Russia - threadbanned users in OP

And the train is still fairly intact for something that was supposedly hit by a missle at to no large impact or exit hole of a weapon,

I would have at least expected the train to partially derail or trucks on their side

What's the consensus on Kherson from a Pro Ukrainian POV? Assuming no more heavy equipment such as tanks, artillery, armoured vehicles etc will cross the river and only food, ammo, fuel and reinforcements are crossing (open to correction here).

Are Ukraine Better off not taking it back completely asap? The heavy equipment across the river is probably never making it back. So by slowly taking it back rather then quickly you occupy Putin and some of his best soldiers.

Of course taking the dam crossing and pushing them out of Myckolaiv and East of the inulets river should be a priority to which would ultimately doom the city. But personally I don't think taking back the city ASAP is essential. An extra month or two could provide a useful distraction.

Problem is you will have a lot troops and materials tied up surrounding it. I expect that the Russian forces will collapse there pretty fast

This point could be debated. If civilians are killed in retaliation for a significant military advance at least there's something concrete to show for it.

If they're killed in retaliation for a glorified PR stunt I'm not sure the price is worth it.

However, I assume that the intention was actually to completely destroy the bridge and it failed, rather than simply being a visually impressive but ultimately minor destruction to a very visible symbol.

None of which is to excuse in any way the disgusting act of retaliation by the Russians.

Out of interest: is it that hard for Ukrainiam civilians to leave those areas close to the frontline? I cannot understand why anyone who is not pro Russian would want to be in such a dangerous area

This is from a year or two ago.

They're fond of the auld nazis too.

It definitely has been hard to get out of certain places at certain times. That was one of the big stories in the days following the invasion about the Russians blocking evacuation corridors out of Mariupol, as well as not letting the Red Cross in.

I don't have the stats to hand, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was indeed a much higher proportion of older people who's families were already grown choosing to stay than younger mothers with young kids.

If you're looking to leave a war zone, a safe place where you may cop abuse still counts as a safe place, so I doubt that would be a deciding factor if choosing to leave. I doubt they're reading that thread, somehow, besides...

Anyway, if you remember the fact that posters on this site managed to get the thread about the Donegal tragedy temporarily closed, it shows there are just some people who are absolute arsehats about everything and anything. In the real world, Ukrainian refugees have gotten overwhelming kindness and support from the people of Europe.

The Russians are probably attacking Zaporizhzhia trying to create political conditions to goad the Ukrainians to move the men they are gathering in that region and pull resources from other fronts. It does not make sense to target civilian population otherwise. The same pressure was felt by the English politicians in WW II when the Germans started firing the buzz bombs. Resources had to be deployed by the English to manage the problem. The goal at this stage combined with the added nuclear threat seems to be buy time until the men from the mobilisation can be deployed at scale between January and April next year. Most analysis of their failures with their established doctrine of battalion tactical groups sees to point to the lack of infantry to protect their formations opening up sucessful attacks by the Ukrainians using shoulder launched missiles in the initial phase of the war.

Russians don't do shame unfortunately. It's either nationalist fervor or complete apathetic resignation. Shame doesn't enter the equation.

...

It's a war. Attacking civilians creates political pressure on the Ukrainian politicians to respond. At this stage the Russians game is buy time, regroup apply the lessons and apply the tactics properly (if they can). Ukraine (or the West) does not have unlimited resources in the field, Russian army don't want Ukrainians concentrating their resources. Why use drone attacks from Belarus and the threat of incursion, if only to tie down Ukrainian man power.

The problem is seeing Russian actions as “retaliation” for Ukrainian actions. They’re not. Russia’s actions in Ukraine are unilateral and without justification. They’re not bombing apartment blocks because their illegal bridge was hit. They’re bombing them because they’re using terrorism - in the purest sense of the word - as a state military tactic. But they’ll do that regardless of what Ukraine do.

Not only that, but it would be a net PR loss to hit a Russian city or town just because. You give Putin an easy thing to rattle the sabre over and Ukraine's moral high ground gets a shade lower.