The title is obviously exaggerated but it was a big amm0 d3p0t

And there have been many more such seizures

In other news:

RUSSIAN ANTI-AIR DEFENSE ENGAGING TARGETS OVER DONETSK NONSTOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://t.me/boris_rozhin/45326

You know what that all was? Spent casings. You didn't even seize ammo.

Are you afraid of posting the words ammo depot?

the russian savages are looking to consume the blood of captured Ukrainians

anyone else notice vlad the impaler and vlad putin have the same first name? coincidence? I think not

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-704932

On Sunday, Russia proposed the forced donation of blood by captured Ukrainian soldiers, according to Ukrainian ombudswoman for Human Rights, Lyudmila Denisova, on Facebook.

In her post, Desinova explained that "this fact testifies to the analogy of the atrocities of the Nazis in the concentration camps during the Second World War."

There was some ammo there too

you never seen leetspeak before?

Interesting choice of sources. The Jerusalem Fag Post isn't fooling anybody.

LOL THAT ARTICLE SAYS THERE IS 1,000 CIVILIANS AT AZOVSTAL!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think your missing the point. The Russians are saying to the west: you are actively sending serious amounts of weapons to ukraine, and they are a clear and present danger to us. you are now giving them weapons that can attack russia itself. this is an act of war on your part and therefore its fair game as to how we respond, not to ukraine, but to you. if nato is playing a proxy war (they are) and if they are escalating (they are) then history has shown that putin will at a certain point, retaliat, other then how he is currently. what that will look like i dont know, no one knows.

but again, if the west continues on this course, and puts russia into a corner, they should not be surprised if russia lashes out. no one should want that and therefore more attempts to should be made (but will not be) to slow things down. if anything, things are speeding up.

And those countries attacking Russia means what?
The most obvious example would be Russia supplying weapons to a proxy who uses it to sink a US navy vessel. And when that happens, will we then have to quibble over "It wasn't really Russia"
How about if Russia directly targets a convoy of weapons on the Polish side of the border, clearly to be used to fight Russia? Will NATO invoke article 5 and rush to nuclear war?

Attacking the Russian mainland, whether directly or by proxy, is such a wildly dangerous and wanton way to spark WW3 and get us all blown to smithereens. We're not talking about Russia making the first strike on a NATO country, we're talking about NATO making the first strike on Russia and trying to dance around the responsibility. Meanwhile Putin is right out in public making threats of what would occur. And we're just supposed to handwave and dismiss it as bluster, after he blustered about invading Ukraine.

Nothing but spent casings and crates whose contents are unknown, and likely empty considering the rest of the surroundings. Oh, and there was a partially disassembled missile.

Of course I have, what makes you think its use is appropriate in this context. You're acting as if using the proper spelling puts you at risk for filters picking out your comments or something.

Ukraine is boned man. They got no fuel. No lubricants. No weapons shipments (other than small arms) that can reach the Donbass without being bombed. Now that Russia is striking the railways, military traffic is even more paralyzed. Their logistics are completely dead in the water.

Frontline troops are running out of ammo, food and water.

They need to stop sacrificing their people for nothing and make a deal with Russia. These people are dying for nothing more than Blinken and Nuland's Russophobic hatred.