Comments by "Miriam Weller" (@miriamweller812) on "Big Win For Ukraine, RU Lines Surge - Will This Change Anything? - Ukraine War Map Analysis u0026 News" video.

No, it was not. If you would have many weapons on board, you would have a lot of secondary explosions, not one big fire cloud. A big fire cloud is more like the explosion of fuel or alike. That and all other logic makes clear, that this ship was a zero point target, that's the reason they attacked and hit it in the first place. The air defense was focussed on all wortwhile targets, the actual warships. And before being shot down they let the missile drop and just hit something random and selling that as success. If they could really hit what they want with their oh so good missiles, why shouldn't they destroy the missiles cruisers? While always hit zero threat targets, hm?
5
How is damaging or even destroying an old, out of order ship that played zero role in those 2 years any kind of shaping operation? You know what shaping operation is? Surrounding the fortress of the enemy. If your Nazis would be even 10% as good as you want them to be, they would at the very least not allow that to happen. Not even doing it themselves, but at least not let it happen to them. And if they would have any gut super duper strike missiles to sink ships, if they would even have a single brain cells left, they would destroy an actual warship with it. Those which detonate billions of NATO equipment month by month. That landing ship is doing literally nothing, nor was it full of ammunition of any kind, obviously, because that's not at all an explosion of that kind.
2
Actually it does not look like it got ammunition on board at all, since you got zero secondary explosions, what is absolutely unlikely (if not just impossible), if you would have a big transportship full of ammunition. The big flame cloud looks more like a fuel explosion.
2
Military Summary is just taking social media pictures and videos and often enough commention it in a very arbitrary way to get clicks. They are no real info source at all.
2
@pogo1140 Loitering drones are exactly what they are useless against, because those come from the side and avoid the cage.
1
@jimmoynahan9910 Huge doesn't matter. Under Putin Russia focussed on smaller but much more lethal warships. If you think NATO is so good, why don't they at least try to sink or damage one of the actual warships, those which destroyed billions of US dollars in equipment and keep on doing it?
1
You do get that NATO is "Hitler"? You do get that NATO took in all the Nazis of 2.WW? You do get that the USA whitewashed all the Nazi mass murderes of 2.WW to use them to continue 2.WW under their leaderships and new name: Cold War. With the same goal. And you do get that no one in the USA and most of the west has any chance to survive a nuclear war?
1
@michaelfaraday8391 More likely that this ship got hit because by all means this target was so extremelys stupid that they thought the missile would fly further and try to actually go after an actul war ship, which would have shot it down. Instead it went down further and was wasted on a decade old broken ship, sold as massive strike against megatons of ammunition (what the explosion doesn't look like at all). If they would have any ability to powerful strikes - they would at least try to sink actual warships, which fire those missiles that blow up billion after billlion in NATO equipment.
1
@linusp9316 Attrition means, that you use what you got most effectively and by that don't waste super expensive weapons with very limited supply to shoot at worthless targets, but you go for the most valueable targets. You don't sacrifice a knight for a pawn, you try to sacrifice a knight for a queen or alike.
1