Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[DaRude]

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?

[suchmoon]

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.

[Gyfts]

What does Europe plan to do with all the refugees of Ukraine?

Total refugees nearing 1.5 million: https://www.wsj.com/articles/refugees-fleeing-ukraine-now-represent-biggest-movement-of-people-in-europe-since-world-war-ii-11646493910

IMO the sovereignty of any one nation lies within their borders, so it should remain an individual country's choice whether they choose to accept refugees. What's remarkable is Poland's acceptance of Ukrainian refugees, they certainly haven't felt the same about immigration when it's people from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Instead of accusing Poland of white supremacy, what logically applies here is the acceptance of western values and principles, and how that might pertain to a Ukrainian refugee versus a refugee of Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

I recall this story, in which an Afghanistan refugee that was brought to the U.S. following its withdrawal was accused of sexually assaulting a 3 year old: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/afghan-refugee-convicted-assaulting-girl-quantico-82447258

He explained his actions as being acceptable in his culture (some culture, huh).

It would be nice to see more countries accept Ukrainians that are fleeing.

[DaRude]

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.

[lumbanrang]

Putin denies Russia bombing Ukrainian cities
https://insiderpaper.com/putin-denies-russia-bombing-ukrainian-cities/

So who carried out the Chernihiv bombing? Kharkiv? and some other places? was it a ghost that did it? I can't understand how it is possible for someone as shameless as Putin to issue a statement like this and moreover call it propaganda, when it is clear that they carried out the bombing. smh

The Kremlin has long been known to use propaganda and disinformation as a powerful weapon. In order to curb the spread of disinformation, many Canadian and European telecom providers are banning major Russian propaganda outlets. The majority here is undoubtedly against any form of censorship. But, in order to do their jobs, government agencies must ensure that they are effectively countering Russian propaganda while giving a platform to alternative viewpoints and truth.

Yes, propaganda is a powerful weapon to be able to control public opinion about something. And Russia seems to be using their media to carry out propaganda acts by calling this not military aggression or war, but only as a warning to Ukraine for their mistakes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/26/propaganda-filters- truth-ukraine-war-russian-media

[mamesso]

Yes, propaganda is a powerful weapon to be able to control public opinion about something. And Russia seems to be using their media to carry out propaganda acts by calling this not military aggression or war, but only as a warning to Ukraine for their mistakes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/26/propaganda-filters- truth-ukraine-war-russian-media

If not military aggression, then what about the increasing a number of victims?
Russian propaganda seems to say that the civilian casualties were caused by their own fault. The Kremlin has committed a big lie.
The Kremlin spreads its baseless justifications for invading Ukraine. The aim of Russian propaganda is to build a support for their invasion of Ukraine.
The repercussions of a Russian attack would be catastrophic. Civilian casualties are increasing, destruction everywhere, and more severe famine will occur because energy prices are getting higher and food prices are also soaring due to this war.
Russia's attack on Ukraine is a threat to peace and a stability on the European continent and the world.

[mindrust]

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.

[tvbcof]

Oliver Stone documentary from 2016 about Ukraine.

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/Dm8sLn03K33Q/

I will say that it's pretty slanted (toward Putin/Russia) probably in part so that Stone could get access to the Russian side players.  Probably in part because Stone is partial to them, or at least partial away from the West.  I'll also say that it aligns pretty well with my understandings (and/or guestimates) about things over there.

The history covers some stuff around WW-II times and before which is especially interesting.  I think it would have been important to cover a lot more about what happened in Soviet times and they would help explain a lot about what we are seeing now, but it was totally left out (which is why I critique it above.)

Anyway, the piece is well worth the watch for anyone who cares much about this stuff and/or wants to understand it better.

[Tash]

 Brutal Truth about How to Demilitarize and deNazify a Country
https://youtu.be/wf3pc_2n_s0
Great now Europe has tons of Nazi refugees to deal with, what possible could go wrong. Politicians really are the lowest form humans

[Coyster]

The repercussions of a Russian attack would be catastrophic. Civilian casualties are increasing, destruction everywhere, and more severe famine will occur because energy prices are getting higher and food prices are also soaring due to this war.
Russia's attack on Ukraine is a threat to peace and a stability on the European continent and the world.

Yes it is, and the only reason why this hasn't escalated far more than it is right now is cause of non-interference by other countries, at least militarily, they have only responded via sanctions, and though this sanctions continues to hit the economy hard, but Russia doesn't consider it to be a direct interference in the war, so the battle still continues solely between the two countries (Russia and Ukraine). I do not know for how long this mayhem will continue, but as long as it does, the entire Europe will feel the brunt in one way or another, with Ukraine bearing the most of it.

What was Putin going to do, let Ukraine join NATO and have nuclear warheads right near of Moskow? Not happening.

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?

[Etranger]

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.

[decodx]

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.

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.

[Etranger]

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

Civilian casualties can be relatively low when comparing them to any other similar conflict (although I have questions about what similar conflicts you are referring to, because in the 21st century there seems to have been no full-scale open invasion to another sovereign country), because most of the civilian population has created a territorial defense that protects the settlements, and thus they are no longer actually civilians.

By the way, the main sourse of mine are my eyes. Being where the war is going on is not the same as reading about it in the media. So yes, the source is really silly, because this whole war is based on the stupidity of people who are unable to understand that other people want to live without their intervention.

[mindrust]

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?

[Etranger]

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.

I'll tell you what rights... Russia got nukes. Lots of it. They don't want their neighboring countries to have the same nukes.

No, I don’t see it. Because I don’t defend US in the Iraq situation. I simply tell about the current situation in my country. And it doesn’t become less painful and wrong if you make some similar examples with other conflicts.

[suchmoon]

That's your best argument? Asking for a proof that something wasn't dangerous?

You're making the claim, you should substantiate. Is that not how it works?

yeah you try to make it through a checkpoint of the besieged city during a martial law after that.

You seem to be a bit confused as to who's surrounding those two cities. Hint: it ain't Ukrainians.

[DaRude]

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

[Marvelman]

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!"

[DaRude]

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.

[mindrust]

~

I don't support anyone.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the west. Any sanctions on Russia by the west is simply bullshit. I am now reading news that the western governments are seizing the Russian properties. What happened to the right to own property^[1] which btw is a human right?

The west is free to invade any country they see fit, have the right to steal and kill but when some other country does the same thing suddenly they go apeshit. Here is Russia doing it in your face and you can't do anything other than banning Disney in Russia. Get mad.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_property