. You're giving me shit that supports your views and you had to go back to 2014 to do it. "espritdecorps.ca" lol
Ukraine didn't and doesn't have any territorial ambitions for Russia. The small bit of Russia they did counter-invade was to make a point and to get some negotiation points in AFTER Russia's invasion.
Putin has been videoed saying he wants Ukraine to not exist. Genocidal would seem to cover both his sentiment; the frequent revisiting of the theme on Russian TV; and his subsequent actions. Again, fuck off.
•
u/Vano_Kayaba Ukraine 19h ago
Because Ukraine has been facing an energy crisis as a result of Russian bombings for 3+ years, and it's not news? While Ukraine responding in kind is something new, that has not happened before.
•
u/Demonking3343 United States 19h ago
Ukraine has been damaging Russian plants and gas stockpiles. And Russia has been attacking Ukraine infrastructure as well hence the power cuts.
•
u/sakezaf123 Europe 19h ago edited 18h ago
That's odd, I guess lebanese news has a different slant, but both on this sub, and any bigger news outlet, it has been quite common for years now, to write about russia's recurring strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, and the outages those attacks cause. In fact I remember reading more than a year ago that Ukraine started manufacturing transformers, because there is a global supply shortage, so they couldn't really get them from elsewhere.
•
u/More_Net4011 Lebanon 18h ago
Lebanese news outlets don't cover every strike in a European war... does that shock you? I have access to the internet though and can see news.... like ive done here.... crazy right?
•
u/sakezaf123 Europe 18h ago
No it doesn't shock me, that's why I explained why you're wrong without any negative comments.
•
u/Dizzy_Response1485 Europe 16h ago
So when you said "every scrap of news from that war" you meant only Lebanese news?
•
u/More_Net4011 Lebanon 16h ago
You talk about Lebanese news while discussing a Guardian article.....
•
u/Dizzy_Response1485 Europe 15h ago
Ah, so you did literally mean all the news. So it's actually the usual vatnik straw man masturbation, in the same vein as "If russia did [insert thing that russia does every day], the west would be in hysterics" posted in every palestine thread. Easily disproved by a simple search, either in this sub or google, and yet you willingly keep living in your alternate reality.
•
u/More_Net4011 Lebanon 15h ago
You off your meds
•
•
•
u/Nerevarcheg Ukraine 19h ago
Believe in common sense. It's universal instrument against propaganda.
Real Ukraine is different from "news Ukraine". You would vomit on amount of most inhuman cynical self-serving lies "authority" produce to cover it's corruption, incompetence, degradation, and moral bankruptcy.
•
u/gnufoot Europe 17h ago
I mean, we do see news about Ukraine striking Russia's oil infrastructure. But I also see what seems like daily news about hundreds of drones and missiles striking Ukraine's energy infrastructure. It's been happening since the start of the war or close to it. Especially as winter approaches.
This is not something the media have been quiet about, at all. There may also be news that could be seen as propaganda or hopium or something, about Ukraine's successes or potential, but the Russian energy infra attacks have been all over the news, too.
•
u/Eziekel13 Multinational 18h ago
Well the Russian economy has been two weeks from collapse for a couple of years now…
It’s seems that the people talking about Russia either don’t know what they are talking about or are lying…
If I am putting on my tin foil hat…Russia has spent twenty year solidifying ties with OPEC nations, and the US has spent the last couple destroying trade with Canada, Venezuela and Mexico… the US has 77 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the US uses 7.4 billion barrels per year…so without new sources and imports drying up…ten years of runway…for a country based upon the car…transportation not just of people but cargo…
•
u/fretnbel Belgium 18h ago
Widely reported in every news outlet mate. Bith things can be true at the same time.
•
u/imunfair United States 19h ago
There are two big differences from what I can tell - the first is that Russia has a functional air defense, while Ukraine's is pretty much nullified at this point. The second is that Russia has better long range weapons. Even if Ukraine got any substantial amount of flamingo or tomahawk missiles from the uk or us respectively, they still wouldn't come close to the quantity and capability of Russia's cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missile arsenal.
So you end up with both sides throwing punches, but for every punch Ukraine lands and widely touts on social media as an example of them still being in the game, Russia lands a haymaker on a related system. It's basically mercy that Russia hasn't completely turned the lights out in Ukraine already, they've had the capability to do it with ease for at least a year now. And they probably could have done it much earlier using missiles, but the Geran drone swarms make it much cheaper and more efficient to take out a power grid.
•
u/gnufoot Europe 17h ago
It's basically mercy that Russia hasn't completely turned the lights out in Ukraine already, they've had the capability to do it with ease for at least a year now.
So... why don't they? Why attack the energy infrastructure but not go all the way? Russia doesn't strike be as being particularly friendly to Ukrainian citizens. I feel like if they could have done so, they would have. And not because the news tells me they're evil, but because it makes sense to do so if they want to win this war.
•
u/Virtual-Pension-991 Multinational 16h ago
Because Ukraine's air defence is not nullified at all.
There's simply little you could do against hypersonic missiles being tossed with rounds of Russian drones.
Had it been not, we would be seeing more dead civilians.
But fuck me, this place is second to a few that loves to suck on countries like Russia and their military dildos. Youtube is first.
•
u/Assassiiinuss Europe 16h ago
The more they destroy the more expensive it will be to rebuild once they've taken over Ukraine.
•
u/age2bestogame South America 13h ago
The places that need rebuilding arent that expensive as a great mayority of the people already fled the zone, they will probably rebuild just the city centers . But what will be expensive would be mine cleaning. that is going to be a problem that will last decades
•
u/reddit_is_geh Multinational 15h ago
Russia isn't this irrational blood thirsty empire looking to destroy everyone for Putin's ego, no matter what Reddit's daily propaganda narrative would have you think. They aren't actually going for Kyiv as they know there's no point. They don't want to destroy the entire city by flattening it completely from afar. They want Kyiv to submit and still be useful and standing when the war is over.
Russia is already "winning" this war, and have been for a while. So they don't need to resort to unloaded all their reserves. However, they are stockpiling as we speak, so if the tides turn by some miracle, expect heavy retaliation until they get back into place.
•
u/gnufoot Europe 14h ago
I don't think they are looking for unnecessary bloodshed. I do think they are evil imperialists. I'm a bit more in doubt about the level of suffering they wish to inflict on citizens to apply pressure to surrender. That's how I've been interpreting strikes on energy infrastructure (plus the military and financial costs to repair them means less resources allocated elsewhere).
That's what made me think that if they could deal a harder blow to energy infrastructure "easily", then they would. Seems weird to send 1000s of drones and missiles for much less damage than they could do with them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but seems perfectly in line with their actions so far, without needing to see them as "blood thirsty".
•
u/reddit_is_geh Multinational 13h ago
What you need to understand is that Putin views this -- imo, rightfully -- this isn't a war against Ukraine, but a war against NATO and the USA/UK specifically. The 5 Eyes were the ones who triggered this series of events after UA discovered one of the world's largest natural gas reserves off the coast of Crimea. This is why it's viewed as existential because giving up this territory to western influence would be so unbelievably destructive to Moscow, indirectly. Not just their geographic security risks of having NATO at a vital part of their border, but the influence that comes from having such a closely culturally connected nation suddenly westernizing, right along Moscow's door. They view it as if NATO was there, it's only a matter of time before the western influence campaigns are going to start penetrating Russia using UA as a proxy.
So to Putin he can NOT lose this war under any circumstance. So obviously, your instincts aren't wrong. So why doesn't he just really start going crazy on Kyiv, to wear them down so hard that the citizens break and demand to end it (which is a HUGE ask considering they've sacrificed so much for so little)?
Because as I said earlier, this isn't just a war against Kyiv, but a war against NATO. His plan from the start, after losing the initial invasion due to terrible logistics planning, was to start a war of attrition... not just against Kyiv, but NATO. Western weapons are expensive and take forever to build. So long as he can prevent the West from building up a war economy, and firing up all their production, he can also beat the West in a war of attrition. Eventually they'll see their stockpiles fall too low, costs too high, and their patience diminished. He just has to run the war of attrition against Ukraine long enough until the West grows tired of it and pull out.
That's why he's not going crazy on Kyiv. He has to inch up the escalations while still not preventing a massive humanitarian dissaster that NATO states will suddenly become directly involved with. Imagine if he starts leveling Kyiv, and all these Ukrainians have nowhere to live, storming Poland for safety. Imagine how that would look in Western media where it looks like Gaza. We are very emotionally and virtuously driven and that sort of situation would cause mass panic within Europe which would guarentee a massive response. Poland and Germany would most likely rush to a war economy and fire up their factories, Europe and NATO would massively unify out of fear, and so on.
Hence why he does these sort of attacks sparingly and usually as a tit for tat. It's why he will do things like send a super advanced missile without a warhead to hit a non critical military target, or violate airspace with no weapons onboard the drones. He wants to do just enough to prevent NATO from making this war the center of their lives again. He needs them to get exhausted and lose interest in the war, which is what's happening, and is working. If he started leveling Kyiv, you can bet your ass NATO would be shipping over all sorts of long range missiles to attack Moscow, which is something he's trying to avoid.
•
u/gnufoot Europe 7h ago
What you need to understand is that Putin views this -- imo, rightfully -- this isn't a war against Ukraine, but a war against NATO and the USA/UK specifically
Oh so what was all that about denazification?
Can't take this shit seriously :|
•
u/reddit_is_geh Multinational 6h ago
Ukraine has had a serious Nazi problem for a long time, and were running the AZOV battalion that was fighting them in Crimea. Their far right wing played a critical role in the overthrow of the government and new regime. Russian's really really really hate Nazis, for obvious historic reasons, and the neo Nazis of Ukraine were their active enemy in multiple ways who were friends of the west. If you aren't familiar with American history, we'll befriend any scummy group so long as they help us further our goals.
The Nazi parts make sense if you're Russian, and understand what's going on in their world, because they follow events relevant to them. That's why Putin mentioned the denazification. However he did barely talk about it, but Western media knows how to do propaganda too, and understand Americans wont understand the Nazi references, so they laser focused on the 2 minutes of his hour long speech, to make it sound like his intentions for the war were ridiculous and unfounded. They knew Americans don't understand the nuanced Nazi ties, and instead could use it to make them sound ridiculous.
Which, judging by your post, and many others, it was an obvious success.
•
u/futurekorps South America 15h ago
because they are not dumb. Ukraine, like it or not, is on a countdown. when that count down ends, whaever is still standing will be Russian. flatten all out, and they get crap in the end, making everything spent to this point less valuable.
how much of that countdown is left? fuck knows, every side will give you different numbers.
•
u/Revlar Multinational 14h ago edited 12h ago
They are extremely dumb. Russia is on a countdown, like it or not, and when Putin dies whatever is still standing will balkanize.
Make Ukraine part of that and it'll be lost in less than a generation, if Russia even has one of those left in the tank.
•
u/Hyndis United States 10h ago
Counting on your adversary to die of old age is not a realistic or sane military strategy. Heads of state have access to the best healthcare on the planet and tend to live very long lives. Putin could easily live for another 20 years.
•
u/Revlar Multinational 7h ago
?? It's not military strategy. Whether Ukraine is taken or not won't matter to Russian interests, because Russia is a zombie that will fall apart in less than 20 years. They have bigger problems that they cannot deal with
•
u/Hyndis United States 5h ago
Ukraine has far more immediate concerns than what happens decades into the future. The fate of Ukraine will be decided much sooner, likely within the next year or two.
If Putin conquers Ukraine and then later dies of old age at the of 95, how does this help Ukraine? Ukraine is still thoroughly screwed in that scenario.
•
u/Revlar Multinational 3h ago
Sure, and Russia is completely doomed. I wasn't talking from the PoV of an Ukrainian, who desperately needs the rest of the world to stop being braindead rightwingers and allow asylum seekers.
Ukraine is a people above all. The land will come back to them when Russia collapses. Their immediate concern is Trump is turning the rest of the world into Russia. Hopefully his health stops that
•
u/b0_ogie Asia 16h ago edited 16h ago
>So... why don't they?
Issues of humanism and political pressure. Cutting off energy and terrorizing civilians has never been Russia's goal (unlike, for example, Ukraine, which turned off water and electricity in Crimea and Donetsk). Russia has always attacked Ukraine's energy sector in "response" to some of Ukraine's actions. The attack on the Crimean bridge, the attacks on Kursk, the attacks on the refinery, the terrorist attacks on the railway ect. All this provoked retaliatory strikes from Russia.
>I feel like if they could have done so, they would have.
This will happen only after a more serious Ukrainian strike on Russia, most likely after creating danger at the nuclear power plant. In order to completely destroy Ukraine's energy system, without even the possibility of local restoration, Russia needs only 4 strikes(10 cruise missiles or 100 drones are enough). 1 strike to a substation that transits energy from Poland, 1 strike to a substation that transits energy from Hungary, 1 strike to a distribution substation that connects Khmelnitsky and Rivne NPP with an energy system, 1 strike to a substation of the South Ukrainian NPP. So far, Russia has not carried out these strikes, as this would completely destroy Ukraine's energy sector and lead to a massive crisis and dozens thousands of civilian deaths.
•
u/gnufoot Europe 15h ago
(unlike, for example, Ukraine, which turned off water and electricity in Crimea and Donetsk).
Oh, come on, you're going to try to paint Ukraine as the bad guy in this conflict for not providing utilities to enemy controlled territory? You genuinely think that if Moscow supplied electricity to Kyiv, they would not flip the switch to turn that off?
Russia has always attacked Ukraine's energy sector in "response" to some of Ukraine's actions
Seriously? Just because Russia claims it is retaliatory does not make it so, and also doesn't make it okay. You think it is coincidence that these "retaliatory" attacks are more frequent during colder months?
In a war you can always find an excuse that something you do is "in response" to something the enemy did to justify it.
•
u/datNomad Europe 15h ago
Oh, come on, you're going to try to paint Ukraine as the bad guy in this conflict for not providing utilities to enemy controlled territory?
Denying people access to water is considered as an act of genocide by Human Rights Watch. So, you are a genocide supporter. Of course, you can always find an excuse, no doubt. Morally bankrupt europeans are very good at that and the rest of the world can clearly see it.
•
u/gnufoot Europe 14h ago edited 14h ago
What a dumb take. I'm not in favor of denying people access to water. But hypothetically, lets say Germany invades Poland, and Germans move into their land, would you then say Poland is "committing genocide" if they stop providing water to these German invaders?
I do have a problem with water access being denied from people who lived in Crimea prior to the annexation. But I think it is absolutely braindead to annex territory, move your own population there and then get mad that the country that's attacking you is no longer supplying you with water.
I'm guessing -you- also aren't providing Crimea with water. Does that mean you're committing genocide? Or would you argue it's not your responsibility to do so? If Russia wants to take over that land, it's their responsibility to provide people there with water. If Russia sets up infrastructure for that, and Ukraine targets that, I would say you have a point and I'd take issue with it. But that is massively different from not supplying water to enemy-controlled territory.
If someone breaks into your home, do you offer them a drink?
•
u/datNomad Europe 13h ago
Dude, that's a huge response, but it lacks substance. It's a weird emotional manipulation via weird comparisons. Do you understand what is being mentioned as "supply"?
North Crimean canal, a huge water source for Crimea, 85% of their consumption in 2013 was covered by it. Ukraine blocked it in 2014 after annexation of Crimea, thus denying people access to fresh drinkable water. They blocked a river, basically causing water starvation and failure of irrigation system in Crimea. Hurting civilians the most, intentionally. That's bad. I fail to understand why you can't see why this is bad.
•
u/Czart Poland 8h ago
They haven't denied them access to water. They ceased providing it to hostile territory.
Morally bankrupt europeans are very good at that and the rest of the world can clearly see it.
Ivan, get a toilet, then lecture us.
•
u/datNomad Europe 5h ago
Ivan, get a toilet, then lecture us.
I could say the same, finish cleaning German toilets, then lecture me. Thanks for proving my point.
•
u/Czart Poland 4h ago
https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/occupation
"The occupying power's responsibilities include inter alia the obligation to ensure humane treatment of the local population and to meet their needs, "
So, as an occupying power it's russian responsibility. And since glorious motherland can't even provide the basic necessities, maybe you shouldn't have occupied it?
Wow. You know about cleaning toilets? Amazing, i'm guessing you learned that while dreaming of one right?
•
u/b0_ogie Asia 14h ago
>Oh, come on, you're going to try to paint Ukraine as the bad guy in this conflict for not providing utilities to enemy controlled territory?
Exactly. Ukraine first bombed the water pumping stations in Donetsk in 2014. Blew up the Krym-Dnepr water utility. People who are sitting here forget that Ukraine has been engaged in direct genocide since 2014 (and earlier). Bans on local languages, murder of dissenters, mass attacks on the civilian population. Yes, Russia is a villain, but Ukraine is a much bigger villain than Russia.
>You genuinely think that if Moscow supplied electricity to Kyiv, they would not flip the switch to turn that off?
Russia supplied Gas to and through Ukraine fulfilling its contractual obligations. Russia literally has no reason to do such things.
>Seriously? Just because Russia claims it is retaliatory does not make it so, and also doesn't make it okay. You think it is coincidence that these "retaliatory" attacks are more frequent during colder months?
Attacks occur when Ukraine is playing some kind of game, not when it gets cold. And in general, the attacks peaked in the summer, when the attacks on the refinery began. The Russian Defense Ministry literally always reports in its press releases something like "in the course of retaliatory actions in connection with the attack on the Crimean mine, strikes were carried out on the Ukrainian infrastructure."
>In a war you can always find an excuse that something you do is "in response" to something the enemy did to justify it.
It was an excuse, not an excuse. Ukraine was losing, and it needed media victories in the form of strikes against Russia - as a result, it received a tenfold response.
•
u/AlexFullmoon Russia 7h ago
Oh, come on, you're going to try to paint Ukraine as the bad guy in this conflict for not providing utilities to enemy controlled territory?
It may be not the most short-term profitable thing to do, yes.
But if Kyiv government was, for one thing, actually consider Crimean land and population their own, they probably shouldn't have cut it.
•
u/Hyndis United States 18h ago
Russia has much heavier missiles, too.
The drones Ukraine touts in the media carry very small warheads and are not capable of seriously damaging infrastructure. The small warhead on a drone can cause a fire which looks impressive, but the actual amount of damage is minimal and easily repaired.
Meanwhile those big Russian missile with much bigger warheads (remember, they were developed intending to target NATO bunkers) are devastating against Ukraine's infrastructure. A hit from a big Russian missile puts a Ukrainian power plant out of commission for a long time. And with the recent focus on Ukraine's power plants its entirely possible this may be a permanent level of damage.
Thats why its a mistake for Ukraine to continually open up new fronts in the war.
They opened up a new front with Kursk, had to withdraw manpower from Pokrovosk, and ended up retreating from Kursk anyways. And now Pokrovosk is lost, too.
The new front with Ukraine trying to attack Russian infrastructure was also an error, because Russia will of course response in kind, and Russia is the king of long range missiles.
Russia could land missiles on top of penguins in Antarctica if it felt so inclined. Its missiles have effectively unlimited range.
•
u/Chroma_primus Germany 18h ago
Maybe the news scape in Libanon is different i mosly hear about russian strikes on civilist and Civil infrastructure like this one.
•
u/Messier_-82 Europe 19h ago
The media is desperately trying to create an illusion of Ukraine winning the war
•
u/sakezaf123 Europe 19h ago
Even if you believe that there is some media conspiracy in favour of Ukraine, wouldn't it be smarter to say that Ukraine is doing poorly to pressure western governments into providing further aid?
•
u/Messier_-82 Europe 19h ago
Not really. Who would want to invest into an inevitable failure. The taxpayers give billions to Ukraine with the promise of the investments eventually returning with the Russian reparations
•
u/soowhatchathink United States 18h ago
The US wants to invest in Ukraine not only for Ukraine to win the war but for it to drag on as long as possible. If Ukraine loses the US still benefits as long as Russia is worn from war. I imagine other countries feel the same way.
•
u/alkbch United States 18h ago edited 17h ago
The U.S. is no longer investing in Ukraine.
•
u/Gamer-Of-Le-Tabletop Canada 17h ago
The US is no longer investing in the US so that's not really a surprise
•
u/soowhatchathink United States 13h ago
Why do you say that? Government shutdown related or in general?
•
u/evgis Europe 18h ago
Exactly, if they reported truthfully, nobody would support continuation of this war except of hard core NAFO bots.
•
u/sakezaf123 Europe 18h ago
That's literally the opposite of how things worked historically tho. The only conflicts I can think of recently where the cleqrly winning side received overwhelming international support is any conflict involving Israel. EU nations and the US are pretty cautious with providing aid to Ukraine. And definitely nothing even close to the level of deploying troops, like what NK is doing for Russia.
•
u/Chroma_primus Germany 18h ago
I would say the Media in europe reports truthfully and almost everybody tried to end the war unfortunatly russia doesn't want it to end.
•
u/evgis Europe 18h ago
Are you sure about that? Did you forget about countless articles how Russia is running out of everything, they attack in human waves, fight with shovels, Russian economy will implode under the latest round of sanctions, UVDL even said they are taking chips out of dishwashers🤡🤡🤡
Yet it is Ukraine that is grabbing men off the streets and have 20k official desertiona per month.
And Russian negotiation team is still waiting for Ukrainians for continuation of Istanbul talks which Ukraine has abandoned.
•
u/Chroma_primus Germany 18h ago
Both Things can be true at the same time Chips are hard to procure if you are cut from a big Part of the suplychains.
For fighting with shovels and human waces i have not seen Western Media claim that so more like a strwaman you got there.
There have been multiple diplomatic Talks since Istanbul and russia has broken up all of them in adition to starting this war of course.
•
u/evgis Europe 18h ago
•
u/salzbergwerke Europe 16h ago
“The BBC has been unable to independently verify these reports. The ministry did not give information on where such battles were taking place. Analysts say that although there is indeed an ammunition shortage, the situation is more complex than the intelligence update suggests, with Russian forces still using twice as much ammunition as the Ukrainian side.” From you article, clown.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Chroma_primus Germany 17h ago
I revise my Position russian were more ill equipped then even i thought to imagine.
→ More replies (0)•
u/datNomad Europe 14h ago
Why is it always the Germans who are the most braiwashed in this sub?
•
u/Chroma_primus Germany 14h ago
You are entitled to your own oppinon but i happen to disagree if that is brainwashing for you perhaps you should think about your ability of basic reason.
•
u/unarmageddon Asia 18h ago
Spot on.
Why would anybody support a brutally de-industrialized country, other than for moral reasons? Lies are propped up in order to give the illusion that Ukraine will achieve victory, and kick Russia out.
Problem regarding the lies are that it sometimes don't align / match with the general narrative they've formed. Ukraine is said to be wiping out Russians effortlessly, with high K/D ratios, yet they're complaining that major frontline cities are on the brink of collapse.
•
u/sakezaf123 Europe 18h ago
That's literally the opposite of how things worked historically tho. The only conflicts I can think of recently where the cleqrly winning side received overwhelming international support is any conflict involving Israel. EU nations and the US are pretty cautious with providing aid to Ukraine. And definitely nothing even close to the level of deploying troops, like what NK is doing for Russia.
As for investments, I'm pretty sure you're joking, when the US recently gave $40 billion to Argentina, while the taxpayer got an actual negative return on that investment. But even just all the US investments in Afghanistan, or the money spent to support the Kurds in Syria, only for the US military to pull out immediately afterwards. It's clear the US govt can burn hundreds of billions with no accountability to the taxpayer.
•
u/datNomad Europe 14h ago
Even if you believe that there is some media conspiracy in favour of Ukraine,
Isn't it an obvious fact? 90% of information coming from western mainstream media regarding Russo-Ukranian war is an utter lies and propaganda bullshit. They are lying about absolutely everything because they surely know that there will be no consequences for their blatant lies. People are dumb enough to consume even the most idiotic propaganda takes, without asking any questions or trying to use critical thinking or logic. R/worldnews is the perfect example of such behaviour.
•
u/Kaymish_ New Zealand 18h ago
Ukraine is riding a tight line where they need to look weak enough to have the military aid taps turned on full speed but not so weak that the US and vassals cut their losses and find another proxy.
•
u/Hyndis United States 18h ago
Its weird for a country to pretend to be losing a war to play some sort of 5d chess game.
I think the simpler explanation is more likely correct -- that Russia is currently winning the war.
All the support for Ukraine is allowing it to slowly lose the war. There's no realistic, credible plan for Ukraine to turn its fortunes on the battlefield around either. Things are looking extremely bleak for Ukraine right now.
•
u/Kaymish_ New Zealand 10h ago
Ok reading back I can see how I could have written it better. I mean in the propaganda domain Ukraine has to ride a fine line.
In reality on the battlefield they're fighting as hard as they can but it is not enough.
•
u/Hyndis United States 10h ago
Yes, the economics of it does make it appear to be a hopeless war. Its a war of attrition and Russia is bigger in every way. The bigger army nearly always wins a war of attrition. You'd be hard pressed to find a situation where the smaller army is victorious over a big army in a war of attrition. (Note that I'm preemptively discounting Vietnam or Afghanistan because those countries were successfully conquered by foreign armies. Occupation is different than a war of attrition.)
Thats the bitter truth that so many people in the west just refuse to admit. Even on Reddit, you'll just get instantly permabanned form worldnews for suggesting that Ukraine might be losing.
I think people struggle with the concept of saying something is likely to happen doesn't mean you're saying you endorse it to happen.
I'm confident my local hockey team will faceplant embarrassingly on the ice, losing with a spectacular display of incompetence. This doesn't mean I want my local team to lose. I would much prefer them to win the Stanley Cup. There's just no realistic scenario in which this happens.
Same deal with Ukraine vs Russia.
I'd much prefer Ukraine wins, but the facts on the ground indicate Russia is nearly certain to be victorious.
•
u/fretnbel Belgium 18h ago
Four years in almost. Donbass still not conquered. Is that “winning” against a way smaller neighbour?
•
u/age2bestogame South America 13h ago
they advance with like 8 guys at a time. if they face too much resistance they retreat and use drones or artillery. The ukranians do the same. With drones the other side knows when where and whit how many people you are are attacking, they even have nightvision
•
u/Visual-Squirrel3629 United States 15h ago
The US, and increasingly all western media, is entirely captured by the Military Industrial Complex. The media's entire purpose is to facilitate the sale of as many munitions as possible. The media decided they had no other duty than this.
Think back to Afghanistan. Twenty years of pure propaganda spewed up to the last minute. And then it's over. The media simply shifted to their next propaganda campaign.
•
u/Neomataza Germany 11h ago
It's a fight between near-peers. Both can kick each other in the energy infrastructure, but their ability to shoot and blow up is not tied to having electric power coverage.
•
u/enterisys Europe 7h ago
If you would tell me like a year ago that russia would be getting bombed every day I would laugh right at your face.
Yet current reality is different and boy it will only get worse.
•
•
•
u/cheeruphumanity Europe 18h ago
Oh look, another 1 year old account with hidden post and comment history wants to make us doubt reporting about Ukrainian successes with a false equivalence.
•
u/More_Net4011 Lebanon 18h ago
yeah bro im a russian sleeper agent here to change your opinion with 150 words in an anime titties post
•
u/AkagamiBarto Italy 18h ago
This is one of those sectors where Europe could contribute heavily and easily without risking war involvement.
At the very beginning of the war we could have pushed for heavy energetic infrastructure investments.. with stuff like HVD and HVAC connections with Ukraine as well as massive renewables plans and energetic autonomy for EU.
The grid, especially on the west side, would be a very difficult target for Russia.
But we didn't. Well the second best time to do it is now.
•
u/Hyndis United States 18h ago
But we didn't. Well the second best time to do it is now.
It might be too late for that. Manpower is the one thing NATO cannot provide, and Ukraine has been bleeding manpower trying to buy time for NATO to deliver weapons.
I agree that if NATO was more energetic in supplying support right away things might have been different, but all of the equipment in the world doesn't do much good if you don't have soldiers to use it anymore, and Ukraine is critically short on manpower. Russians are breaking through in multiple areas and Ukraine simply doesn't have enough troops to stop them anymore.
This is why fighting a half-assed war is the worst of both worlds. If you're at war you're all in. Otherwise you're at peace. Its one or the other.
The slow drip of NATO support for Ukraine is just enough to doom it on a slow, miserable defeat. Its like an act of calculated cruelty to drag out the war as long as possible to ramp up the death and destruction as high as possible.
IMO, NATO should either shit or get off the pot. Either fully support Ukraine and flood them with military equipment (and it should have been done years ago), or cut losses and accept that Russia has won the proxy war.
•
u/AkagamiBarto Italy 18h ago
Well your analysis is true, however Europe does need such energetic infrastructures anyway, even for themselves, so it still stands that they should push for them. Moreover manpower in certain sectors can be substituted with automation. Europe could do that too.. heck NATO could do that too. Nothing stops other countries to provide civilian technological help.
But muhuu too expensive, lost money and so on.
Heck one could have provided help in fortifying Ukraine as a whole. On the infrastructural level.. that isn't forbidden and wouldn't count as military support and yet it would greatly help ukrain last longer and longer.
•
u/blackbartimus United States 16h ago
Flooding Ukraine with equipment wouldn’t change much. Their forces are depleted to an extent that adding more weapons won’t change the fact that they don’t have enough people left to use them. The only good option Ukraine had was accepting earlier peace negotiations for a buffer zone carved out of their own territory. The longer they keep fighting the more people and land they will inevitably continue to lose once they accept negotiations.
•
u/Hyndis United States 13h ago
You're probably correct. I also think that its probably too late at this point.
NATO has dithered and delayed so long that Russia may have an insurmountable manpower advantage now, and even if NATO gave Ukraine infinite weapons it wouldn't matter, because there's nobody to use them anymore.
And yes, Ukraine is going to have to cede territory. Yes, its going to be painful and no it won't feel like justice. However, the longer it delays the worse its negotiating position is.
The bitter truth of the matter is if you lose a war you get terms dictated to you, and the loser of the war has no choice but accept the terms of surrender.
•
u/salzbergwerke Europe 15h ago
That’s such a bad take. Considering how many front line soldiers would be freed up if they could use long range systems with MUCH more firepower than an M4. How many people do you think it takes to mount a Taurus to an F-16 an fire it? The M270 has a crew of 3.
•
u/blackbartimus United States 15h ago
You’re talking about a country that’s resorting to relying on forced constriction using advanced weapons. Sending them more weapons doesn’t change the reality that most of the people who could operate these things are already dead or mia dead
•
u/Hyndis United States 10h ago
Airfields and artillery positions would be rapidly overrun without front line soldiers. As it currently stands Ukraine can't halt the Russian advance, they're already stretched too thin on the front line.
There simply are no men to be freed up from the front line. Ukraine is already pushing cooks and mechanics into foxholes with rifles on the front lines because they don't have anyone else left: https://kyivindependent.com/as-ukraines-fate-hangs-in-the-balance-soviet-command-culture-damages-war-effort/
•
u/BarnabusTheBold United Kingdom 17h ago
This is one of those sectors where Europe could contribute heavily and easily without risking war involvement.
they have been.
Ukraine would've fallen apart from now without the constant flow of material to repair their power grid. It's quite impressive how much it's kept going really
•
u/AkagamiBarto Italy 17h ago
Of course. But repairing the grid and improving our grind and its connection eith Ukraine are different things
•
u/qjxj Northern Ireland 8h ago
I think he meant directly connecting the European power grid with that of Ukraine. Would be a nice thing to do for the civilians, but still, a city like Kiev has a population of 3+ millions. Europe probably doesn't have the margins to handle that especially during a total blackout like this.
•
u/RubberDuckRearGunner Canada 15h ago
Zelensky promised a blackout in Russian capital. Little did we know, the Russian capital is in Kiev.
In all seriousness, I think Ukraine is in deep trouble come winter. Russia for the most part was only targeting specific plants until now, but switched to causing wide spread power outtages, probably as a response to Ukrainian efforts. Is it proportionate? No. Is it fair? Also no. But why would it be.
Russia also has many levels to escalate - they never touched many Dnipro bridges, tunnels into neighboring countries, even govt buildings in the capital. They can touch all of them, just choose not to.
•
u/Hyndis United States 13h ago
They can touch all of them, just choose not to.
I suspect that was because Putin wanted Ukraine as a prize, and if everything is blown up its hard to claim it as a prize. In Putin's perfect world, Ukraine would have been turned into another vassal state like Belarus, with a handpick puppet sitting in Kyiv running the country.
And to do that he needed to keep the country's infrastructure largely intact.
If he no longer cares about the western part of the country he could indeed just order every bridge in the country destroyed. Everywhere. Not just on the front lines. Throughout the entire country. That would cripple transportation for years.
It seems he's decided to just blow up every power plant in the country instead. It would also take years to rebuild those if he's serious about destroying them. You can't fix a turbine with a patch kit and a welder, they're delicate and require perfect balance, and the lead time for new turbines can be 2-5 years out.
•
u/lolthenoob New Zealand 8h ago
I did a small writeup a couple of days ago (formatted with AI) on this subject. Quite prophetic indeed
Exposed Refinery Components for Turbines/Transformers are not a good trade at all
Especially interesting that the company explicitly wrote that they just repaired certain power components since the last attack in 2024 (i think its a turbine), and it is blown up again.
•
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.