Continuation The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

[pzkpfw]

Balance?

Intentionally attacking a bridge is not the same as intentionally killing civilians.

Also, (for more balance) has RT reported how many Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russian bombs and missiles intentionally hitting civilian targets?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Balance?

Intentionally attacking a bridge is not the same as intentionally killing civilians.

True, but Ukraine did know there were risks for civilians using the bridge, and they went ahead nevertheless.

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Also, (for more balance) has RT reported how many Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russian bombs and missiles intentionally hitting civilian targets?

They do sometimes report these kinds of accusations, generally with a pro-Russian bias. But you can find biases in Western news outlets too.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't think so (congratulations though for using the useful concept of "credibility rating").



I believe quoting RT from time to time helps make this thread more balanced.



Their information can frequently be verified by using other sources.

If you want to know what Putin wants you to think it's useful.

[Mike!]

If that's what it takes to bring balance to the forum, I prefer it stay wobbly.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Michel H

True, but Ukraine did know there were risks for civilians using the bridge, and they went ahead nevertheless.


They do sometimes report these kinds of accusations, generally with a pro-Russian bias. But you can find biases in Western news outlets too.

So. *******. What? Ukraine is prohibited from attacking any target where civilians might be killed or injured, while Russia can commit mass executions, torture, intentionally target children etc etc. What a warped world view you vatniks have.

Here's a hint for anyone visiting a warzone: you might die... it's a warzone.

[Mike!]

There's willful ignorance and then there's just plain stupid.

[pzkpfw]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...%20constitutes

Quote:

During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Russia military forces have repeatedly attacked Ukrainian medical facilities and hospitals, with at least 703 attacks on Ukrainian healthcare facilities carried out by November 2022, with 144 such facilities completely destroyed by Russian strikes,[1] in what constitutes multiple instances of war crimes.

Does RT have a count for how many Russian medical facilities and hospitals Ukraine has attacked?

Balance. Ha.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

So. *******. What? Ukraine is prohibited from attacking any target where civilians might be killed or injured, while Russia can commit mass executions, torture, intentionally target children etc etc. What a warped world view you vatniks have.

Here's a hint for anyone visiting a warzone: you might die... it's a warzone.

Frankly, my impression is that the number of Ukrainian war crimes is smaller than the number of Russian war crimes (but there are some).

Basically, what makes Ukrainian policies wrong and despicable, in my opinion (besides the fact that they are (ridiculously) trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of Russia) is that they are ignoring democracy and trying to impose Ukrainian rule to pro-Russia regions, thinking that, with massive military and financial support by the West, this might somehow work.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Basically, what makes Ukrainian policies wrong and despicable, in my opinion (besides the fact that they are (ridiculously) trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of Russia) is that they are ignoring democracy and trying to impose Ukrainian rule to pro-Russia regions, thinking that, with massive military and financial support by the West, this might somehow work.

We've been thru this already. It wasn't true then, and it still isn't true now.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Not just paranoia, the risks are real.

When Ukraine attacked the Kerch bridge on July 17, two civilians died, and their child was injured.


(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime).

When are you going to list the war crimes that Russia has committed in this war?

I think most people can see the difference between the occasional civilian deaths that will inevitably occur when a country is defending itself on its own land from invaders, and the deliberate targetting of civilians by those invaders. Why can't you?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

When are you going to list the war crimes that Russia has committed in this war?

I think most people can see the difference between the occasional civilian deaths that will inevitably occur when a country is defending itself on its own land from invaders, and the deliberate targetting of civilians by those invaders. Why can't you?

Russia does actually have an official policy of never targeting civilians, but there seems some be some exceptions ...

Ukraine and the West have been targeting civilians in Russia through illegitimate and arrogant sanctions (the West does this a lot), and this probably goes a long way to explain Russian anger.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Russia does actually have an official policy of never always targeting civilians, but there seems some be some exceptions ...

Ukraine and the West have been targeting civilians in Russia through illegitimate and arrogant sanctions (the West does this a lot), and this probably goes a long way to explain Russian anger.

FTFY

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Russia does actually have an official policy of never targeting civilians, but there seems some be some exceptions ...

It certainly seems so: civilians seem to be the main targets most of the time. It is funny to see the Russian hypocrisy when they find it to be war crimes when Ukrainians bomb Moscow, whereas it is completely acceptable for Russians to bomb Kyiv.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I believe quoting RT from time to time helps make this thread more balanced.

Balanced between fact and BS?

Originally Posted by Michel H

Their information can frequently be verified by using other sources.

And RT has also been frequently caught lying, disinforming, pushing CTs, etc, which are all huge strikes against them. That's on top of the lack of media freedom available to them because this is Russia that we're talking about.

If it can be verified using other sources that are actually worthy of trust, try using those sources. RT will just get you ridiculed here, with excellent cause.

Originally Posted by Michel H

Russia does actually have an official policy of never targeting civilians, but there seems some be some exceptions ...

That's quite the incredible understatement, to start with.

A bit selective about what counts as targeting, too, after all the Russian and Ukrainian civilians that have been literally seized off the streets and then used as cannon fodder by Russia. Going a bit further, given how many of their major efforts have been pointedly targeted at harming civilians, it's outright absurd to try to use said official policy as if it deserved much other than mockery.

Originally Posted by Michel H

Ukraine and the West have been targeting civilians in Russia through illegitimate and arrogant sanctions (the West does this a lot), and this probably goes a long way to explain Russian anger.

Skipping past the utter inanity of "illegitimate and arrogant" sanctions... No. It doesn't even remotely go a long way to explaining Russian anger. At best, that offers a shallow excuse that allows some people to ignore the larger, more complicated picture at hand. A picture that, in this case, involves a lot more to do with internal Russian politics, propaganda, and forces than external forces.

It's often very tempting to try to understand what's going on in other countries and their politics using the understandings one has formed that are relevant to one's own country. It's very, very easy to make significant mistakes, though, by failing to identify which of one's implicit assumptions are not actually true when it comes to the other country.

[theprestige]

It's actually a war crime to commingle military and civilian activity during a war. Moscow was in the wrong the moment they decided not to close the Kerch Strait bridge to civilian traffic.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Russia does actually have an official policy of never targeting civilians, but there seems some be some exceptions ...

Ukraine and the West have been targeting civilians in Russia through illegitimate and arrogant sanctions (the West does this a lot), and this probably goes a long way to explain Russian anger.

Russia has a police wherever it's armed forces are involved, of deliberately targeting hospitals and medical facilities.

Or is it coincidence that they all get destroyed?

[Andy_Ross]

Russian Colonel-General & 'Hero of Russia' Gennady Zhidko blamed for the collapse of the frontline in Kharkiv last year and fired by Putin suddenly died from an "illness" in Moscow at 57 years old. 7th Russian general to die in the 18 months-long invasion so far.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...%20constitutes



Does RT have a count for how many Russian medical facilities and hospitals Ukraine has attacked?

Balance. Ha.

Don't forget their use of the so-called ”double tap", which is to attack again when the rescuers are on site. It's a deliberate policy of terrorism and has been used by Russian clients as well as Russia itself.

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Not just paranoia, the risks are real.

When Ukraine attacked the Kerch bridge on July 17, two civilians died, and their child was injured.

despite the fact that the kerch bridge is a legitimate military target and its destruction will save Ukrainian lives

these weren't completley nieve and innocent civillians https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineInva..._in_the_kerch/



visiting a warzone that you clearly support, for a holday might be detrimental to your health

[theprestige]

I'm pretty sure at least one of them would still be alive today, if they'd been wearing a seatbelt.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

When Ukraine attacked the Kerch bridge on July 17, two civilians died, and their child was injured.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime).

Read the section of your Wikipedia link covering Legality of civilian casualties. The deaths of two civilians who happened to be using Russia's bridge to occupied Crimea at the moment when that legitimate military target was attacked by Ukraine are unfortunate but are absolutely not a war crime.

Incidentally, what do you think about the wisdom of taking a family summer holiday in occupied enemy territory during a war? Any opinion? Would you advise it?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Russia does actually have an official policy of never targeting civilians, but there seems some be some exceptions ...

In terms of civilian infrastructure such as medical facilities, Russia actually has two interrelated policies; one policy of bombing hospitals and another policy of denying bombing hospitals.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Not just paranoia, the risks are real.

When Ukraine attacked the Kerch bridge on July 17, two civilians died, and their child was injured.

I figure you only care about that for the same reason other Vatniks care about those deaths, because they're Russians who died.

Originally Posted by Michel H

Russia does actually have an official policy of never targeting civilians, but there seems some be some exceptions ...

Such as being Chechen, or continuing to be Chechen, or Georgian, or Syrian, or Ukrainian. But outside of those exceptions Russia definitely doesn't target civilians, unless you count Wagner as Russian in which case the list also includes Central Africans and Malians. But apart from all those people they definitely don't.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Read the section of your Wikipedia link covering Legality of civilian casualties. The deaths of two civilians who happened to be using Russia's bridge to occupied Crimea at the moment when that legitimate military target was attacked by Ukraine are unfortunate but are absolutely not a war crime.

Incidentally, what do you think about the wisdom of taking a family summer holiday in occupied enemy territory during a war? Any opinion? Would you advise it?

In my opinion, there are some legal arguments which seem to show that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, and there are some legal arguments which seem to show that Crimea belongs to Russia.

But the most fundamental argument, in my opinion, is the right to self-determination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination ), which is mentioned in the U.N. Charter.

This is why Ukraine's battle may be a lost cause since 2014, particularly in a political context where the West has committed many crimes (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and so on).

The many Russians who take their vacations in Crimea are perhaps not much interested in politics, and they may watch Russian TV every day, which may shape their political opinions. Perhaps they go to Crimea because they can no longer go to Western Europe or Ukraine, or because it's less expensive than Sochi.

Ukraine's policies seem to be governed by a toxic nationalism: the leaders of Ukraine, probably with substantial support of the population, want their country large and powerful, they show very interest in what the locals think.

This kind of mentality has probably been very common throughout human history, but it must be fought, in my opinion.

[MarkCorrigan]

Not this gibberish again.

Crimea. Isn't. Russian.

The. Referendum. Was. Not. Free.

The. Russians. Fixed. It.

Russia. Is. Not. A. Democracy.

[jimbob]

Talking about Crimea, Russia destroying the Kakhovka dam means that Crimea is going to be short of water.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Not just paranoia, the risks are real.

When Ukraine attacked the Kerch bridge on July 17, two civilians died, and their child was injured.


(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime).

RT is now reporting:

(https://www.rt.com/russia/581372-don...ilians-killed/).

RT has also recently published a report about an intelligent analysis of this conflict (and its possible solution) made by former president of France Nicolas Sarkozy:

(https://www.rt.com/news/581378-sarkozy-crimea-get-real/).

I see you're back blaming Ukraine for Russian war crimes. You do realise this isn't Stormfront, right?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

I see you're back blaming Ukraine for Russian war crimes. You do realise this isn't Stormfront, right?

There can be no question Russia has its share of responsibility in the current war.

But Ukraine's insistence on trying to defeat and humiliate Russia makes the situation worse for them.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Michel H

There can be no question Russia has its share of responsibility in the current war.

But Ukraine's insistence on trying to defeat and humiliate Russia makes the situation worse for them.

Again, your nazi propoganda does not work here. Leave it where it belongs, over at Stormfront.

Oh and Ukraine is committing crimes for defending itself from an illegal and immoral Russian invasion? Do you even read the scripts the Russian troll farms give you to disseminate?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Michel H

There can be no question Russia has its share of responsibility in the current war.

But Ukraine's insistence on trying to defeat and humiliate Russia makes the situation worse for them.

russia considers Ukraine's continued EXISTENCE a humiliation.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't think so (congratulations though for using the useful concept of "credibility rating").

I believe quoting RT from time to time helps make this thread more balanced.

Their information can frequently be verified by using other sources.

Well then, you should just use the other source - unless they are also Russian.

[MarkCorrigan]

Russia Today is one of the least credible sources for anything. Doubly so when it comes to Russia itself. It's the propaganda arm of the Kremlin.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I am actually not a Russia fan,

Yes you are.

Quote:

I am just a simple common sense fan.

No you are not.

Quote:

There is no question that Russia, in the conflict which is discussed in this thread, enjoys some mitigating circumstances: it invaded only (mostly) Russian-speaking areas, and it set up referendums.

Russia invaded a sovereign nation. There are no mitigating circumstances, unless you count "their (the Russians') leader is a vicious evil dictator".

Quote:

One has certainly seen crazier things in history, for example when France (in the 19th century) and Germany (in the 20th) invaded Russia.

You are saying the the invading country was in the wrong in both those cases? I agree. This time the invading country is Russia.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Michel H

There can be no question Russia has its share of responsibility in the current war.

Yes, its share is all of it.

Quote:

But Ukraine's insistence on trying to defeat and humiliate Russia makes the situation worse for them.

They are insisting that Ukraine continues to exist. It is necessary to eject Russia from Ukrainian territory for that to happen.

All the humiliation that is going on is of Russia's own making. If they weren't so utterly useless at everything, they would already have destroyed Ukraine.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Michel H

But the most fundamental argument, in my opinion, is the right to self-determination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination ), which is mentioned in the U.N. Charter.

And, as has been pointed out to you many times in the past, doesn't work the way you think it does. You ignore the actions of Russia, you ignore international jurisprudence on the matter, and then have the audacity to propose a "peace plan" that would violate Ukraine's right to self-determination.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Wildy

And, as has been pointed out to you many times in the past, doesn't work the way you think it does. You ignore the actions of Russia, you ignore international jurisprudence on the matter, and then have the audacity to propose a "peace plan" that would violate Ukraine's right to self-determination.

Not defending' Michel's bizarre point here, as obviously Russia is entirely to blame for initiating a war of aggression, but it's probably worth pointing out that this war is almost certainly going to end in some kind of negotiated peace. Even with endless NATO armaments Ukraine does not have endless blood to spend on this campaign, and there's plenty of evidence that available manpower is already quite strained. Best case scenario is that Ukraine is able to achieve enough militarily that they enter such a peace negotiation with the upper hand so that they have to make few if any concessions.

Even with how disastrously Russia is fighting it's hard to imagine anything close to a total withdrawal or unconditional surrender being the ending of this.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Not defending' Michel's bizarre point here, as obviously Russia is entirely to blame for initiating a war of aggression, but it's probably worth pointing out that this war is almost certainly going to end in some kind of negotiated peace. Even with endless NATO armaments Ukraine does not have endless blood to spend on this campaign, and there's plenty of evidence that available manpower is already quite strained. Best case scenario is that Ukraine is able to achieve enough militarily that they enter such a peace negotiation with the upper hand so that they have to make few if any concessions.

Even with how disastrously Russia is fighting it's hard to imagine anything close to a total withdrawal or unconditional surrender being the ending of this.

Which counties should England give up, or which states should the USA give up?
May as well get it done now and save all the shooting.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

Which counties should England give up, or which states should the USA give up?
May as well get it done now and save all the shooting.

Don't take my description of this situation as an endorsement.

How exactly do you see this war ending? Ukrainian tanks rolling on Moscow?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Don't take my description of this situation as an endorsement.

How exactly do you see this war ending? Ukrainian tanks rolling on Moscow?

The likeliest IMO is Putin bein defenestrated by the powerful people for whom he's costing a fortune. They might try and negotiate for Crimea. Who knows. But mainly they will want the war to be done and sanctions lifted.

[Jack by the hedge]

Advancing on Moscow isn't a Ukrainian war aim. That's more a Wagner thing. Ukraine's present war aims are roughly "Get your invading army out of our country, then we'll talk".