blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.
....
The success of the operation is largely due to Russia's dominance in the air and preventive strikes with high-precision weapons on military infrastructure.
...
blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.
Success? Bruh, you must have experienced such a serious failures in your life that this looks like a win of some short. Precise munition? WTF, you are carpet-shelling cities... unless you mean precise within +/-10km or the like. Russia is achieving some territorial "gains" (gains of a hostile territory, not something sustainable) at the cost of equipment that is costly and that, due to sanctions and isolation, probably not easy to replace. If anything is clear on this war is that Putin failed spectacularly in his assumptions (e.g. they won't resist, EU will not act united, ...) On the rumour front, a large contingent of troops that were near Kyiv seems to actually been cut-out of supplies. Unconfirmed, but plausible. I made a post on the economics of war mentioning: A switchblade drone costs 6000 USD, it can be used by a nearly untrained grunt and can destroy a 5 million USD tank or even a multi-million S-400 system. And that is without the guy having to even get close to the target. Guess what? USD has sent a very large batch Putin's way. I would be f**ng scared to be on one of Putin's tanks right now. A javelin or a MLAW have the same rate of "economic effectiveness". It is not only about winning territory or cities, is about having a win that does not leave your army half-destroyed and unable to respond to revolts in other parts of Putin's Tzardom or with such a number of dead soldiers or POWs that he can no longer propagandize his way out of the fiasco. I am not even going to bother answering your shitty propaganda.
And yet you just did it.  ... And with that answer you are implicitly confirming that even yourself considered it as propaganda  Pretty sure we'd see millions of casualties if Russia wanted to carpet shell a city. There's also no point of nuclear/chemical/biological attacks when there's a Father of All Bombs in your arsenal. Plus the hypersonic missile kinda proved that if Russia didn't care for civilians they could've take out Zelenksy on day one just with a press of a button. Very doubtful of effectiveness of those switchblades, but sure lets imagine that they're a game changer as claimed. US litters every meter of Ukrainian soil with them along with ATGM and MANPADS. But what's the point, what's the end goal, is it to maximize damage on Russia at a cost of Ukraine or someone believes that Putin will just turn around and leave? Taking Afghanistan as an example, do you think civilians benefited from all of the advanced weapons Afghani soldiers received to fight Taliban? The benefit for US is pretty clear, US gets to fuck with Russia with minimal cost and zero risk to itself, sure why not, lets do another escalation. Now what options will Russia have? Either fold and go home to a guaranteed economical, political and possibly (physical?) suicide, or in a mirror reply to escalation with escalation. Either start getting military help from China, or raise the stakes that's where real carpet bombing will start, go full scorched earth like US in Vietnam. Cost/benefit for US is pretty clear, but is anyone still thinks that Ukraine is in control of any of this? Anyone dares to do a cost/benefit analysis on civilians if Ukraine accepts the terms or at this point they're pretty much committed to just being a pawn and have no choice but to be a battle ground for this east vs west game to their last citizen? If you're still not disillusioned that this is about Ukraine. Here we have Macron saying “We will be facing a world-wide food crisis,” Macron said in an interview with France Bleu radio on Tuesday. “I want to put in place a food voucher [system] to help the most modest households and the middle class facing these additional costs.” https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-22-22/h_7c10a14208a9646586b8dc400c9a51f5And then Biden saying That we're at inflection point for new world order can't imagine any of this is good for Ukraine and if warmongering will make things any better for Ukraine There is nothing left of Mariupol. It is gone. They did shell it nearly to flatness and Putin's ships are now destroying a massacring what's left. No Ukraine is not in control, but, at this point, looks like Putin isn't either. He cannot withdraw without achieving significant objectives or his reputation would be gone and his Russia would, under his own vision, humiliated. As harsh as it is to speak of the balance between human life and territory, I am afraid that yes, there is balance to be considered. The basis of this war is that Ukrainians do not want to be ruled by Putin and are willing to die for it. On the weaponry, I think it is not a magic wand, but it is a game changer. With a man portable tank destroyer you have to get really close to a big nasty and ready to kill main battle tank - I would not want to be there honestly. If you can send a drone from 20 miles away and do the job at zero risk to the guy, it changes the game and - my point - it changes the economics. It makes destroying very expensive weapons relatively cheap. Putin will push forward, but, as impressive as his army may appear, it has a limit. Producing good war stuff is really expensive and eventually does lead to the economical impossibility of waging war or doing so with some effectiveness. I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine. During Operation Linebacker II, 741 B-52 sorties were dispatched to bomb North Vietnam; 729 completed their missions. B-52s dropped 15,237 tons of ordnance on 18 industrial and 14 military targets (including eight SAM sites) while fighter-bombers added another 5,000 tons of bombs to the tally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II  As of 2022, it is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft, the fastest bomber in use and the largest and heaviest variable-sweep wing airplane ever flown...Two internal weapon bays for 45,000 kg (99,208 lb) of ordnance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160I see a high probability of a new world order coming up. If it happens all the lines will be redrawn anyway. If it doesn't, choosing death over Putin seems pretty silly if Russia will collapse once again in 1yr. |
|
|
|
Putin says Russia will start demanding payment for its natural gas shipments to states it deems “unfriendly” in rubles, Interfax reports. Putin ordered the central bank to develop a mechanism to make ruble payments within a week. https://twitter.com/annmarie/status/1506613120109887489I guess making payments in gold is not an option so countries are fighting to see which one of their fiats is shittier than the other. What if somebody could come up with a neutral solution to this paper fiat problem ... |
|
|
|
Macron already warned about this at the start of the war, in fact it might have happened even without the war, as several countries have had problems making wheat.
I don't think we'll get to not having enough food, at least not in the West, the problem is getting food to countries that are the most affected by this. One idea is to suspend the EU's plan for reducing food production (due to previous overproduction that crashed the prices).
As for his proposal of food vouchers, it's a campaign proposal as the election is in 3 weeks. In France we already have money handouts to the poor, unemployed etc., with one criticism of the system that it can be abused, you can do anything with the money, so I think he's trying his usual "two birds, one stone" approach, offering more help to the poorest, but ensuring that help will really go to food.
So the usual famine and wars in Africa, South America. India? But to middle class, you might have a small problem with the distribution of wealth when you need to provide food vouchers to middle class |
|
|
|
start getting military help from China
That would imply that the Chinese government is dumber than Putin, which I really doubt. China will sit on the sidelines for as long as they need to so that they can get Siberia on the cheap. Anyone dares to do a cost/benefit analysis on civilians if Ukraine accepts the terms or at this point they're pretty much committed to just being a pawn and have no choice but to be a battle ground for this east vs west game to their last citizen?
What are you still babbling about? What "terms"? Denazification? Putin lied about everything and is still lying so there isn't any trust in him that would make some mythical "terms" feasible. Funny how you talk about "pawns" in the same sentence where you're implying that the Ukrainians can be just told to accept "terms" and stop fighting. At this point it's very unlikely they would do so and it's getting less likely with every civilian death. Threatening them with more civilian deaths is not going to make them want Russian "terms". There are no good options left here, I believe Ukraine is stuck between bad and worst. Fighting should only go on for as long as there's a chance to change the outcome. Ukraine doesn't benefit from additional loss of life once the the outcome becomes inevitable. West sending in encouragements and military weapons, rarely means that its in that nations best interest, just means that its to the West's benefit. Do you think that Ukrainians stand to win if escalations lead to true carpet bombings and a huge loss of life? US set a terrible precedence on how to get a nation to accept its terms (and culturally Japan was much more reluctant), and your whole strategy on escalations based on Russia not doing the same (minus the nukes)? When you're far away it's easy to encourage Ukrainians and send them weapons you're not risking your life, with the added bonus of undercutting Putin, but is it ethical? History is written by the winners, just look at US/Japan relationship now. |
|
|
|
blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.
....
The success of the operation is largely due to Russia's dominance in the air and preventive strikes with high-precision weapons on military infrastructure.
...
blah blah fake info blah blah propaganda blah blah useless trash talk.
Success? Bruh, you must have experienced such a serious failures in your life that this looks like a win of some short. Precise munition? WTF, you are carpet-shelling cities... unless you mean precise within +/-10km or the like. Russia is achieving some territorial "gains" (gains of a hostile territory, not something sustainable) at the cost of equipment that is costly and that, due to sanctions and isolation, probably not easy to replace. If anything is clear on this war is that Putin failed spectacularly in his assumptions (e.g. they won't resist, EU will not act united, ...) On the rumour front, a large contingent of troops that were near Kyiv seems to actually been cut-out of supplies. Unconfirmed, but plausible. I made a post on the economics of war mentioning: A switchblade drone costs 6000 USD, it can be used by a nearly untrained grunt and can destroy a 5 million USD tank or even a multi-million S-400 system. And that is without the guy having to even get close to the target. Guess what? USD has sent a very large batch Putin's way. I would be f**ng scared to be on one of Putin's tanks right now. A javelin or a MLAW have the same rate of "economic effectiveness". It is not only about winning territory or cities, is about having a win that does not leave your army half-destroyed and unable to respond to revolts in other parts of Putin's Tzardom or with such a number of dead soldiers or POWs that he can no longer propagandize his way out of the fiasco. I am not even going to bother answering your shitty propaganda.
And yet you just did it. ... And with that answer you are implicitly confirming that even yourself considered it as propaganda Pretty sure we'd see millions of casualties if Russia wanted to carpet shell a city. There's also no point of nuclear/chemical/biological attacks when there's a Father of All Bombs in your arsenal. Plus the hypersonic missile kinda proved that if Russia didn't care for civilians they could've take out Zelenksy on day one just with a press of a button. Very doubtful of effectiveness of those switchblades, but sure lets imagine that they're a game changer as claimed. US litters every meter of Ukrainian soil with them along with ATGM and MANPADS. But what's the point, what's the end goal, is it to maximize damage on Russia at a cost of Ukraine or someone believes that Putin will just turn around and leave? Taking Afghanistan as an example, do you think civilians benefited from all of the advanced weapons Afghani soldiers received to fight Taliban? The benefit for US is pretty clear, US gets to fuck with Russia with minimal cost and zero risk to itself, sure why not, lets do another escalation. Now what options will Russia have? Either fold and go home to a guaranteed economical, political and possibly (physical?) suicide, or in a mirror reply to escalation with escalation. Either start getting military help from China, or raise the stakes that's where real carpet bombing will start, go full scorched earth like US in Vietnam. Cost/benefit for US is pretty clear, but is anyone still thinks that Ukraine is in control of any of this? Anyone dares to do a cost/benefit analysis on civilians if Ukraine accepts the terms or at this point they're pretty much committed to just being a pawn and have no choice but to be a battle ground for this east vs west game to their last citizen? If you're still not disillusioned that this is about Ukraine. Here we have Macron saying “We will be facing a world-wide food crisis,” Macron said in an interview with France Bleu radio on Tuesday. “I want to put in place a food voucher [system] to help the most modest households and the middle class facing these additional costs.” https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-22-22/h_7c10a14208a9646586b8dc400c9a51f5And then Biden saying That we're at inflection point for new world order can't imagine any of this is good for Ukraine and if warmongering will make things any better for Ukraine |
|
|
|
If you agree with this then you shouldn't say a word when some other country seizes the western properties. Shit like this cuts both ways. I hate this hypocrisy. The west is free do kill and steal but when some other country does it, it is the worst thing ever happened.
Why is rhetoric of defending russia for accusing the West of similar actions so popular? Do you understand that your argument is based on substitution of concepts and distraction from the main subject of discussion? Do you also justify one murderer by being convicted by the same murderer? Will this first be less killer after that? And why entangle crimes of the West here now? You can create a separate thread for them. Your accusations against the West in no way diminish or smooth out what the russians are doing to Ukraine now. Well, because context matters, history matters, and double standards and hypocrisy are a thing. Have you ever considered why Lady Justice is blindfolded? Selective justice is not justice but just another term for preferential treatment. How could you take a kangaroo court that doesn't investigate laser guided bombing killing 408 civilians hiding in the bomb shelter seriously? It's like me cheating and getting advantage in the beginning of the game and then saying, from this point on lets play by the rules. Even kids wouldn't fall for that. Precedents have consequences. The context is important when it comes to comparing two situations. The context is important when we retrospectively describe these events as part of history. But how can you say that context matters when you use it to say, "well, you know, they've died before, and generally, for example, in Syria, much more destructive weapons were used. It's not just these guys who are bad." Just an amazing take on the situation! It only says that you do not have your own position on what is happening right now. The context can be used stupidly for everything, just to do nothing. Napoleon, you know, burned the half of the Europe, so that you can ignore the demolished Mariupol, the scale is still not the same, and in general, let's stop considering Napoleon a hero, because this is a blatantly topical issue, given the context. Sure, without context think everyone can agree that every war is bad, innocent civilians and children die, war is hell. But claiming low or high innocent civilian casualties, is quantitative, and cannot be done without context. Also, statements like bombing of civilian targets, is it just a neutral statement in urban warfare, akin to saying that bullets fly during wars, or there are implications of war crimes and extreme violence which cannot be discussed without context. I have utmost respect for pacifists, but you have to be consistent. What does it tell you about people who in one instance of a larger human suffering can go throughout their day without blinking or even knowing, but in another instance, they are all activated, they suddenly take up a strong civilian position, put up flags, start donating etc... Isn't such preferential treatment just diminishes all other human sufferings? Of course this wouldn't apply to people directly effected by this war, they're the only ones that can be biased. ... ...
Now we come to the fun part, what happens next. The way i see it is either west manages to collapse Russia with soft power for the second time (but now has to deal with China next), or diplomats totally miscalculated and fucked up big time, giving cookies to Ukraine just went too far too fast, it cornered Russia, so west looses all leverage over Russia, Europe looses a trade partner and once again gets a totalitarian regime next door with it's gloves off. On top of that it'll have no option but to align itself with another totalitarian regime, China. That has potential for a change in a world order, that's why now everyone is watching China
There is no fun part in all this. Europe will not "align" with China much more that already was. This war has shown how totalitarian regimes need to always be considered a risk. What is clear is that Europe may actually create a real army of its own. The problem with armies, particularly if large, is that they tend to justify their cost creating wars. Perhaps a poor use of words, i meant fun in terms of intellectually challenging to predict. Don't get fooled, just because soft power comes without tanks doesn't mean that it cannot be more devastating in terms of human suffering than tanks. What do you think will happen to the following trends if instead of collapsing, Russia is pushed to radicalize, becomes a totalitarian state and aligns with China by providing it say a 20% discount on all natural resources Russia exports? Sanctions will contract world largest grain exporter (Russia) economy, what are the chances it would lead to famine and wars in Africa? Who will current actions benefit, and at what point do you think we should stop thinking in terms of right/wrong what should be done and start thinking if anything can be done? How competitive in global economy will EU be if it's labour and now raw resource costs will be that much higher than China, what would unemployment rates be at, will US help EU out or it'll be dealing with its own issues etc etc etc ...? There are reasons why global politics is complicated and not all black/white.  https://www.ft.com/content/56f1eb6b-6abb-44a9-abe2-78494f39f435 |
|
|
|
If you agree with this then you shouldn't say a word when some other country seizes the western properties. Shit like this cuts both ways. I hate this hypocrisy. The west is free do kill and steal but when some other country does it, it is the worst thing ever happened.
Why is rhetoric of defending russia for accusing the West of similar actions so popular? Do you understand that your argument is based on substitution of concepts and distraction from the main subject of discussion? Do you also justify one murderer by being convicted by the same murderer? Will this first be less killer after that? And why entangle crimes of the West here now? You can create a separate thread for them. Your accusations against the West in no way diminish or smooth out what the russians are doing to Ukraine now. Well, because context matters, history matters, and double standards and hypocrisy are a thing. Have you ever considered why Lady Justice is blindfolded? Selective justice is not justice but just another term for preferential treatment. How could you take a kangaroo court that doesn't investigate laser guided bombing killing 408 civilians hiding in the bomb shelter seriously? It's like me cheating and getting advantage in the beginning of the game and then saying, from this point on lets play by the rules. Even kids wouldn't fall for that. Precedents have consequences. ...
This war is only about Putin loosing their geostrategic grip and exclusive access on a large part of the former USSR republics, including some of the most strategic and financially critical regions such as the Black Sea and Azov Sea. All the rest is the trolls trying to make noise and trying to blame the war on things that are absolutely irrelevant to Putin and his entourage.
The sad truth is that Putin has failed to seduce, use diplomacy or economically influence those territories and he is using the last resource of the incompetent: war.
BINGO! I concur, I covered this in my soft/hard power post. Glad to finally see someone step back and look at it in terms of geostrategical grips. But keep going, don't stop there. There's a clear Hegemony in the world, there's like 100x difference in weight categories in terms of economic influence, preferential treatments seductions etc... We all know theres no way Russia can compete on that playing field. So Russia's sphere of influence was gradually being chipped away by this 1000kg guerilla. Putin drew a line on last remaining 4 countries he had left in his sphere. So what were his options when that 1000kg guerilla came after the last pieces of his sphere of influence? Either roll over and let his country be absorbed between east and west (in current global economy single country is not competitive to survive on its own), or take the last stand. I believe here we're watching him taking the last stand. Now we come to the fun part, what happens next. The way i see it is either west manages to collapse Russia with soft power for the second time (but now has to deal with China next), or diplomats totally miscalculated and fucked up big time, giving cookies to Ukraine just went too far too fast, it cornered Russia, so west looses all leverage over Russia, Europe looses a trade partner and once again gets a totalitarian regime next door with it's gloves off. On top of that it'll have no option but to align itself with another totalitarian regime, China. That has potential for a change in a world order, that's why now everyone is watching China |
|
|
|
Some talk points that, for those who understand that Putin would not move a finger to protect anyone from "nazis", may actually be worth being discussed: - There are indications that the railways in Belorussia have been sabotaged, and it seems to be internal. This may cause severe delays in the supplies to Putin's army surrounding Kiev. It could get to the point of his army not being able to defend themselves. This has not been confirmed yet by the major news outlets. The last group of Belarusian diplomats left Ukraine - report I would definitely not trust that crazy Lukashenko Huh sabotage? where? Article just says Railway services between Ukraine and Belarus have been suspended...I am grateful to the Belarusian railways for what they are doing I only see one railway from Belarus going to contested Chernihiv that would go over Russian controlled territory, so that wouldn't even effect Kyiv, Kharkiv, or Mariupol offensive. Plus they just launched a hypersonic missile, I'm sure they can arrange to get more trucks from Belarus, or in worst case do high altitude air drops of supplies. Also, The last group of Belarusian diplomats left Ukraine - report I wouldn't trust Lukashenko, pretty sure everyone expects him to join Russia for the final offensive on Kyiv. Traveling at Mach 5 speed or faster (five times the speed of sound), hypersonic missiles fly into space after launch, but then come down and fly on a flight path similar to an airplane. https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-19-22/h_9e01d5ebd41b4e75aafb1f9e23fdeaabEdit: As far as confiscating property, that one always bothered me. Think it's a safe bet that oligarchs finance all their toys with private banking and family offices. So for example if oligarch paid 10% down and after some payments owns 20% equity in the house with the other 80% belonging to Golman Sachs. When that property gets seized does that mean that banks that financed the house are getting screwed for 80%? Would be interesting to see American/Swiss/Hong Kong private banks having to write off billions in losses so UK/EU gets a ton of new houses and some nice boats. Nevertheless good PR move. There's no doubt that censorship is on the rise in the west. Yeah enjoy your freedom of speech when everyone censors you. No one finds it ironic that Russia is being used as justification of this? ...
Not true. Putin's army has in many cases shelled civilians trying to flee. There are testimonies and abundant proof, but worry not because the thing about waging a war of aggression against a country that has internet and phones is that there are so many documents and proofs registered that there is no way of re-writing history and it will be reported, studied and publicly exposed to the last criminal act.
Once again, can you point to any conflict where there are no reports accusing the other side of shelling civilians? USA and Russia didn't ratify ICC so big guys don't care what it has to say, maybe Russia could even sanction ICC like US did? While EU are making sanctions against Russia with one hand, they are funding car in Ukraine with another hand by buying fuuel from Russia. Since war started, EU paid over $16 billion for fuel import. Fuel - oil and gas always been main source of income for Russia and it continue to be. Yes, I know that it would be difficult to find replacement for their gas and oil and set up whole supply proccess in such short time, but there is so much hipocrisy in EU actions. https://www.newsweek.com/eu-paid-russia-16bn-fossil-fuels-since-start-ukraine-war-1689448... How about USA allowing JPMorgan to process Russia's payment in dollars? JPMorgan sent the money to Citigroup after it sought and received the required approvals from U.S. authorities on Wednesday are people really just starting to see the hypocrisy? |
|
|
|
media outlets take reasonable steps?  Are we talking about the same conflict in this fog of war? surely not Russian media and the other side is not much better. I'm very impressed with the journalists that are on the ground reporting from media outlets like BBC and NYTimes. I also read RT.com regularly, and it's pretty clear that the narrative being pushed by Russia is pretty in line with what you're pushing in this thread. Hopefully it stops being cool to shit all over independent journalism some day soon. Would you be able to point me to some objective coverage that perhaps uncovers some not so favorable facts or criticizes some decision/aspect from their own side in this conflict? Just like RT all i see is them just painting one side all white and opposing side all black, to get their reader in the friend/foe mindset, so its more of morale booster (winning hearts and minds) than objective news coverage. We're at the point in news coverage where both sides accuse each other of preparing to use chemical/biological weapons, guessing vials will be next, care to show impressive coverage of this nonsense from any side? I guess anything outside of complete praise automatically puts me in the foe camp, I'm fine being in a foe category to both sides for calling out everyone's BS. |
|
|
|
Facts are facts, hard to argue against them, can't expect anyone to believe mass media over UN. There's a much higher online presence and cell phone penetration in 2022 Ukraine than in any previous conflicts, so if anything UN numbers would be the most accurate for this war in comparison to any other conflict.
You seem to be confused. UN doesn't base their info on instagram posts so their counts will be trailing until they get it confirmed according to their standards. Media outlets report as they get the info but they take reasonable steps to verify it, at least the ones I'm reading do. They're unlikely to be off by 80 percent or whatever you're suggesting, just reporting earlier than officially confirmed numbers, as can be seen looking at e.g. numbers from the first week of the war. Comparing apples to apples, (so far) the numbers just don't support the narrative of trigger happy blood thirsty Russian army going out of their way to kill civilians over their primary objective. Numbers indicate that they're Just getting smoked from every window of every building.
As if this "ratio" that you're clinging to means anything. Both can be happening at once - Russian soldiers are killing civilians, AND are getting killed themselves. https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-17-22/h_50c6d854024131e7fcb716d51fa4b8e2This is from UA spokesperson. Was really hoping to see over 2000+ cars today, I guess logic being Russia didn't shoot at 2000 cars yesterday, doesn't shoot at 800 cars today but would totally shoot if all civilians were allowed to evacuate at once? How many do you think they'll allow to leave besieged city without food tomorrow, and how many they'll decide to keep in the city out of concern for their safety so people wont get shelled by the Russian side? Wish Red Cross would provide some data, but nevertheless that's very interesting way of reporting, 800 cars left Mariupol, 2000 people made it through Russian-occupied territory to UA side. That's 2.5person/car. Either cars leaving besieged city half empty, cars are grabbing coffee taking their time and still driving through Russian side or ... I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. Can you pop down to Mariupol and let us know if there is a nice empty unobstructed 12-lane freeway that fits 300 thousand people all at once and if the nazis or zombies or Klingons are messing with it somehow. Maybe you'll find the elusive Mariupol subway too - to debunk the theater bomb shelter conspiracy. Check out Berdyansk on the way and let us know why the humanitarian aid trucks and evacuation buses can't make it to Mariupol. media outlets take reasonable steps? Are we talking about the same conflict in this fog of war? surely not Russian media and the other side is not much better. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe you shouldn't believe everything mass media tells you? Especially from countries with direct interest in the conflict, those that are sending weapons to this war? There's a good reason why UN doesn't blindly follow mass media like keyboard warriors, otherwise we'd have these 13 snake island posthumous "Hero of Ukraine" awarded daily to soldiers who surrendered and are in good health. As far as UN's ability to count civilian casualties, don't fool yourself, they have much better access to accurate numbers in Ukraine now than their numbers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Kosovo... Sure, lets ignore independent information, fact that people are still choosing to evacuate to Russia from UA when given a choice, and long standing standards to quantify aggression of the attacker towards the civilian population. Now care to educate us on which criteria you're using to determine that theres a targeted attack on civilian population of UA, instead of collateral damage? Using that same criteria of yours can you provide an example of other conflicts where civilians were outright targeted and another example following your logic that shows that they weren't? (I fully expect you to just ask another rhetorical question, instead of attempting to address these) Ahh I see, so at first the reason for keeping the civilians in the city for the siege was their own safety, and now the new reason is that there are just not enough roads to handle over 800 cars (even though 2000 cars managed to leave day prior)? Your mental gymnastics and reluctance to even allow the possibility of a thought that a neo-nazi battalion can do bad things is truly astonishing. Edit: There are some indications that the UN security council is seriously considering removing Putin's Russia for the permanent membership. The fact that he is using the nuclear deterrent as a cover for an aggression on a non-nuclear power and has gone as far as "putting the nuclear forces on alert" (mostly for show, as they were not taking the day off anyway) and all the rhetoric about "serious consequences" on interventions is on the verge of getting him kick-off the most influential international forum.
Pretty sure that would be impossible, unless we dissolve UN altogether. It would also defeat the purpose, UN pretty much functions to allow permanent members to pretty much do anything they want to non permanent members, do these proxy wars just so theres no direct confrontation between permanent members themselves, so us humans can continue to survive on this planet. Plus at this point US/Biden is pretty much outright threatening China with consequences, not a good indicator of how they would vote, don't believe its a good idea to push Russia and China together. Frankly with China seeing how financial system can be weaponized, i have no idea how anyone can expects China to continue to buy up US debt after this. Pandora's box might've been opened, so its better for everyone to keep UN during these times, and of course...Bitcoin |
|
|
|
...
Wish Red Cross would provide some data, but nevertheless that's very interesting way of reporting, 800 cars left Mariupol, 2000 people made it through Russian-occupied territory to UA side. That's 2.5person/car. Either cars leaving besieged city half empty, cars are grabbing coffee taking their time and still driving through Russian side or ...
Factions of the Ukrainian side have been, since very nearly the start of this thing, using civilians as human shields as a strategy. By most of the interviews I've heard, civilians are reporting that the Russians have been fairly helpful in trying to allow them to leave the combat zones when they can. This makes logical sense, and most of the actual evidence that I can see backs that up. This is a good case-in-point where as the Russian gain control, freedom of movement seems to be restored. And that's what it pretty much comes down to. Despite common sense, you have to make yourself believe that Putin, his generals, officers and soldiers all like killing innocent people just so much, to the point where they prefer taking cities with maximum amount of civilians still inside (despite troop morale, contrary to all independent indicators from Red Cross/UN, and lack of any military sense) because alternative would lead to accepting that a neo-nazi battalion is leveraging civilians to stall their own ultimate demise. Apparently some minds are just so set that they're just unable to accept that there are some bad actors in Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Tone complaint, really? You asked for reasons, I gave you reasons, not really my problem that it doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria that you made up or wasn't presented "correctly". You didn't substantiate your own position in any way, other than"nazis could've done it". I can see you clearly evading, so now on to the next part, care to estimate how many of those leaving Mariupol decided to evacuate to Russian controlled territory?
All territory around Mariupol is controlled by Russians. That's the main issue. Cities that have Ukrainian-controlled access are being evacuated much more successfully. So whatever straw man you're cooking with that, just save your time and drop it. Plus 2400 dead in Mariupol and more yet uncounted under rubble. Doesn't fit your narrative though, does it. Even though the UN itself says the number could be "considerably higher". no one who's even partially objective can seriously entertain the idea of Russians trying to harm as many civilians as they can.
No one who's seeing destroyed houses, hospitals, schools, etc could imagine Putin having restraint about civilian casualties but here you are. The relatively low numbers (outside of Mariupol) are more likely related to civilians sheltering and evacuating rather than Russian army having any qualms about killing them. Another "article" that you'll claim proves Putin is the greatest humanitarian: https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troops-open-fire-bread-line-killing-10-reports-2022-3Facts are facts, hard to argue against them, can't expect anyone to believe mass media over UN. There's a much higher online presence and cell phone penetration in 2022 Ukraine than in any previous conflicts, so if anything UN numbers would be the most accurate for this war in comparison to any other conflict. Comparing apples to apples, (so far) the numbers just don't support the narrative of trigger happy blood thirsty Russian army going out of their way to kill civilians over their primary objective. Numbers indicate that they're Just getting smoked from every window of every building. With that said any civilian death is a tragedy, as af_newbie pointed out, people loose humanity the longer the war drags on, and the more desperate situation becomes, that's why Red Cross needs to be allowed to continue to do what it does, without any shenanigans. The minister responsible, Iryna Vereshchuk, said almost 800 private cars left Mariupol Thursday, with more than 2,000 people making it through Russian-occupied territory to the city of Zaporizhzhia by mid-evening. https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-17-22/h_50c6d854024131e7fcb716d51fa4b8e2This is from UA spokesperson. Was really hoping to see over 2000+ cars today, I guess logic being Russia didn't shoot at 2000 cars yesterday, doesn't shoot at 800 cars today but would totally shoot if all civilians were allowed to evacuate at once? How many do you think they'll allow to leave besieged city without food tomorrow, and how many they'll decide to keep in the city out of concern for their safety so people wont get shelled by the Russian side? Wish Red Cross would provide some data, but nevertheless that's very interesting way of reporting, 800 cars left Mariupol, 2000 people made it through Russian-occupied territory to UA side. That's 2.5person/car. Either cars leaving besieged city half empty, cars are grabbing coffee taking their time and still driving through Russian side or ... |
|
|
|
Broke Oligarch https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-03-17/broke-russian-oligarch-fridman-says-sanctioned-billionaires-can-t-sway-putinFridman, 57, was born and raised in the Soviet Union in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv. He was a first-wave oligarch, making a fortune in banking and energy before Putin’s rise to power. His parents are Ukrainian citizens who until recently lived part of the year in an apartment in Lviv.
Fridman was worth about $14 billion before the war, according to Bloomberg. He’s now worth about $10 billion on paper and is in the strange position of being an oligarch with essentially no cash. When the U.K. followed the EU and sanctioned Fridman on March 15, his last working bank card in the U.K. was frozen. He tells me he now must apply for a license to spend money, and the British government will determine if any request is “reasonable.” It appears that this will mean an allowance of roughly £2,500 a month. He’s exasperated, but careful not to compare his woes with those of Ukrainians suffering from the war. “My problems are really nothing compared with their problems,” he says.
Even though the U.S. has not sanctioned Fridman, the EU and U.K. measures led his accounts to be frozen; the day after Brussels announced sanctions, he found his bank card didn’t work. Now he’s trying to figure out how to pay for small things such as a house cleaner. “Maybe I should clean the house myself,” he says with a nervous chuckle. “That’s fine. I used to live in a small dormitory room with four men when I was a student, but after 35 years it’s unexpected.” Fridman says he has two months to challenge the EU’s sanctions. Fridman holds an Israeli passport, but when I ask whether he might move to Israel, he waves off the idea. He doesn’t own a home there and doesn’t have access to money to buy one. “I’m a prisoner here,” he says.
Just before we met, he says, he got a call from a Ukrainian friend who was helping relatives flee Kharkiv. Fridman says he offered his parents’ two-bedroom apartment in Lviv, which has so far avoided direct Russian hits. He says the flat is now a temporary home for 15 refugees.
A few days after our meeting, the U.K. sanctioned Fridman, and this time he calls me, with no obvious reason except to say that things are getting worse. He sounds at a loss. “I don’t know how to live,” he tells me. “I don’t know. I really don’t know.” The way finance is being weaponized is insane. Israeli citizen from Ukraine literally just got turned off with a press of a button (as financial collateral damage). I don't know what could undermine the confidence in reserve currency more. Hey Oligarchs/China you guys still on board to buy some US debt right? ... RIGHT?? |
|
|
|
Why are you just alluding to things, but can't clearly state your position on why UA keeps calling off evacuations or only allowing few thousand cars per day out of Mariupol? You truly believe that its out of concern for those civilians safety, and that they're are better off without food in the city about to be attacked? Hope no one here is in this position, but if your relatives were there, what would you recommend to them? Stay in without food/water for the attack or try to leave under the red cross?
Here are many reasons: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60736845And here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/frightening-evacuees-describe-harrowing-escape-from-mariupolHow is that not enough for you? You still believe that UN, Red Cross, etc can fight Russians off and enforce the corridor? The city is surrounded. Your problem was that Ukrainians allegedly didn't let people out. Now some people are getting out but you're still blaming them that they can't get everyone out at once. Edit: Like you I don't KNOW the answer and can only guess, but outright dismissing the idea that a neo-nazi group is capable of doing things that have been done for as long as there have been wars, and calling it absurd, seems dishonest at best.
No need to guess, there are sufficient confirmed reports of Russian forces bombing and shooting civilian targets, including evacuation vehicles. This also makes the "human shield" nonsense invalid, because it wouldn't shield anything. Once again you're just throwing articles instead of clearly stating your position. ICRC confirms that they have team in Mariupol, and that they lead the convoy out of the city Is there any proof from the Red Cross where they record violations or any shelling/attacks on said convoy, and in your typical fashion instead of addressing the question, you just pose another rhetorical question if Red Cross can fight off Russia and enforce corridors? I can see you clearly evading, so now on to the next part, care to estimate how many of those leaving Mariupol decided to evacuate to Russian controlled territory? ...
Or another answer: terror tactics or just destroying anything big enough to group people, which, in my view, is the most likely possibility. It has been confirmed that there are a large number of schools across the country that have been destroyed, the "mistake" or the "false flag" options are just not realistic.
A number of Putin's generals have been demoted due to lack of progress, the ones that take over have seen how Ukrainians do not seem to be going anywhere on their own volition, so terror and mass destruction are now on the table.
Re Mariupol, the problem is that Putin's army does not seem to be abided by their own words. From refugees that made it out of Mariupol, the "green paths" are kind of green-grey, meaning that some of the people seeking safe passage have been massacred. And that is civilians fleeing. Killing them is an act of hate, madness and desperation that does not look like the typical coldly calculated and propaganda-covered action by Putin.
There is no comment of any refugee being forcibly retained in Mariupol. As you say, there is a balance between fear of getting killed on the road and fear of dying of the bombs and people make their choices. Some, the elder, the sick,... they do not have a real choice.
The hypothesis of the Ukrainian army or any of it groups threatening civilians is not realistic. They are fighting Putin's army and cannot afford to divert efforts nor have a hostile population under their feet. Also, Putin's army has shown little regard distinguishing between civil or military targets - any tall building is considered a risk and blown.
On Putin's army suffering an significant number of losses, it clearly matches the strategic outlook regardless of destruction tweets and Ukraine's own information war. The war is no longer a blitzkrieg. Putin is facing determined resistance and, while there are undeniable gains and advances from his troops, the price being paid may be just unaffordable politically and economically.
Seems like Putin is winning in territory at the cost of loosing very valuable equipment and even veteran soldiers he may not be able to replace - even less if the country is sent into an economic recession. He cannot risk loosing too many planes, as, in his imaginary world, the NATO can easily use that weakness to attack and gain full air superiority. He cannot afford withdrawing troops from other borders without risking inferiority. The so called reservists that artificially rise the number of Putin's military are not trained, lack leadership and cannot be supplied (they are the definition of cannon fodder).
Despite all this Putin will not (cannot stop). He may "win" in some form the war (territorial concessions), but all indicates that he will loose the peace, and, unfortunately, it will be the Russian people, whose only fault is not being able or not wanting to risk getting rid of this government, the ones that will pay with poverty and ostracism.
Sure terror tactics is another valid option. Just as sabotage from both sides. But the reality is, UA side claims 14.000 killed RU troops and UN puts civilian casualties at 726. This number should also include civilian casualties from the other side, like this report where allegedly 20 people died from missile attack on Donetsk With civilian-combatant ratio at 0:19 indicating an extremely conservative trigger control, no one who's even partially objective can seriously entertain the idea of Russians trying to harm as many civilians as they can. It is widely known that anyone trying to run through a checkpoint during Martial Law would be fired upon, i also expect UA check points to be mined as well due to inevitable attack by RU . No way civilians can leave if Mariupol calls off evacuation out of concern for safety of their citizens due to Russian shelling. I am not aware of Russia calling off any evacuations. I'm not going to entertain speculations of massacres. Fact of the matter is, objective numbers, UN/Red Cross just don't support it. Either you know something they don't or you got caught up in an echo chamber where this opinion was formed. I'm very concerned of your outright dismissal of a neo-nazis doing something that has been done in almost every war. I'd be more skeptical if it was regular UA army in Lviv, but even then would understand how people faced with death can do anything to save themselves. There is no if, Russia is in economic recession at best, most likely depression. I give Putins regime a year tops, they have enough food production/heat to survive the winter, the big question is if EU can survive the winter without gas? And then of course China challenging a world order would completely change everything https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8 Outcome for Ukraine was known the first day the war started, the interesting question now is what happens next. There's no threat from NATO attacking due to guaranteed MAD. |
|
|
|
I see four possible answers
-It was Azov that blew it up (seems to be Russian argument)
-It was used by UA side to attack from, so its a fair target for RU.
-It was a RU mistake
-RU side just decided to risk its plane and use a bomb on civilians instead targeting nazi Azov (because Putin craves more innocent blood)
Still seeing ghosts even after overwhelming evidence of Putinists just bombing shit indiscriminately... or shooting civilians in cold blood. You're a true believer. What concerns me is why 350.000 people are still not allowed to leave Mariupol!! Why people who seem to care so much about human casualties, are not outraged that 350.000 civilians are forced to stay in a besieged city with a humanitarian crisis? Is the concern for their safety still the official reason for calling off evacuations? But then how come 20,000 residents have left Mariupol in private cars so far? Why only letting few thousand go per day is fine but not all 350.000 in buses? Again you have to ignore everything that's happened so far, the siege of Mariupol itself, the attacks of Russian forces on civilians and civilian objects (including those same cars leaving Mariupol), the humanitarian convoy held by Russian forces in Berdyansk, anything that doesn't fit your narrative, so that you could still claim that there is something else going on other than Putin exterminating the civilian population of Ukraine. The whole "azov keeping people hostage" thing is absurd seeing how any other city that's not completely encircled by Russians is being evacuated, why are you still clinging to it. As of 15 March UN recorded 726 civilians killed. Today More than 3,000 cars from besieged Mariupol arrive in Zaporizhzhia can you point me to a statement from Red Cross where they say that the passage was not safe and one side didn't keep promises it agreed to? (Lets restrain ourselves from siting biased sources) Why are you just alluding to things, but can't clearly state your position on why UA keeps calling off evacuations or only allowing few thousand cars per day out of Mariupol? You truly believe that its out of concern for those civilians safety, and that they're are better off without food in the city about to be attacked? Hope no one here is in this position, but if your relatives were there, what would you recommend to them? Stay in without food/water for the attack or try to leave under the red cross? Edit: Like you I don't KNOW the answer and can only guess, but outright dismissing the idea that a neo-nazi group is capable of doing things that have been done for as long as there have been wars, and calling it absurd, seems dishonest at best. |
|
|
|
That wasn't the question. Why would someone cramp that many people in the middle of nowwhere. Any cellar in a house is saver, even the subway.
If have no idea if even a single person died there, if so it looks more like a sacrifice like Normandy .......
No, that's exactly the question that needs to be asked instead of your straw man bullshit. Why bomb a theater? Why bomb civilian housing for two weeks so they become homeless and have to shelter in other buildings, such as a theater? What about people who don't have a "cellar", open season on them? Subway in Mariupol, yeah right  I see four possible answers -It was Azov that blew it up (seems to be Russian argument) -It was used by UA side to attack from, so its a fair target for RU. -It was a RU mistake -RU side just decided to risk its plane and use a bomb on civilians instead of targeting nazi Azov (because Putin craves more innocent blood) The scenarios can be debated by the keyboard warriors. What concerns me is why 350.000 people are still not allowed to leave Mariupol!! Why people who seem to care so much about human casualties, are not outraged that 350.000 civilians are forced to stay in a besieged city with a humanitarian crisis? Is the concern for their safety still the official reason for calling off evacuations? But then how come 20,000 residents have left Mariupol in private cars so far? Why only letting few thousand go per day is fine but not all 350.000 in buses? Who benefits from keeping civilians in the city? Shouldn't everyone concerned for innocent civilian lives be talking about this, and putting more pressure on Red Cross/UN to make sure people can evacuate so things like this won't happen again? |
|
|
|
Sad. Much as we like screen captures (which are OK), we like links a lot more. I'd like to know exactly how they "seized" the bitcoin. Trudeau set up a successful 51% attack? Not likely. Perhaps replies explain this, perhaps not. Without a link, we will not know. My guess is the retards used an exchange address. I was hoping for an answer from the OP himself, possibly after he'd done some research on twitter ;-) Unfortunately, said individual was busy concocting multiple price models for us. But yes, I agree that's the most likely explanation. I can imagine the treasurer trucker searching "crypto" while dreaming of magical internet money donations or something like that, and falling into the hands of the first exchange to be listed by google. Although 14.6 bitcoin, which was worth around $630,000 then, were distributed to the truckers by then, the police came to NobodyCaribou’s home on Feb. 28 and took 0.28 bitcoin (worth about $15,000), stored in a wallet NobodyCaribou co-controlled with Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, members of a trucker-affiliated nonprofit who were previously arrested. According to court documents, NobodyCaribou claimed he was about to transfer the funds to an escrow agent when police compelled him to surrender his wallet under a search warrant.
The seizure of a censorship-resistant digital asset might sound odd at first, but all it’s referring to is a string of 12 words known as a seed phrase. If not held on a centralized crypto exchange like Coinbase, Bitcoin is self-custodial by design, which means one can only access their bitcoin if they type those 12 words in an exact order. According to NobodyCaribou, police compelled him to reveal his seed phrase.
...
“I wanted to give the bitcoin to truckers. A court order was issued for the bitcoin that had not yet been distributed, so regardless of what I ‘want,’ I’m not going to break the law and get arrested,” NobodyCaribou told Motherboard. “The basis for the claim on those funds is to be determined by courts. Until then, they are safely held in escrow.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgmnpd/the-freedom-convoy-bitcoin-donations-have-been-frozen-and-seizedLooks like someone acting as an escrow got a visit from your friendly police |
|
|
|
...
USA has pressed forward with economy and diplomacy to win the wills of the people of several countries that were previously under the USSR dominance. And there is no law against it and it is as per the free will of the citizens, it is simply that Putin cannot accept that and has decided to move this onto the military with his war of aggression.
You know the real looser of this war along with the people of Ukraine? The EU. No matter what, any war in Europe has the effect of making the US stronger and that is something Putin should have realised by now.
Congrats, now you got past all of the distractions to the main course. After WW2 world was divided into spheres of influence  With Cuban missile crisis US pretty much set the precedent that "laws" don't really matter as long as country is facing existential threat. (Imagine what would happen to "free will" of poor Mexicans if they wanted to accept amazing trading terms from China in exchange for ability for China to place nukes on Mexican boarder with US.) By using the term "quarantine" rather than "blockade" (an act of war by legal definition), the United States was able to avoid the implications of a state of war.[4] The US announced it would not permit offensive weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the weapons already in Cuba be dismantled and returned to the Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_CrisisThe United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution every year since 1992 demanding the end of the US economic embargo on Cuba, with the US and Israel being the only nations to consistently vote against the resolutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_CubaRussia looses cold war, and US becomes a dominant super power. The benefit of that, is now US doesn't have to use tanks (hard power) to enlarge its sphere of influence. Now, it gets to set the playing field and just use soft power to expand, using preferential trade agreements, monetary policy, cookies etc... , the ones that don't want to play can just be sanctioned into poverty. (amazingly even with such power, the loss of civilian human life from military conflicts involving US is atrociously high, but no one really cares about that). Russia clearly cannot compete on such terms. Russia's sphere of influence was gradually chipped away to the point that the only countries left in its sphere were Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In 2014 a push was made for Ukraine, so it got American freedom cookies. In 2020 civil unrest started in Belarus with opposition conveniently operating out of a NATO country. And in January 2022 there was unrest in Kazakhstan where Russia briefly sent in its troops. Russia is playing a game it was meant to loose, it cannot compete with US on soft power playing field. They see Ukraine as a red line and are now ready to flip the whole board game over it. Amazingly, lots of people got activated to the point where they also started calling to just flip the board game over (aka "no-fly zone, aka start shooting Russian planes over Ukraine and its air defenses in Russia, aka WW3). Now we see Biden and NATO backtracking and pretty much acknowledging that after enabling Ukraine, it will be left to face Russia on its own (good luck guys we're outta here). Why chipping Ukraine from Russia is so important its worth starting WW3 over but no freedom cookies will ever be given out in Saudi Arabia is left as an exercise for the reader. Also, don't fool yourself the consequence of the WW3 are very well known, have been since the M in MAD, everyone is guaranteed to loose. Or of course all of these could just be simply explained as convenient coincidences, and intelligence (CIA ...) yearly budget of ~$30B just keeps them playing minesweeper and are totally not involved in any of this. Edit: As far as Ukraine, Russia, EU loosing, i agree with you on that one. But i don't think US becoming stronger is a given. EU will need a lot of assistance from US so US will have to make a choice, either support EU at its own cost, or drop EU and go back to the policy of unilateralism (think of what Trump would do if/when he's back in office?). In either case the only one guaranteed to get stronger is ...China.  'murika for 'murikans kinda catchy no?
I just want to ask a question, what is the main function of the UN?
What is the need for an organization like the United Nations in the world?
You need to check out this article and I am sure you laugh your lungs out after reading the first page. The first topic that will appear is peace and security.  Apart from calling the general assembly, they have not done anything to stop this war. They would do nothing in this war as they have done from the day they came into existence. Enjoy! [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] |
|
|
|
How many forum users contributed to this? At least one, as far as I can see..
 Think i was just tax-raped |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
