...that is why you destroy those weapons and ideas NOW instead of waiting till later
...Showing weakness in the face of aggression is not a good strategy.
...more war mongering...
A third country that is not officially a part of the conflict and not under any direct attack/threat of an attack, starting a nuclear war, with justification of better now than later, what can possibly go wrong. Next in line, testing if M in MAD really stands for Mutual. So I did some calculations in excel and think we should be fine, what hydrogen bombs, ok carry the one, think we should still be fine. Surely a lot of Darwin awards to be given out.   Edit: Not to mention leaving China as the only nation coming out of this fully intact and with its arsenal of nukes, yep sounds like an amazing idea, or nuke them too while were at it, surely they're up to no good too. |
|
|
|
Thought we already covered all of this, are we now all clear on the history, and how this operation is completely different and unprecedented?
I do not underestimate the significance of what happened in those situations. And I'm not one to cover such horrific events as "special operations" and the like. The difference is that the war in Ukraine was started to overthrow the legitimately elected government. To change it to the one that would suit Russia, and which would not actually be the government, but would simply be an executor of orders from Moscow. The war was launched to wipe Ukraine off the map as a state. The war has begun because Russia does not consider Ukrainians an independent nation that is different from them, and is trying to convince the whole world about that. Although there is a big difference between us. Even the causes of the war are not honestly named. Russia stubbornly persuaded its own population that this is a "special operation in the Donbass", and the goal declared - "demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine." The difference is that this is a war on two fronts - not only against Ukrainians, but also against Russians, who for decades have been made intellectual impotent, who only consume information from television and are incapable of critical thinking. And it is still unknown which of these wars is scarier and more dangerous. Ukrainians are fighting now. Can the same be said of the Russians? Right no significance to operation in Afghanistan which didn't overthrow Taliban, and US didn't put in its own puppet regime, which was also overthrown, and now the world once again back to recognizing Taliban as the governing body in Afghanistan? And operation in Iraq didn't overthrow Sadam? Operation in Lybia didn't overthrow Gaddafi? Assad in Syria and Maduro in Venezuelan (holding on so far). If anything overthrowing governments to take over or install your own friendly/puppet government seems to be the main purpose of every conflict after WW2. The cause of every war is never honestly made, no surprise there either. And I'm not even going to address calling the other side "intellectual impotent", and "incapable of critical thinking". Dehumanizing opponent is as old as war itself, and why Russia went with the whole denazification angle. History judges "scariness" of wars by casualties, that's why UN reports of civilians killed is so important and one of few pieces of information that currently can be trusted. I'm sorry to say this, but this war was already over when it started, the only unknowns now are how many casualties there will be, and whether Putins regime will be able to survive this. To limit the former any fuckery with Red Cross should be condemned by everyone no questions, as for the latter, we're currently seeing unprecedented global campaign to form "hearts and minds" of the population. |
|
|
|
Ah the good old independence card.
What right the US had when they decided to invade Iraq? Wasn't Iraq independent enough for your taste? See? This shit cuts both ways. Ah, good old Russia is bad, but the U.S. is even worse card. Does this have any relevance to the current situation? This is not a discussion of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Which countries sanctioned the US for this btw? None?)
Do you mean other than the UK, Australia, Spain, and Poland as members of the Coalition forces? But again, irrelevant to the current discussion. I'll tell you what rights... Russia got nukes. Lots of it. They don't want their neighboring countries to have the same nukes.
So you literally support "the strongest bully in the playground" argument?
In light of the current situation, Ukraine's desire to join NATO is clearly justified. Ukraine was concerned about Russian aggression, especially after the Crimea, and wanted protection. NATO membership became a shared goal for the majority of Ukrainians after Russia's military occupation of Crimea. Who is Putin to deny them that right?
Regardless of how you spin it, aggression against a sovereign state with a legally elected government can never be justified. No matter what the issue, Ukraine's sovereignty and independence must be respected by all powers. Putin is a war criminal and it is time for Western countries to stand up to this aggression.
In the light of same situation one could say Putin has the right to invade Ukraine. That would be true if Ukraine invaded Russia, not the other way around. Wasn't Iraq a sovereign nation? Where are the sanctions against the US?
"Two wrongs don't make a right!"You are correct, whataboutism, and thus we are now at the "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" impasse. First mover advantage, whats done is done now just need to make sure no one else can follow and do the same because apparently what we did was so wrong but it benefited us greatly and got us to where we are now. |
|
|
|
Putin warned Ukraine back in 2014, he said if they try to join NATO he would invade their country. They did try to join NATO and Putin shows that he is not in the making empty threats business. He is simply honoring his words.
The muppet Zelensky is responsible for all the deaths imo. You just don't fuck with a superpower especially if you have borders with that country.
What was Putin going to do, let Ukraine join NATO and have nuclear warheads right near of Moskow? Not happening.
What right does Putin have to allow or forbid another independent country to do something? If Putin decides to attack neighboring countries that could even potentially have nuclear weapons, why hasn't he attacked China yet, which already has nuclear warheads? Or Turkey? And sure, all Ukraine wants to do is to create new deathly weapons near Moscow. Because we have nothing else to do. Only Putin and his sick followers really think that Ukraine is focused only on Moscow. Probably, except for Ukraine, Russia does not even potentially interest anyone. Not everyone is like Russia. So they shouldn`t measure everyone by their own low standards. Ah the good old independence card. What right the US had when they decided to invade Iraq? Wasn't Iraq independent enough for your taste? See? This shit cuts both ways. (Which countries sanctioned the US for this btw? None?) I'll tell you what rights... Russia got nukes. Lots of it. They don't want their neighboring countries to have the same nukes. In light of the current situation, Ukraine's desire to join NATO is clearly justified. Ukraine was concerned about Russian aggression, especially after the Crimea, and wanted protection. NATO membership became a shared goal for the majority of Ukrainians after Russia's military occupation of Crimea. Who is Putin to deny them that right?
Regardless of how you spin it, aggression against a sovereign state with a legally elected government can never be justified. No matter what the issue, Ukraine's sovereignty and independence must be respected by all powers. Putin is a war criminal and it is time for Western countries to stand up to this aggression.
In the light of same situation one could say Putin has the right to invade Ukraine. But isn't Ukraine a sovereign nation, don't they have the constitutional right to join any organization/institution they like and feel will be best for the progress and peace of their nation?
Wasn't Iraq a sovereign nation? Where are the sanctions against the US? no no no. Completely different, it wasn't a war, US just had an operation to bring freedom to Iraq which ended great with cookies and smiles. OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) led by the United States of America (Operation Iraqi Freedom), United Kingdom (Operation Telic), Australia, Spain and Poland, responsible for conducting and handling military operations. And blockade of sovereign country of Cuba wasnt a blockade but just a quarantine also totally legal because reasons... Plus their people were "different" so our population didn't care for them as much. NATO bombing of Yugoslavia without the UN's approval was just an Operation Noble Anvil! And dont get me started on the Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanis endured so much freedom they couldn't endure anymore. Thought we already covered all of this, are we now all clear on the history, and how this operation is completely different and unprecedented because there are casualties? /s OIF was authorized when Iraq was found to be in breach of U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 which “prohibits stockpiling and importing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).”
...After U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) invaded areas of Syria and Iraq https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/middle-east/operation-iraqi-freedom.html |
|
|
|
That's not how it works, you can't say you trust Red Cross's guarantee just to turn around and claim not to trust their judgement on safety. Red Cross is capable of calling off any operation themselves. Once people are allowed to leave they come under additional protection of the red cross, any attack on a red cross convoy is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. You seriously trying to say that innocent civilians are safer in the city which is about to be attacked than under the protection of the Red Cross?
I did not say any of the things that you're ascribing to me. Still waiting for your proof that the evacuation route was safe and clear and that the Ukrainians were trying to hold the people hostage. So far there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. That's your best argument? Asking for a proof that something wasn't dangerous? You seem to be missing the whole point of Red Cross guaranty. I'm also going to assume that you're just trolling. From your own article "the evacuation has been postponed" yeah you try to make it through a checkpoint of the besieged city during a martial law after that. Looks like there might be a chance for another ceasefire tomorrow. Lets hope that no one plays dirty, both sides let the civilians pass under the flag of the red cross, and "concern for safety" will not be used as an excuse to keep civilians in the besieged city for a full attack. |
|
|
|
BREAKING: Visa and MasterCard are reportedly shutting down their services in Russia. Damn. Looks like a PR move. Most banks were already under sanctions so those cards already couldn't be used outside of Russia. And appears they already covered their ass and domestic transactions in Russia will continue to work. It'll only affect tourists trying to use their cards inside Russia, not sure how many of those are still in Russia. Beginning in 2015, the Russia government said domestic transactions in the Russian Federation had to be processed in the country and through a state-owned processor. Russia made moves in recent years “to insulate domestic card volumes from potential sanctions,” Barclays analyst Ramsey El-Assal wrote in a Feb. 28 note to clients, given the impact of U.S. sanctions on payment cards in Russia back in 2014. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/visa-mastercard-say-they-will-suspend-russia-operations/ar-AAUFi9A |
|
|
|
Jesus man!! Should innocent civilians (children, women, elderly etc) be allowed to leave an actively besieged city which is currently without power and water, with the guarantee from the Red Cross? Yes or No? If not, whos else guarantee do you want before letting those people go? Or are you saying those people shouldn't be allowed to leave at all, as long as one side can claim that theres shelling going around?
Yes, they should be allowed to leave. However Red Cross can't guarantee protection against shelling. It relies on Russian compliance, which did not happen. And people did try to leave: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629851"I'm right now in Mariupol, I'm on the street, I can hear shelling every three to five minutes," said Alexander, a 44-year-old engineer and resident of the city.
The green corridor set up to get people out was not working, he said.
"I can see cars of people who tried to flee and they are coming back. It is chaos." That's not how it works, you can't say you trust Red Cross's guarantee just to turn around and claim not to trust their judgement on safety. Red Cross is capable of calling off any operation themselves. Once people are allowed to leave they come under additional protection of the red cross, any attack on a red cross convoy is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. You seriously trying to say that innocent civilians are safer in the city which is about to be attacked than under the protection of the Red Cross? |
|
|
|
Notice how you're at that stage of the argument where you're just bombarding me with your questions without even attempting to address any of mine.
Bombarding LOL, nice choice of words here comrade. I'm getting back at your original post about the evacuations and trying to understand what you were trying to say there. It didn't have any questions (unless you count WTF as a question). It sounded like you were blaming solely the Ukrainian side. Now you've confirmed that that's indeed what you are doing. Still unclear what you wanted to happen if there was indeed shelling going on, or any proof that there wasn't any shelling, but I don't expect a direct answer given your fallacious "both sides" argument. Have fun playing with your straw people. Jesus man!! Should innocent civilians (children, women, elderly etc) be allowed to leave an actively besieged city which is currently without power and water, with the guarantee from the Red Cross? Yes or No? If not, whos else guarantee do you want before letting those people go? Or are you saying no guarantee would be good enough for you and those people shouldn't be allowed to leave at all, as long as one side can claim that theres shelling going around? |
|
|
|
WTF? As of March 5 UN estimates 351 civilians killed. Don't take pictures of people and then tell them that they cant leave with Red Cross! Trying to claim that its better for hundreds of thousands of civilians to stay in the besieged city without water or power is madness, or correct term would be hostages! The fuckery with Red Cross needs to be condemned as strongly as possible, and i don't care what side you're on. So what did you expect to happen? Tell civilians to leave bomb shelters / basements / etc despite ongoing shelling? I get that you dislike the number of casualties and prefer it to be much larger. And speaks of above 1000 civilian casualties confirmed including wounded. This seems like a low figure, but the report in full clearly states that: OHCHR believes that the real figures are considerably higher, especially in Government-controlled territory and especially in recent days, as the receipt of information from some locations where intensive hostilities have been going on was delayed and many reports were still pending corroboration. This concerns, for example, the town of Volnovakha where hundreds of civilian casualties have been alleged. These figures are being further corroborated and are not included in the above statistics. on top of that, there is no way to effective account for the total number and the verification of the numbers is at least, weak: Since 24 February 2022, in the context of the Russian Federation’s military action in Ukraine, HRMMU has been unable to visit places of incidents and interview victims and witnesses there. Some of the wide area pictures show a large number of civilian buildings destroyed. It is impossible that has happened without significant casualties. Maybe, but i just don't have a more reliable source to use. One side will always exaggerate and the other will always minimize their losses. Also, logically thinking the country has been flooded with weapons, 18yr olds are given out weapons after 3day training. They released some prisoners to fight and there are reports of saboteurs, marauders as expected in any conflict. In fact Security Service of Ukraine killed Denis Kireev, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating group, during his detention. He was suspected of treason. Ukraine even takes out its own negotiator for treason. So its safe to assume that some of the civilian casualties can be attributed to Ukrainian side too. Sure there are a ton of reports of friendly fires etc Edit: No its not weak at all, and frankly absolutes don't matter as long as we compare apples to apples. Think its safe to assume that in all other conflicts Afghanistan, Kosovo, Syria, Iraq etc.. OHCHR had the same problems. And I cant imagine how this conflict is any different. If numbers are lower then they would be lower for all the other conflicts as well. |
|
|
|
Sad attempt to twist the logic, both sides should let Red Cross do their job. You're not going to get good guy points by interfering with Red Cross. Are you seriously trying to claim that there will be less casualties if hundreds of thousands of people are not allowed to leave with Red Cross and instead are forced to stay in the besieged city? Then care to give an example or your definition of a human shield during a war?
Do you really believe Putin wants to get "good guy" points? Don't be so naive. If he was really worried about civilian casualties, he wouldn't be targeting them in the first place. Unless you imply that Ukrainians are killing their own people? I have enough critical thinking skills to not trust any side to the conflict, that's why i find Tashs and Etranger sources silly. But UN report showing that objectively so far civilian casualties are relatively low when comparing them to any other similar conflict. (But we really haven't entered urban warfare yet.) And now we just saw how one side refused to let civilians leave besieged city which is under shelling because it didn't trust Red Cross's guarantees. I don't know how anyone can spin that positively |
|
|
|
Sad attempt to twist the logic, both sides should let Red Cross do their job. You're not going to get good guy points by interfering with Red Cross. Are you seriously trying to claim that there will be less casualties if hundreds of thousands of people are not allowed to leave with Red Cross and instead are forced to stay in the besieged city? Then care to give an example or your definition of a human shield during a war?
LOL will you fucking stop with the "twist the logic" nonsense. Are you trying to blame Ukrainians for not allowing civilians to leave, yes or no? What were they supposed to do if there is shelling going on? Notice how you're at that stage of the argument where you're just bombarding me with your questions without even attempting to address any of mine. Yes. Red Cross didn't call off the evacuation due to safety concerns. And that's their responsibility because they're the once providing the guarantees. Its a fact that both sides agreed on evacuation. Its also a fact that Red Cross decided that both sides were credible enough to warrant putting itself forward as a guarantor for said evacuation. How about just letting innocent people stuck in this war decide whether they wanted to go with Red Cross or take their chances by staying in the besieged city? If anything, pulling shit like this with Red Cross plays right into Putins hand and his propaganda machine. |
|
|
|
WTF? As of March 5 UN estimates 351 civilians killed. Don't take pictures of people and then tell them that they cant leave with Red Cross! Trying to claim that its better for hundreds of thousands of civilians to stay in the besieged city without water or power is madness, or correct term would be hostages! The fuckery with Red Cross needs to be condemned as strongly as possible, and i don't care what side you're on. So what did you expect to happen? Tell civilians to leave bomb shelters / basements / etc despite ongoing shelling? I get that you dislike the number of casualties and prefer it to be much larger. Sad attempt to twist the logic, both sides should let Red Cross do their job. You're not going to get good guy points by interfering with Red Cross. Are you seriously trying to claim that there will be less casualties if hundreds of thousands of people are not allowed to leave with Red Cross and instead are forced to stay in the besieged city? Then care to give an example or your definition of a human shield during a war? |
|
|
|
BORING.Now, give me a snow-wrestling match between a peak-flaming Ukrainian and Russian bear, and that's another matter altogether. How can I fund this with Bitcoin? I did an exstensive internet research, as I assumed that exists, as per internet law #34. But I failed. This is the closest thing I found: Now, give me a snow-wrestling match training session between a peak-flaming Ukrainian bear and Russian bear Incidentally there is also a bear in the video.  I'm afraid to imagine what you must've gone through to get to that picture. |
|
|
|
Cross posting about fuckery with Red Cross Ukraine plans to evacuate over 200,000 people along the Mariupol - Mykilske - Rozivka - Bilmak - Polohe - Orikhiv - Zaporizhzhya route and over 15,000 people along the Volnovakha - Valeryanivka - Novoandriyivka - Kyrylivka - Vuhledar - Pokrovsk - Zaporizhzhya route, Vereshchuk said.
The ICRC is acting as a guarantor of the ceasefire during the evacuation, Vereshchuk said.
The Russian Defense Ministry said earlier, "Starting 10:00 a.m. Moscow Time today, March 5, the Russian side declares a ceasefire and opens humanitarian corridors for the exit of civilians from Mariupol and Volnovakha." https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/75602/Cool seems like an agreement by both sides to evacuate civilians with Red Cross as a guarantor. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) “understands” that civilian evacuations from Mariupol and Volnovakha will not go ahead on Saturday as planned, after operations were postponed by Ukrainian authorities citing continued Russian shelling in the area. https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-05-22/h_13a7c76619d2babd355c5cc72781c23bWTF? As of March 5 UN estimates 351 civilians killed. Don't take pictures of people and then tell them that they cant leave with Red Cross! Trying to claim that its better for hundreds of thousands of civilians to stay in the besieged city without water or power is madness, or correct term would be hostages! The fuckery with Red Cross needs to be condemned as strongly as possible, and i don't care what side you're on. |
|
|
|
Ukraine plans to evacuate over 200,000 people along the Mariupol - Mykilske - Rozivka - Bilmak - Polohe - Orikhiv - Zaporizhzhya route and over 15,000 people along the Volnovakha - Valeryanivka - Novoandriyivka - Kyrylivka - Vuhledar - Pokrovsk - Zaporizhzhya route, Vereshchuk said.
The ICRC is acting as a guarantor of the ceasefire during the evacuation, Vereshchuk said.
The Russian Defense Ministry said earlier, "Starting 10:00 a.m. Moscow Time today, March 5, the Russian side declares a ceasefire and opens humanitarian corridors for the exit of civilians from Mariupol and Volnovakha." https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/75602/Cool seems like an agreement by both sides to evacuate civilians with Red Cross as a guarantor. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) “understands” that civilian evacuations from Mariupol and Volnovakha will not go ahead on Saturday as planned, after operations were postponed by Ukrainian authorities citing continued Russian shelling in the area. https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-05-22/h_13a7c76619d2babd355c5cc72781c23bWTF? As of March 5 UN estimates 351 civilians killed. Don't take pictures of people and then tell them that they cant leave with Red Cross! Trying to claim that its better for hundreds of thousands of civilians to stay in the besieged city without water or power is madness, or correct term would be hostages! The fuckery with Red Cross needs to be condemned as strongly as possible, and i don't care what side you're on. |
|
|
|
Remember when you were fooled into believing the pope got arrested for being a pedophile because you read it on some trash website? Or when you were convinced Biden would be arrested on the day of his inauguration and Trump would remain in power? Believing Putin makes you even more of an incredibly gullible idiot. ...
Yep. I'm from Ukraine. If someone has questions you're welcome.
Can you guys give your take on that Azov battalion and their ideology? I couldn't find anything positive on them. This is from wiki In 2014, the regiment gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich.
...In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the United States Congress blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology
...The unit's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine.
...The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia with connections to neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia and expressing neo-Nazi views. The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[51][84][83][85][86] and the Black Sun,[84][87][88] two neo-Nazi symbols.
...More than 40 Israeli human rights activists signed a petition to stop arms sales to Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion |
|
|
|
Wait, I am afraid we are just loosing a bit here. The fact that a country is strategically important for you does not mean you automatically get the right to rule it!
Russia would not want to rule or better say wreck Ukraine if the West were not constantly pushing their interest in Ukraine. West should have consider not expanding NATO to the east. Russia is strategically important for the safety of Poland. Putin is aggressive, thus Poland has the right to change Russia's regime. Sounds ridiculous does it not? Poland don't need to do it alone. The west, EU and NATO are already trying to do it for them. Then, the argument is "I have a bigger army and I will tell your citizens what they can and cannot do" Why do you think all these nuclear power all around? To produce energy? My point was not justifying the war but to point out the problems behind it. The West and Russia are having their egoistic showdown and in between Ukrainians are losing everything even at this very moment. So the West is the cause of this war because the people of Ukraine would rather look west than be part of Putin's dominions? Cannot you not understand that Putin's Russia is simply unattractive as as partner? Would you not say that his doings in Chechenia, the government actions in Russia and Belorussia are not fundamental reasons why other kids do not wanna play with him? Would you say that the empire of the oligarchs he promoted is a feature many would rather not have in their countries? There is a old German saying: "be my friend or I'll crush your skull". Did Putin not learn to make friend when he was six? Again, either this is about legality or it is about force. If it is about legality, Ukraine is a free country and is free to choose their partners. If it is about force, then we should reckon that diplomacy has failed and neutral countries are free to sell weapons to any of the contenders as per the rules of war. My personal take is for the West to help Ukraine reach a full stalemate on this war until it is no longer economically viable or someone decides to, instead of changing Ukraine government, reconsider who should be their own leader. If you know that women leaving the house without a man will most likely have severe consequences in Saudi Arabia, but you still encourage a Saudi girl to protest and come outside without a man, when she gets arrested and tortured to death, would you bear any responsibility, or should you just move on to encouraging the rights of the next Saudi girl? What do you say when a Geneva convention violation, where a medical facility of doctors without borders which was on the no-strike list is attacked with 211 shells causing 42 deaths, and then a tank rolled in which "forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear". Is not qualify as a war crime by the laws? sorry to burst your bubble but world is unfair, war is hell, and selective enforcement of laws only makes a mockery of said laws Edit: And there are many more examples of violations of human rights which were never prosecuted, now question why are you being activated for this even vs others with many more civilian casualties. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
