Kiev Is Burning

[bojan]

Standard brick buidng construction, common all over the world until '50-60s.

Hence it is highly unlikely it was direct hit by something with 400kg warhead. Here is how 250kg looks like on such type of building, as you can see that all interior floors collapsed  as a consequence of hit and large part of walls was also blown apart. Pic was however taken after cleanup of debris from the street, so does not show spread of debris well.

To compare, here is a 50kg bomb hit, it has blown whole floor but damage was limited to that and floor structure survived  (again, photo was taken after debris was partially cleaned):

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont know if you have seen this, but you might find this series interesting. Basically they built a replica 1940's London street, and used replica's of historic Luftwaffe weapons on it (though they scaled down the V1 in part 4).

 

[seahawk]

Or the building was not hit at all but partly collapsed due to a ground burst nearby.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Seems possible to me. As I say, the build quality on the walls to me, a non brickie, looked awful. it looked like the kind of thing that was thrown up in a hurry after the war. Ive seen london slumbs built better than that.

So you then ask the question, is it possible it did indeed hit the target it was aimed at, which may or may not have ben militarily justifiable, and brought the building down from the blast? Id have sympathy for that theory, if they hadnt lied that it wasnt them right at the start, when very clearly it was.

Like I say, Russians lie, even when its in their interest to tell the truth.

[ink]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Seems possible to me. As I say, the build quality on the walls to me, a non brickie, looked awful. it looked like the kind of thing that was thrown up in a hurry after the war. Ive seen london slumbs built better than that.

So you then ask the question, is it possible it did indeed hit the target it was aimed at, which may or may not have ben militarily justifiable, and brought the building down from the blast? Id have sympathy for that theory, if they hadnt lied that it wasnt them right at the start, when very clearly it was.

Like I say, Russians lie, even when its in their interest to tell the truth.

To be fair to the Russians*, if it was indeed a collapse caused by the blast from a strike elsewhere, they might well have thought that they didn't strike the building and assumed that it must have been a wayward Ukrainian missile.

 

 

* although I honeslty don't feel remotely like being fair to them given how, at best, they've caused a children's hospital to collapse.

[alejandro_]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I have to say, having noted the building on the new, it appears very shoddy Soviet style brick construction. It seemingly wouldnt have taken a lot to bring down.

According to it's website hospital was opened in 1894, and arquitecture does look from that era. Of course that does not mean construction is not shoddy or has degraded. 

There are no photos of area around the building so it makes the analysis quite difficult.

[seahawk]

It looks very much like a building after an earthquake, which a ground burst bomb nearby is, if you look at the impact on the structure.

But then it was not the only damage to the hospital complex. The larger building shows the typical signs of overpressure damage. My guess is that they aimed for a bunker below the complex and probably hit an open area in the complex, as the missile system lacks a true bunker buster warhead.

Edited July 10, 2024 by seahawk

[ink]

If I crash into a car at a traffic light and that car gets pushed into a pedestrian, no on can say I ran over a pedestrian but equally no one should think I'm innocent of causing that pedestrian's injuries.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

 

Yeah, one could shout such slogans to one's heart's content. Defeding Poland to the last Ukrainian, defending the Baltics or Germany to the last Pole,

At least if we are defending Germany to the last Pole, we are finally in a war in which NATO is legally structured to fight, rather than one that is outside NATO jurisdiction.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, ink said:

To be fair to the Russians*, if it was indeed a collapse caused by the blast from a strike elsewhere, they might well have thought that they didn't strike the building and assumed that it must have been a wayward Ukrainian missile.

 

 

* although I honeslty don't feel remotely like being fair to them given how, at best, they've caused a children's hospital to collapse.

Perhaps, but you know, after seeing the photo of a cruise missile falling out the sky, you would ahve thought the penny would have dropped.

I struggle to believe they are targeting hospitals deliberately, particularly one that was well known even in soviet days. OTOH, looking to the Ukrainians, whom regularly see their hospitals hit, I can entirely understand why they believe it. Russian targeting is shit, and its hard to know what the hell they are shooting at.

 

Oh, and F16's are just about to arrive from Denmark.

[seahawk]

Propagandist Markov wrote on his telegram channel, that the Ukrainian high command was meeting in a building next to the hospital and that it was the target, as the Ukrainian military is hiding inside civilian building just like the IS terrorists in Syria. In both countries Russia does not wish to harm the population, but to free them from terrorism.

I think this is explanation enough.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It isnt, not even close to an explanation, because if they ARE launching at targets that close to hospitals, they have have undue faith in the accuracy of their weapons, or they have unplaced faith in soviet builders.

In the end, they may have been engaging a legitimate target, in an illegitimate war. They screwed up, and everyone does it, but they didnt screw up the choice of a war they wanted to fight, and thats the problem.

[seahawk]

I beg to differ, if your propagandists know that you hit the GenStab-U headquarters meeting in a building next to the hospital minutes after the strike, you either have so good intel on the enemy HQ, that there should be no enemy HQ after more than 2 years, or you just bombed a hospital and made up a story to legitimate your strike.

[crazyinsane105]

The number of dead and wounded in the hospital is quite low in comparison to what could have happened though. 
 

Did the missile directly impact the building? Any satellite photo’s available to show the impact?

[crazyinsane105]

21 minutes ago, seahawk said:

I beg to differ, if your propagandists know that you hit the GenStab-U headquarters meeting in a building next to the hospital minutes after the strike, you either have so good intel on the enemy HQ, that there should be no enemy HQ after more than 2 years, or you just bombed a hospital and made up a story to legitimate your strike.

Or maybe the hospital wasn’t the intended target and the cruise missile guidance system went awry. 

[seahawk]

On the Russian family day... welcome to the Forrest of coincidence.

[crazyinsane105]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Perhaps, but you know, after seeing the photo of a cruise missile falling out the sky, you would ahve thought the penny would have dropped.

I struggle to believe they are targeting hospitals deliberately, particularly one that was well known even in soviet days. OTOH, looking to the Ukrainians, whom regularly see their hospitals hit, I can entirely understand why they believe it. Russian targeting is shit, and its hard to know what the hell they are shooting at.

 

Oh, and F16's are just about to arrive from Denmark.

Over 100 medical facilities in Ukraine have been hit though. And the Russians did exactly this in Syria. I wouldn’t put it past them that they are targeting hospitals, but I am wondering in this specific instance, exactly why was it done?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Lets put it this way, it could be a deliberate attack. Though if it was, I wonder at the logic of using an expensive cruise missile to do it, when they could wait 6 months for Ukraine to run out of missiles, and then use Iron bombs. Or fly close enough to use glide bombs. Or go in at high mach numbers with a Tu22 or a Blackjack, and drop an Fab3000 on it.

All we can say is a Russian missile hit or had a near miss on the hospital. We really dont know much more than that other than speculation.

Ive my own views about Putin. I don believe Russians slavishly follow him, or want to murder children. Im a cynic, but Ive my limits on what I choose to believe. I could be entirely wrong of course, and it wouldnt surprise me if I was.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[crazyinsane105]

18 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lets put it this way, it could be a deliberate attack. Though if it was, I wonder at the logic of using an expensive cruise missile to do it, when they could wait 6 months for Ukraine to run out of missiles, and then use Iron bombs. Or fly close enough to use glide bombs. Or go in at high mach numbers with a Tu22 or a Blackjack, and drop an Fab3000 on it.

All we can say is a Russian missile hit or had a near miss on the hospital. We really dont know much more than that other than speculation.

Ive my own views about Putin. I don believe Russians slavishly follow him, or want to murder children. Im a cynic, but Ive my limits on what I choose to believe. I could be entirely wrong of course, and it wouldnt surprise me if I was.

It’s unlikely the Ukrainians are going to be running out of air defense missiles so soon in which Russian aircraft will be flying close to Kiev. For now, missiles remain the only option 

Edited July 10, 2024 by crazyinsane105

[ink]

Sadly, everyone who has engaged in these kinds of wars has bombed hospitals. The Russians are, of course, just as bad as everyone else. Bombing a children's hospital is particularly ghastly and no amount of "it was by accident" or "it was a mistake" makes it any better.

[Stefan Kotsch]

41 minutes ago, ink said:

The Russians are, of course, just as bad as everyone else

Russia as bad as everyone else?  As everyone else? I think that's somehow very poorly worded?

So, if I had to choose, it would definitely not be for Russia.

[crazyinsane105]

I think once satellite photos come, it can clear up some questions we have. We can’t tell from the angle exactly what was hit, because I am doubting the cruise missile actually struck the building given the limited damage to it. Or it was a partial warhead detonation

[ink]

55 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Russia as bad as everyone else?  As everyone else? I think that's somehow very poorly worded?

So, if I had to choose, it would definitely not be for Russia.

I don't do poorly worded. Why is it somehow magically better when the US bombs a hospital?

[Stefan Kotsch]

You meant that others also miss shots?

[ink]

18 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

You meant that others also miss shots?

You decide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike