I didn't need to look. Why am I looking at if it rains in Ukraine. It fucking does. I asked is it raining there now, or is it due to rain there tomorrow. Not fucking bullshit. I also asked. Dumbass. The comparison to Russian rainfall. Further asking if it was a wet winter. Because you'd know it if you asked somebody. Books don't tell you that. You have to ask. Do you remember it raining more this year than it last year. Your fucking graph doesn't tell you shit. It averages it out.
No Kiev dates to before Romans, and older. 431 AD is before Rome. You dumbass. It is Greek. God damn it. Then the Romans.
I haven't failed in calling Bob, Bob. I didn't care about the history of Bob. I am not Bob. Bob's history is still being prooobed. Bob is likely much older. It was likely this other village and hamlet, before the name got changed.
Think about Bob. A bunch of people didn't turn up out of the blue along a historic waterway. They do in Siberia. We discussed the gulag already. But along Bob was a bunch of settlements. These obviously became cities as the demand for the waterway increased.
You're doing yearly averages, not seasonal averages. You haven't compared it too Russian averages either. Seasonal averages speculated that the wet and frozen ground delayed the counter prooobing.
Tell me this? Are there rains there now or falling next week? Look weather as in rain.
Instead you've given me some history about nothing else we're arguing. Kiev dates back to the Greeks? Or is it older? The other name I cannot pronounce. I'll just call it Bob. It was named after Bob the great. Hardly a soviet. But there you go.
You're speculating. But yes the WW1 charge and prooobing. Remarkablely bullshit.
As I said this conflict has been fought wrong. By both sides.
-
It doesn't have the same objectives as other warfare. Whatever those obnoxious reasons are. Where it doesn't seek the annihilation of an enemy's core systems and command and infrastructure. It tries to play capture the flag. When those systems are hit both blame each other, name calling.
-
There has been no dominating air superiority. It instead welcomes even more weaponry into its axis, as it plays wargames. Constantly raising the ante of the next bigger gun.
-
It ignored key captures to procure other territory, it now seeks to defend. Where it welcomes an enemy if it can cause it to degrade their eventual capability.
-
It never closed the borders. Because it would drag other conflict into it, but it ironically does anyway because it hadn't.
-
It backed monkeys in every literal sense of the word compared to professional soldiers. Because it thinks to hamper an enemy if it spends even more on outfitting and funding them.
-
Why did this conflict even occur? Now it thinks to win it, when it has no defining objectives. Except that's mine because I said it.
I am sure there's more reasons.
Look it up. The river/delta and parts of Ukraine has much higher averages of rainfall than North above it Russia. It also has a lower temperature in certain areas.
I gave you a better reason than wahaaaa Ukraine did it because of the social justice for beavers.
The dam further up pressures the reactor and the reservoir, possibly affecting the Crimea as well. It can affect it. It possibly cannot be targeted, or the reactor is at risk. So it will have an affect on the water supply longterm and the reactor. It can effectively shut it down.
The barges, had a lock, separate to the dam. They were barges and boat tours. The lock is still accessible. The dam however has run aground.
I really don't know what you're complaining about?
It's Soviet river dam. The power wasn't working.
The counter offensive was delayed. Weather was bad. It rained a lot. It rains even more in the Ukraine. Along the Dnipro.
Who blew up the road and railroad first?
We're repeating ourselves with vague talking points. You're literally going around in circles. I am taking the mick. Because of the probability. You won't convince me. I really didn't care when making an assessment. It remains unchanged objectively.
Who gains more at this point? Who is to blame? At this point it's simply ironic. It was expected and an occurrence. It hasn't changed much more. Except defensive positions. They gain more. Unless the attacker gains something else?
What? Has Crimea's water become affected. By the next dam perhaps. It places the nuclear reactor at risk. See, a better argument against Ukraine. Not nonsense. But this is not significant currently and won't be anytime soon. By that time a pumping station and additional channels are operational.
Nukes. Outside of the nukes there's all that military aid. But look at that reactor. It could be next at this rate. Wait until they get the F16s, and they'll fly them into Moscow. It could lead to an alien invasion.
Why wouldn't an advanced race, is the only question. It doesn't need too because Earth is not very advanced. It still hasn't proved the Aliens exist outside of the Hollywood fiction. When it does, it becomes invaded. As far as giving technology to primitives goes, it has only been used to control them and their resources. What resources on Earth aren't in galaxy? An intergalactic lavatory? Come on.
You haven't proved anything. Every drone until identified is a UFO and so is every other flying object. Look at how that works. Reewar there's a bunch of flight police. A bunch of movies about the Aliens. A bunch of idiots, what did you see, no me, I swear.
Why would an advanced race give monkeys technology?
Look at Ukraine.
Seriously. There would be no other benefit except to control us, and to divide us causing conflict. Hence the age old paradigm of Babel.
There would be zero point in them identifying themselves to us either. It would cause a situation where we'd be invaded. Controlled. As we cannot outside of fiction, no proof. There are only taller tales. A narrative of government to embed dystopia profiting off the constant what if while projecting power and policing the gullible.
If we have an invasive origin it was stranded. Cut off from the cosmos. It hasn't returned.
You've gone crazy. It's autism. I answered that question. They don't let ships through. Tell me what ships went up that part of the river? The river had freaking islands and beavers. Ships. You sack of rocks. Barges perhaps. Not ocean liners. Or nuclear submarines firing the torpedoes. They could stealth all the way into Kiev. Through the locks. It wasn't deep enough. Dumbass.
They powered the hydro turbines venting the overflow. The overflow collecting downstream into the reservoir. The reservoir not being maintained. Because wahaaa Ukraine did it.
The rest of your gerbil is repeating what I stated.
I don't need to look at your ships. Seriously the weather was bad all winter and much of spring and the reservoir was quite full and at capacity. Because what, Ukraine did it? Objectively why. So the nuclear submarines wouldn't lock into Kiev?
What floodgates? They don't allow the ships through. Previously. So the gates that power the hydro electricity? So they didn't release the overflow. It was spilling, previously. But they weren't operating this entire time? Dumb dumb dumb. As suspected.
The upper dam is maintained. Tell me what the weather was? It releases the excess automatically, like in rainfall. Because this is what the system is designed to do, pass the overflow down the river, collecting it in the reservoir. It doesn't need a conspiracy. But there you are rubbing your hands together, hatching a plot.
What are you on about. I know how the dam works without the ships and the beaver genocide.
The counter offensive you've linked. Except. The invasion started as a big feint in the North. That huge convey was diversionary. Combined into a lot of inexperience. Problematical they didn't know what they were completely facing. Where they secured footing was along a land corridor. It probably still sought terms. Who knows that complete agenda but there's far more tactics at play and overall agenda on a bigger stage than the proxy. However the media on both sides has been seeped in propaganda in warfare that has shifting dynamics over a colossal country. What was Bakhmut as example, who used it and why for what. It had another purpose outside of the misinformation. The biggest problem this conflict has had is a real lack of dominating air superiority. It has sought territory over the complete degradation of an enemy, because it has been fighting its own and it is defending itself from far more risk.
The territory won back then wasn't quite the complete forward positions. No. It gained smaller towns and faster retreated off bigger feints. I suspect Kherson was problematic. Because Odessa hosted far more. It didn't capture Karkiv either. The main fighting did what then. It was gaining the land corridor via the Southern Oblasts East of the Dnipro, while engaging against the fortified line in Donetsk and Luhansk. Now however it has entrenched as it grinds away at an enemy's resolve.
The geography of gain has also followed which landmarks? More than the river. It's obvious.
But the dam I am not convinced. You spew provocation. Except it's there anyway. It hasn't changed much. The funding and escalation is there already.
It changed access. Objectively who does this favour? It could be Ukraine if Russia still seeks the rest of the coast. However not in the immediate future.
How irradiated is the water. Didn't Musk eat irradiated Fukushima vegetables after meltdown. Boris in the UK was trying put the Fukushima vegetables into the food banks.
How irradiated is it. Sea water is already to very small extents.
I think there's some hoohaw here and stigmatism. Until the whales start beaching on Fukushima and the fish float ashore dead. It's probably minimal if at all.
Running it out of his basement? It seems all kinds of cliche. That guy on the sidelines.
Now he's a pariah for the pundits of Twitter paying his garden shed wage.
It is trying to be more appealing, obviously. The free speech for the outcasts streaming on their ham radios.
Except the Europeans went a banned it. Pirate radio is anti free speech according to Brussels.
Are you genetically dumb. You quote stuff. But I don't think you read it. I think it just floats around in your head, and out pops the bullshit.
The dam was hit by shells last year. Like the bridge was hit by shells and missiles. Both sides blamed each other.
The damage done caused water to run off of it. The water was already at peak capacity and overflowing. The bridge wasn't repaired since being blowout in a section.
Nope. Not until truce. Otherwise Nato are entering warfare. Warfare needs public support from retrospective governments. Many would grant it. But a few won't. No entry.
Aid and armament and mercs are greylines. Most Nato countries have unanimously agreed to support a potential member with such packages and training and funding. Ascension however puts Nato in direct warfare. Then what? Nukes.
The problem is the stakes keep rising, but they're not enough to grant public support for warfare.
So a truce of terms will have to be reached prior, after that Ukraine could possibly join if on agreement.
It is no where near truce or terms. Funding keeps supplying monkeys with no other grounds for a truce. They get guns and want to chargeee or proooooobe.
There are other possibilities Nato can directly enter, none of them are much better. Such as one of their own members, attacked, or suggestively if bigger atrocity occurred, perhaps a nuke, or if the government they're supporting is obliterated.
Dubiously this rhetoric always chances when Ukraine are losing and begging. It means nothing else currently. If they decided to preempt perhaps it could mean more. But they seem to be provoking it. Incoming are F16s. Doubt they'll fair any better. However in Ukrainian hands are a recipie for escalation.
You dumbass down voting. Why are there so many dumbasses on this forum. I don't fit in your narrative. Damn right, you're fucking dumb. But you don't see me attacking your speech with silly down votes. You're literally that autistic. There is no president of the Internet. It's not a contest, speaking. You dumb monkey. There's only conversation and information.
No, there is a reason here. My gut, and the probability is thinking Russian. Objectively there are more immediate reasons to expanding the waterway there.
Sure Ukraine are masochists. Yes they are very bad at it.
But outside of provocation nobody else in the globe cares about except Nato who are already arming them, it didn't do anything else except self inflict more torture. Unless you can state another objective? They're calling on international rescuers, blaming Russia for hampering attempts. But yawn. Most of the area in warfare was evacuated. We are talking about less people than a village need evacuation.
Yes there are accidents, except this was an occurrence. It was discussed, it was attempted, and it is no surprise.
Ships don't there. Ships didn't pass that dam? Did they? Stop making this conversation boring. Ships don't pass through hydro dams. Since when?
We were talking about the ecological disaster to the beavers. They built a dam and it flooded over them. As they are in the Ukraine wild, and a native species, it was particularly hazardous to them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_beaver
See look beavers in Ukraine in the green zone it's where it flooded.
What are you on about. It was shelled earlier, like the bridge was shelled. Except this time somebody said they put explosives in the hydro control room. No torpedoes. Dumbass.
For torpedoes to hit it is from the reservoir. Except there was no torpedoes there. Shelling or missiles perhaps or explosives in the hydro operating room.
I am finding it conspiratorial. Then I read this shit and it confirms it.
Has the temperature suddenly risen staggeringly. It had a particularly cold winter, very cold this year all over the Atlantic. The ground would take much longer to dry out. That snowfall was above averages for sustained periods. Full of storms. All throughout a prolonged winter. Due to the Atlantic.
Now it's wildfires. Hang on one minute. Bullshit.
Yes I have but we're not doing which beaver is better beaver. Coinslots best beaver.
The Thames barrier for example the French and the Scottish have some amazing locks.
But as far as dams went that wasn't a lock. It didn't allow boats through. It didn't release the tide, or cause tolls.
It was a dam, that burst, because river went over it. Dumbass
Fake and gay. Where is picture of alien? Have time to phone cops. But no time for pictures. What?
Where are the skid marks in the garden of the 8-10ft high aliens? Instead they blanked out that footage.
Instead rent a cop is asking people if they saw something? Did you see something. Hahaha. If serious, proper canvassing. Where are the tracks. 8 ft high is going to leave prints.
Lock is different than dam. It is a gate.
Dams stop water. Yes. Stop water. They hold the water behind them. Damming the water. Correct.
The concept of a dam is not that of a gate. Dams stop water. Gates allow a toll and watercraft through in your example. Yes locks need maintaining like dams need maintaining because they erode if they aren't maintained.
Hydro dams release water, the overflow, and the dammed, stored water, to power turbines generating an electrical charge.
If water flow over dam. Look. It burst. It is not a dam. It's a river. God damn it. Retard.
Many have. Beavers get washed away all the time.
Erosion say this word. Look it up. Tell me is there more erosion or less erosion by water going over the top? It gets heat and it freezes on the surface in weather as well.
Conceptually how do dams work? By letting the water flow over them?
The gulags mined, they felled trees, they made roads and railroads. These transport the food, make the tractors. Yes? Come on. You're not very funny.
Dams break from overflow. Retard. The water isn't supposed to spill over the top. It creates erosion. It's supposed to go through the vents, turning the turbines, generating electricity. Or it's supposed to dam. Tell me how this was a dam, if water is flowing over the top? It is supposed to be checked for cracks. Repaired. Maintained. Because it is supplying electricity. Electricity costs on the watt.
Warfare creates problems, yes. But not to the extent of such a surprise, that the beavers died. It was expected. In fact it was discussed. There were very clear indicators that it could burst. No shit. It did. Wow. The poor beavers.
Say this word, probability.
Yes idiots cause famines. It happens every revolution. Every time. They kill the people who had a system. It starts to fail. Often it is compounded by the weather. Until they organise. Then they make gulags for other idiots who are forced to work on the farms.
I know that, but I don't think they do? They're claiming they're from space.
Jews didn't create a famine in Russia. Idiots did. It happens in revolutions. It takes smarter people managing the farms not revolutionaries. They killed the land owners freeing the peasants and the crops went bad because there was also a solar medium.
But none the less. Genocide occurred.
It's not accidental if it's an occurrence. It's an occurrence because it was expected. It wasn't repaired. The overflow wasn't being vented, it was spilling, therefore it wasn't generating electricity. Because hydro dams, drain overflow, as they do, it powers the turbines, producing charge. It was spilling. It was no surprise that it could break. So it was expected.
Now do you understand the probability. Why could be for a number of reasons.
The probability is based on a number of factors placing the odds far higher Russia. They controlled it. Unless they have footage of another said attempt proving otherwise. You're defeating your own argument of natural causes. The rainfall wasn't higher.
How often does the upper dam controlled by Ukraine release the overflow? It isn't significant releasing it into the reservoir. If the dam was operational and maintained. Instead of bursting.
Probability placing it Russian objectively. The SouthWestern approach to the Crimea, on the eve's of the counter prooobing became flooded.
Ukrainian gain here is not social justice. It could be the upper dam. The upper dam now threatens the reactor. It also controls the flow from source, downstream. So if in the next 20 years as pumpstations, or more channels are made to the Crimea, it sooner depletes the reservoir, if let's suggest the battlefield hasn't changed. The reactor is also threatened by it.
Romans had everything to do with the founding of Russia. Dumbass. You're such a dumbass. Yes they also colonised Ukraine and drew crops from it. This is well documented. So did the Ottomans. Prior to the Romans, the Greeks had done the same.
This is very condensed history obviously but yes the Holy Roman Empire via the Church and appointed Monarchs expanded East pushing back the Mongols. Of course Russia set itself into the nation it became afterwards. Prior to this point Ukraine traded heavily with surrounding Empires influencing it. Of course history has conceptual narratives. There were horselords and tribes falling outside of the narrative. Any trade routes often date back much older than established narratives.