Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Mciahel Goodman]

It’s as simple as that. It’s disgusting to see how guys like @Mciahel Goodman trying to do their best to muddle the waters here (target audience: those just casually following this war) by implying there are two sides to it. I’m surprised he hasn’t been banned from posting in this thread.

I've stopped engaging with you as it seems pointless. You don't seem to take fact into account. But there are many sides to this war and you can deal with all of them on their own terms according to their merits and historical context.

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Simbo]

Seems to be suggesting that the “Ukrainian attack” in Belgorod was either a Russian feck-up or malfunction.

The wording is a bit imprecise and I assume it is referring to the fuel depot attack itself and not a subsequent missile after that attack.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

He is talking about the susequent missile that landed on the side of a road somewhere, doing no harm. Seems to be a malfunction causing it to fall short.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

I've got a lot of respect for @Mciahel Goodman continuing to post in this thread, despite repeated calls for him to be banned.

Whilst I don't agree with some of the things he's said, including that war crimes are war crimes no matter who committed them is a fair stance. There are a few in this thread that will believe every accusation against Russian soldiers, but dispute every accusation against Ukrainian soldiers. That's illogical. Then, when Mciahel tries to add weight to the other side, he's accused of bias. He is probably one of the most useful posters on this thread, allowing real debate, rather than having everyone on here echoing each others feelings.

You might have sympathy for the Ukrainians who have committed war crimes as they are the ones being invaded and have had war crimes committed to them, but the rules of war are set and any breaking of them are war crimes.

I hope, with all the "evidence" being posted online, that any and all suspected war crimes are investigated independently, and anyone caught committing war crimes, is punished to the appropriate level.

 

[Simbo]

I keep repeating it, but this has been my fear since the Russian’s flopped in the opening week. They never needed that much territory to cause a lot of long-termer pain to Ukraine:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I'll fear it when I see any evidence this Russian force is actually capable of holding ground for any significant length of time once under focused assault.

 

[Rajma]

No one denies Russian war crimes. It isn't about proving Ukrainians aren't saints. It's about preventing the scope for legitimate debate being narrowed so far that we ignore atrocities because they prove inconvenient to our preferred narrative. The Russian bombardment of Mariupol is one big war crime. The Ukrainian treatment of POWs and Roma civillians is also a war crime. You can't be selective about criminality in war to the extent that you hold one side up as faultless and another as purely evil. It's an interesting feature of Western media (in this moment) whereby they feel the need to rehabilitate the likes of the Azov because they're working to a zero criticism policy regarding Ukraine. That approach backfires. By compromising your basic moral editorial code for one repugnant element (which happens to be a minority) you open the door to mistrust, doubt, and secondary contamination of the Ukrainian war effort as a whole because you have demonstrated a will to bend your credibility depending on how convenient it is to report the truth.

But for the bold. I pointed out the civillian corridor war crime weeks ago. Aside from that, I don't see much need to post about Russian war crimes because they are taken for granted. It represents the dominant theme in this thread and no one, that I see, disputes any of them. Human Rights Watch and other watchdogs like that have confirmed a whole series of Russian atrocities and their record is almost spotless.

What a load of crap, now hiding behind a “moral compass” when you have been called out for spreading one sided nonsense.

I give you a similar situation. A few criminals/rapists breaks into you house rape your daughter/mother, kill your father and take your son away from you and promise to do the same to him as well but you manage to get hold one of the guys while others escape with your son. Your following actions (no police can help you here)
A) You torture the guy to get the possible locations out of him
B) You let him be

If you have chosen A) would you still want other people to be pointing this out (in condemnation) to you publicly when you’re still in search for your son and you should have never been in the position to be making such decisions in the first place? So many sides to this story as well right?

 

[TwoSheds]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

More rose tinted than Glaston's fantasies about Antonio Conte flying to the Kremlin in a Soviet attack helicopter to shoot Putin in the nuts.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

What a load of crap, now hiding behind a “moral compass” when you have been called out for spreading one sided nonsense.

I give you a similar situation. A few criminals/rapists breaks into you house rape your daughter/mother, kill your father and take your son away from you and promise to do the same to him as well but you manage to get hold one of the guys while others escape with your son. Your following actions (no police can help you here)
A) You torture the guy to get the possible locations out of him
B) You let him be

If you have chosen A) would you still want other people to be pointing this out to you publicly when you should have never been in the position to be making such decisions in the first place?

But there are "police", the independent people who are seeing these war crimes. Putin is a war criminal, but so are the individual Russian soldiers who are committing individual war crimes. The evidence at the moment is that the Ukrainian leadership is not committing war crimes, but there seems to be evidence of individual Ukrainians committing war crimes and they need to be investigated, regardless of Russian criminality.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I don't think it's a competition, you can care more about Ukranian civilians than Russian soldiers without excusing war crimes. And lets be clear here, by not "treat these soldiers well", you mean torture. Not even torture to gain information, which I guess is relevant if you want to rank bads, but torture just for the hell of it. And, again if we want to rank bads, we're not talking about ordinary Ukranian soldiers with clouded judgements due to all the injustices, we're talking about fascists doing what fascists do.

Given the charred bodies in The Intercept article it seems like torture followed by straight up murder. At least their faces are on tape though, so if they don't die in the meantime there's some hope of bringing them to justice. I think in wars like this such crimes are almost inevitable on all sides, but there is a definite difference between acts that are a matter of policy and disparate acts of individual barbarity. The strangulation and bombing of Mariupol is an example of the former; these shootings seem more like the latter.

Edit: I was wrong, faces hidden. Hopefully they can still be identified, wouldn't be so sure though.

 

[Rajma]

But there are "police", the independent people who are seeing these war crimes. Putin is a war criminal, but so are the individual Russian soldiers who are committing individual war crimes. The evidence at the moment is that the Ukrainian leadership is not committing war crimes, but there seems to be evidence of individual Ukrainians committing war crimes and they need to be investigated, regardless of Russian criminality.

You’re having a laugh, what police? Nato is not getting involved? They’re relying on their own means to liberate the places where Russia is committing pure atrocities. Russians don’t care about committing these crimes because this independent body (police) will never get to them.

 

[massi83]

I've stopped engaging with you as it seems pointless. You don't seem to take fact into account. But there are many sides to this war and you can deal with all of them on their own terms according to their merits and historical context.

How many times per day do you masturbate looking at putin's topless pics? I am guessing 3+

 

[Peter van der Gea]

You’re having a laugh, what police? Nato is not getting involved? They’re relying on their own means to liberate the places where Russia is committing pure atrocities. Russians don’t care about committing these crimes because this independent body (police) will never get to them.

It's the International Criminal Court that would investigate them I think.

Look, as I and others have said, YES, the war crimes committed by the Russian leadership is atrocious, the blanket bombing of civilians is disgusting, but the torture of PoWs is a war crime, no matter who committed them, and ALL war crimes should be punished.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

What a load of crap, now hiding behind a “moral compass” when you have been called out for spreading one sided nonsense.

I give you a similar situation. A few criminals/rapists breaks into you house rape your daughter/mother, kill your father and take your son away from you and promise to do the same to him as well but you manage to get hold one of the guys while others escape with your son. Your following actions (no police can help you here)
A) You torture the guy to get the possible locations out of him
B) You let him be

If you have chosen A) would you still want other people to be pointing this out (in condemnation) to you publicly when you’re still in search for your son and you should have never been in the position to be making such decisions in the first place? So many sides to this story as well right?

Have you criticised Ukrainian war crimes, NATO's involvement, or the EU/China's respective positioning? In a big picture geopolitical sense? Or have you just condemned Russia and Russian war crimes and anyone who you perceived as defending Russia and Russian war crimes (your own miscalculation)? I think you'll find that you've done only the last. I've been engaged in criticising all sides, where it seemed apropriate, and when that criticism seemed potentially insensitive to people in this thread (too abstract to be directly relevant) I moved it to another thread to prevent anyone having to deal with tangents that could derail this one. Your calls for people to be banned stems from your inability to apply the same moral standards to people engaged in war crimes and this because it inconveniences you or whatever narrative/image you hold sacred. That represents the worst kind of "debate". You either deal with the arguments or you deal with the person (personal attack) as a means of escaping the responsibility which the argument presupposes. Ad hominem is genuine "whataboutism" ("and you?") in its purest form.

Your hypothetical scenario is reductio ad absurdum and so I'll leave it there.

 

[Rajma]

It's the International Criminal Court that would investigate them I think.

Look, as I and others have said, YES, the war crimes committed by the Russian leadership is atrocious, the blanket bombing of civilians is disgusting, but the torture of PoWs is a war crime, no matter who committed them, and ALL war crimes should be punished.

OK, it should be punished but trying to paint “sides” here because of these several cases and to deliberately create an illusion in the public space that somehow both sides are not blameless and we should be careful when in fact the blame ratio is probably something like 1:100000000. During these difficult times for Ukraine there should be a total unity in the public space as it pressures western countries for further sanctions or lethal weapons as these decisions are also highly impacted by the domestic opinions which can be influenced deliberately by kremlin trolls like @Mciahel Goodman when they try to show that Ukrainians are not saint here either.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Can't read as I'm not a FT subscriber.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Can't read as I'm not a FT subscriber.

Source it here for free read.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

OK, it should be punished but trying to paint “sides” here because of these several cases and to deliberately create an illusion in the public space that somehow both sides are not blameless and we should be careful when in fact the blame ratio is probably something like 1:100000000. During these difficult times for Ukraine there should be a total unity in the public space as it pressures western countries for further sanctions or lethal weapons as these decisions are also highly impacted by the domestic opinions which can be influenced deliberately by kremlin trolls like @Mciahel Goodman when they try to show that Ukrainians are not saint here either.

No side are saints, by now most of the foot soldiers are traumatised humans, on both sides. No one wants to be in a war. Or at least no sane person. Yes, we need to be united in our position against the invasion of Ukraine, but not to point of turning a blind eye to other war crimes.

 

[dove]

OK, it should be punished but trying to paint “sides” here because of these several cases and to deliberately create an illusion in the public space that somehow both sides are not blameless and we should be careful when in fact the blame ratio is probably something like 1:100000000. During these difficult times for Ukraine there should be a total unity in the public space as it pressures western countries for further sanctions or lethal weapons as these decisions are also highly impacted by the domestic opinions which can be influenced deliberately by kremlin trolls like @Mciahel Goodman when they try to show that Ukrainians are not saint here either.

There is a unity between countries that have a first hand experience of Russia's despicable regime and the absolute majority of their people who are supporting it. Basically entire Eastern Europe block that managed to escape from Russia knows it very well and are united. I wouldn't expect unity from other countries because they are too busy minding their own business and as long as the war is not on their doorstep, they are content with it.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Jeremy Scahill for the Intercept on the US position beyond Ukraine and its potential for ending hostilities.

Ever since Vladimir Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine, there has been an unprecedented cohesion of messaging emanating from the U.S. government, its NATO and other European allies, and large segments of the Western media establishment. As massive quantities of weapons pour into Ukraine, there has been consistent media and political agitation for President Joe Biden and other Western leaders to “do more” or answer for why they are not further escalating the situation, including through the imposition of a no-fly zone.

The White House smells Putin’s blood in the waters of his disastrous invasion. The flow of weapons, the sweeping sanctions, and other acts of economic warfare are ultimately aimed not just at defending Ukraine and making the regime pay for the invasion in the immediate present, but also setting in motion its downfall. “For god’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” Biden said during his recent visit to Poland. The White House sought to walk back the line and clarify that it did not constitute a change in policy but was merely an expression of the president’s righteous anger. The kerfuffle over what Biden really meant is less important than the very public actions of the U.S. and its allies.

The war in Ukraine is simultaneously a war of aggression being waged by Putin and part of a larger geopolitical battle between the U.S., NATO, and Russia. “We are engaged in a conflict here. It’s a proxy war with Russia, whether we say so or not,” said Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and defense secretary under Barack Obama. “I think the only way to basically deal with Putin right now is to double down on ourselves, which means to provide as much military aid as necessary.” Speaking to Bloomberg News on March 17, Panetta laid out the U.S. strategy: “Make no mistake about it: Diplomacy is going nowhere unless we have leverage, unless the Ukrainians have leverage, and the way you get leverage is by, frankly, going in and killing Russians. That’s what the Ukrainians have to do. We’ve got to continue the war effort. This is a power game. Putin understands power; he doesn’t really understand diplomacy very much.”

It should not be assumed that the strategies and actions being employed by Washington and its allies in their proxy war against Moscow will always be in the best interest of Ukraine or its people. Likewise, Ukraine’s calls for military support and action from the West — however justifiable and sincere they are — may not be in the best interest of the rest of the world, particularly if they increase the likelihood of nuclear war or World War III. The desire to avoid this scenario by advocating for a negotiated solution to the war that addresses Russia’s stated concerns or its rationale for the invasion is not a capitulation to Putin and it is not appeasement. It is common sense.

While the fate of Ukraine and the lives of its civilian population are evoked in calls for more escalatory action from the West, it is these very people who will suffer and die in large numbers every day the war drags on. Western media coverage is often crafted to portray only one outcome as acceptable: a decisive Ukrainian victory, in which the government of Volodymyr Zelenskyy emerges from the horrors of the Russian invasion in complete control of all of its territory, including Crimea and the Donbas region. Ukraine, as a free and independent state, should be free to join NATO, and Russia has no legitimacy in questioning the implications of such a move. Advocacy for accepting anything short of this outcome is a victory for Russia and therefore traitorous to even consider.

While this position may feel morally right, particularly when it is bolstered by the ghastly images of human carnage wrought by Russian forces and the pleas of Ukrainians for the world to intervene much more directly, embedded within this mindset is a morally dubious principle: Ukrainians should bear the human cost not just of the defense of their nation, but also of the larger-scale agendas of the U.S. and other Western governments. In her recent essay for The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum, a prominent Russia hawk, argued that now is the time for the U.S. and its allies to embrace a new Cold War. “As long as Russia is ruled by Putin, then Russia is at war with us too. So are Belarus, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua, Hungary, and potentially many others,” she wrote. “There is no natural liberal world order, and there are no rules without someone to enforce them.”

The routine belligerence exhibited by countless politicians, pundits, and media figures about taking the fight to Putin in Ukraine is largely chickenhawkery. “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is today’s Churchill, and President Biden is today’s FDR,” wrote the notorious war promoter Max Boot in the Washington Post. “A Russian defeat,” Boot argued, “is essential to save Ukraine and safeguard the liberal international order. The Ukrainians are willing to fight on despite their heartbreaking losses. We just need to give them the tools to finish the job.” Yet when you listen to the fine details of Ukraine’s own negotiators and leaders, it’s clear that they understand that the war does not end with the swift annihilation of Putin, the downfall of Russia, or with a clean and complete Ukrainian retention of its territorial sovereignty. That’s why Zelenskyy’s government has acknowledged that the issue of NATO membership, a formalized neutrality status, and an internationally brokered process on the status of Crimea will all be on the table.

There has been much noise about Russia’s recent indications that it was drawing down its military actions in parts of Ukraine, particularly around the capital Kyiv. The U.S. and NATO have acknowledged a partial drawdown but asserted that Russian forces appear to be repositioning, likely for use in the east. Russia has also said as much itself. Moscow’s position is that “the main goals of the first stage of the operation have generally been accomplished.”
There is a peculiar dynamic surrounding the analysis of Putin’s comments on his intentions for Ukraine. He is accused of lying when his remarks undermine the U.S. narrative, but we are told to believe he is absolutely telling the truth when his pugnacious threats bolster the U.S. position. Whether or not Putin intended to seize all of Ukraine and become an imperial occupier, he did seem to believe his invasion could cause the Ukrainian government to collapse and its leaders to flee in fear. That did not happen. Instead, U.S. and NATO-armed Ukrainian forces outside Kyiv have fought the Russian troops ferociously and inflicted significant losses against them on the battlefield. At the same time, by opening multiple fronts, Moscow forced Ukraine to defend vital territory, including its capital. This strategy exacted a tremendous human toll on the Russian military, but it did take some heat off Russian forces in the Donbas territories in the east, which Putin has cited as his territorial priority in the operation.

But the question of Putin’s original intent — to take Kyiv or to use that threat as a strategy to spread Ukraine’s defenses thin — is now largely irrelevant except in the rhetorical battlespace focused on Russian weakness, incompetence, or failure.
The most contentious issue in the negotiations to end the war will likely have little to do with NATO membership. Zelenskyy has already conceded that to end the war Ukraine will have to drop that ambition and adopt a neutral and nonaligned status, though he does want to continue the pursuit of joining the European Union. Russia will certainly oppose any attempts for Kyiv to win a backdoor “Article 5” status that could trigger defense of Ukraine by Western powers in cases of future military actions by Moscow. Ukraine has suggested that it would also want China and Turkey to be a part of such a guarantee, not just adversaries of Russia. There are indications that the U.S. doesn’t think the proposal is viable, and Britain’s deputy prime minister bluntly stated, “Ukraine is not a NATO member,” adding, “We’re not going to engage Russia in direct military confrontation.”

Based on the reports out of the recent negotiations in Turkey, it seems that the most incendiary questions will revolve around the breakaway republics in the Donbas region. Ukraine has effectively said it wants a return to the pre-invasion status quo, which would mean erasing the Putin-recognized declarations of independence from Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia, which is currently expanding its control over the Donbas and seizing more territory, is unlikely to agree. This dynamic more than any other could delay or block any meaningful resolution and would be a central focus in a potential summit between Zelenskyy and Putin.

Once there is a brokered agreement, the flow of Western weapons into Ukraine and Russian military support for the separatists will result in a constant state of war footing for many years to come. A cloud portending more fighting and bloodshed will remain hovering over eastern Ukraine. If U.S. and other NATO troops resume their training exercises in Ukraine, as Biden has indicated they should, this means that there will always be a risk of incidents that could quickly escalate.
This six-week war surely has left the war industry jubilant. In Washington, Biden recently proposed what would be the largest U.S. “defense” budget in history, more than $813 billion. Germany and other European countries are publicly committing to buying and selling more weapons and spending more on defense. NATO is raising the prospect of expanding its permanent military presence in Europe and Washington is reasserting its political dominance over Europe on security matters. But despite the image of global unity of cause being promoted by the U.S. and its NATO allies, several large and powerful nations, including China, India, Indonesia, and NATO member Turkey, are not marching to Washington’s drumbeat — not in the proxy-war business and not in the policy of sanctioning and vilifying Russia.

The overt war in Ukraine will have to end at the negotiating table. But the proxy war is escalating and will have consequences that extend far beyond the current battlefield.

https://theintercept.com/2022/04/01...r&utm_campaign=theintercept&utm_medium=social

 

[VorZakone]

Jeremy Scahill for the Intercept on the US position beyond Ukraine and its potential for ending hostilities.

So what is his point? What does he propose? So far it seems the Ukrainians themselves genuinely want to fight. The West doesn't have to convince them. They themselves are asking for more weapons. It is a proxy war but not one in which the West comes out looking morally wrong in my opinion. And so far, the Ukrainian government seems to have the population's support. They look galvanized.

The desire to avoid this scenario by advocating for a negotiated solution to the war that addresses Russia’s stated concerns or its rationale for the invasion is not a capitulation to Putin and it is not appeasement. It is common sense.

At this point any talks about nuclear escalation or WW3 is just nonsense in my opinion. I don't buy it and therefore I don't buy Putin's threats either. He can feck himself with his attempts to hold the world hostage to nuclear threats. This rationale strikes me as persuading the Ukrainians to give into Putin's demands as fast as possible.

The Russians are struggling at the moment, that seems to be the trend. And more weapons to Ukraine will hopefully continue that trend. Otherwise the trend gets reversed because the Ukrainians themselves will suffer from attrition. War sucks but the Ukrainian population so far shows no signs of wanting to give into Russia's demands and they want to fight. And if they ask, I believe we should give them weapons but without giving into other demands such as no-fly zones and such.

Sometimes I wonder what these pundits would have told the Vietnamese in the 50s when they fought the French or similar wars by other defending nations. A negotiated settlement will likely come and I hope the Ukrainians can have as strong a position as possible when they enter the table. But that does mean killing more Russians. It is what it is.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

So what is his point? What does he propose? So far it seems the Ukrainians themselves genuinely want to fight. The West doesn't have to convince them. They themselves are asking for more weapons. It is a proxy war but not one in which the West comes out looking morally wrong in my opinion. And so far, the Ukrainian government seems to have the population's support. They look galvanized.


At this point any talks about nuclear escalation or WW3 is just nonsense in my opinion. I don't buy it and therefore I don't buy Putin's threats either. He can feck himself with his attempts to hold the world hostage to nuclear threats. This rationale strikes me as persuading the Ukrainians to give into Putin's demands as fast as possible.

The Russians are struggling at the moment, that seems to be the trend. And more weapons to Ukraine will hopefully continue that trend. Otherwise the trend gets reversed because the Ukrainians themselves will suffer from attrition. War sucks but the Ukrainian population so far shows no signs of wanting to give into Russia's demands and they want to fight. And if they ask, I believe we should give them weapons but without giving into other demands such as no-fly zones and such.

Sometimes I wonder what these pundits would have told the Vietnamese in the 50s when they fought the French or what they would have told the Afghan mujahideen in the 80s. Time after time we see these nations willing to fight off invaders.

I think he notes that Russia is struggling but that the consequence of struggling in Kyiv is a drain of Ukrainian military focus from the Donbas, which is likely to be Russia's primary area of entrenchment. His point, as I understand it, is that the US/NATO probably don't see any (realistic) settlement as a good settlement. Other than that, the primary takeaway is that a settlement will revolve around two key issues. The status of the Donbas and Crimea as well as Ukraine's neutrality which Ukraine wants guaranteed by China/Turkey (for Russian benefit, I think, to make it less partisan) but also the US/UK/NATO. This part could be difficult as how many countries are going to give that guarantee (the UK has outright refused it)? Also, I think it is because of the nuclear threat that you won't get those guarantees so easily.

The bold is basically Scahill's position (with the NFZ being a potential nuclear redflag, from what I've read from him). His overall point is to situate this stuff within the broader context of US military strategy, which he is pretty good at (among the best independent analysts of that topic imo).

 

[VorZakone]

I think he notes that Russia is struggling but that the consequence of struggling in Kyiv is a drain of Ukrainian military focus from the Donbas, which is likely to be Russia's primary area of entrenchment. His point, as I understand it, is that the US/NATO probably don't see any (realistic) settlement as a good settlement. Other than that, the primary takeaway is that a settlement will revolve around two key issues. The status of the Donbas and Crimea as well as Ukraine's neutrality which Ukraine wants guaranteed by China/Turkey (for Russian benefit, I think, to make it less partisan) but also the US/UK/NATO. This part could be difficult as how many countries are going to give that guarantee (the UK has outright refused it)?

I think the DNR/LNR is so destroyed at this point that the Ukrainians would be better off leaving them to the Russians who probably won't invest in those regions anyway. Best thing Ukraine could do is become a prosperous country and show the DNR/LNR population what they're missing out on (as there does seem to be a heavy pro-Russian sentiment there).

I think Crimea is gone for the Ukrainians, period. The Russians won't give that up.

 

[Simbo]

I've got a lot of respect for @Mciahel Goodman continuing to post in this thread, despite repeated calls for him to be banned.

Whilst I don't agree with some of the things he's said, including that war crimes are war crimes no matter who committed them is a fair stance. There are a few in this thread that will believe every accusation against Russian soldiers, but dispute every accusation against Ukrainian soldiers. That's illogical. Then, when Mciahel tries to add weight to the other side, he's accused of bias. He is probably one of the most useful posters on this thread, allowing real debate, rather than having everyone on here echoing each others feelings.

You might have sympathy for the Ukrainians who have committed war crimes as they are the ones being invaded and have had war crimes committed to them, but the rules of war are set and any breaking of them are war crimes.

I hope, with all the "evidence" being posted online, that any and all suspected war crimes are investigated independently, and anyone caught committing war crimes, is punished to the appropriate level.

For anyone paying close attention to this war and/or Russian activities for the past 20-70 years, It is quite logical through these events for your first stance to be extremely skeptical of claims against Ukrainian soldiers, short of proof. The POW leg thing is one of several elaboratly staged videos to date, by the same film crew maybe, who knows? There will be more.

Re: Mr Goodman, I still can't look past him claiming 'Western Propaganda' is better than Russian propaganda, then citing an article by a known Russian propagandist to back up his argument It is troll level stuff and trolls should be ignored, where possible...

He's got people in here talking about Ukranian war crimes when we are yet to see evidence of any. It is a fair assumption to make that lines will have been crossed on occasion, I'm sure they have, but I'm yet to actually see it.

The fact we are not even allowed to post the footage of Russian war crimes on here means it is an improper place to discuss these things anyway.

 

[Smores]

OK, it should be punished but trying to paint “sides” here because of these several cases and to deliberately create an illusion in the public space that somehow both sides are not blameless and we should be careful when in fact the blame ratio is probably something like 1:100000000. During these difficult times for Ukraine there should be a total unity in the public space as it pressures western countries for further sanctions or lethal weapons as these decisions are also highly impacted by the domestic opinions which can be influenced deliberately by kremlin trolls like @Mciahel Goodman when they try to show that Ukrainians are not saint here either.

There is unity in the western media, you won't really see a lot of coverage of any wrongdoings of the Ukranian side because of it. They are also so limited it doesn't change the overarching story hence being of less importance, that doesn't mean no journalist will cover it.

This isn't national media it's a football forum in a thread now only read by a small amount of the same posters.

You're not making a logical point you're just trying to flaunt your righteousness by attacking posters. Just like when you emotionally reacted to someone using a valid word like conflict.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I still can't look past him claiming 'Western Propaganda' is better than Russian propaganda, then citing an article by a known Russian propagandist to back up his argument

I think that argument was substantiated pretty well in the other thread but it's up to everyone to read for themselves (it is an argument not a "proof", so all I can do is outline why I think it is the case based on what I know of the topic and let others correct me/add/detract wherever seems relevant). Who was the Russian propagandist? Genuinely can't remember.

He's got people in here talking about Ukranian war crimes when we are yet to see evidence of any. It is a fair assumption to make that lines will have been crossed on occasion, I'm sure they have, but I'm yet to actually see it.

Just on this. I didn't raise the POW war crime in this thread, I was posting in reply to a topic that had been discussed, at length, by other posters (carolina red, harms, dwayne, yourself I think, and many more) a day or two ago. I was updating readers of the thread on where the claim now stood (after people were claiming it was outright fake).

But generally, I agree, (and said it a page or two back), that war crimes happen in every war.

 

[Simbo]

It is a proxy war

I don't think anybody should be calling this a proxy war personally. It is a direct war of aggression by a major power attempting to conquer/destroy its neighbour.

 

[NotThatSoph]

For anyone paying close attention to this war and/or Russian activities for the past 20-70 years, It is quite logical through these events for your first stance to be extremely skeptical of claims against Ukrainian soldiers, short of proof. The POW leg thing is one of several elaboratly staged videos to date, by the same film crew maybe, who knows? There will be more.

Re: Mr Goodman, I still can't look past him claiming 'Western Propaganda' is better than Russian propaganda, then citing an article by a known Russian propagandist to back up his argument It is troll level stuff and trolls should be ignored, where possible...

He's got people in here talking about Ukranian war crimes when we are yet to see evidence of any. It is a fair assumption to make that lines will have been crossed on occasion, I'm sure they have, but I'm yet to actually see it.

The fact we are not even allowed to post the footage of Russian war crimes on here means it is an improper place to discuss these things anyway.

Believing that The Intercept is making up sources, even while name dropping them, is not logical. It's absurd, bordering on delusional. And groups like Human Rights Watch disagree that there's no evidence, they've voiced strong concerns. What's your evidence for the video being fake?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I think the DNR/LNR is so destroyed at this point that the Ukrainians would be better off leaving them to the Russians who probably won't invest in those regions anyway. Best thing Ukraine could do is become a prosperous country and show the DNR/LNR population what they're missing out on (as there does seem to be a heavy pro-Russian sentiment there).

I think Crimea is gone for the Ukrainians, period. The Russians won't give that up.

Yep, that's my view, too. The question is how you get there, and quick settlement (but a sensible one) is beneficial for Ukrainians but not necessarily beneficial for NATO and that's the larger point Scahill makes. Neutrality, EU membership, and some kind of arrangement in the Donbas with Crimea basically written off seems as inevitable now as it did last week. Long-term, too, the Russians might face problems in the Donbas if Ukraine can achieve its economic potential within a netural/EU framework.

 

[stefan92]

The status of the Donbas and Crimea as well as Ukraine's neutrality which Ukraine wants guaranteed by China/Turkey (for Russian benefit, I think, to make it less partisan) but also the US/UK/NATO.

Involving Turkey is definitely not for Russias benefit.

Turkey is a NATO member.
Turkey is delivering the Bayraktar drones that are crucial for Ukraine.
Turkey and Russia fought a proxy war less than two years ago (Armenia against Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabach, decisive win for Turkey-backed Azeris).

 

[sglowrider]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The episode -- surprised that it's only been banned. Putin must be feeling generous and magnanimous today.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Involving Turkey is definitely not for Russias benefit.

Turkey is a NATO member.
Turkey is delivering the Bayraktar drones that are crucial for Ukraine.
Turkey and Russia fought a proxy war less than two years ago (Armenia against Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabach, decisive win for Turkey-backed Azeris).

All of that is true, but Russia and Turkey also share some unconventional overlaps because of their proximity. Turkey is not the most conventional member NATO has.

Look at France and Germany. Both NATO members, both directly funding Ukraine, and yet neither has the kind of toxic relationship with Russia that the US and UK have (evidenced by the Minsk format).

 

[GlastonSpur]

Meanwhile, having moved troops from the far east to bring them into Ukraine ...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Simbo]

Believing that The Intercept is making up sources, even while name dropping them, is not logical. It's absurd, bordering on delusional. And groups like Human Rights Watch disagree that there's no evidence, they've voiced strong concerns. What's your evidence for the video being fake?

I'm not familiar with theintercept (founded by Glenn Greenwald???) but if you were following my posts, i verified their source. Groups like Human Rights Watch have voiced concerns that pow's are filmed being fed, treated and calling their families... Which, no matter what your interpretation of that passage in the Geneva Convention written 70 years ago is, is just insane in the scheme of things.

For the fake video... I would point to it being filmed in the first place and quickly given to Russian intelligence for release as the first reason to dismiss it completely, as well as the location more than likely being in Russian hands at the time it was filmed and their preivous productions. If you want to go more in depth though read through this thread.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Continued...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TMDaines]

I think the DNR/LNR is so destroyed at this point that the Ukrainians would be better off leaving them to the Russians who probably won't invest in those regions anyway. Best thing Ukraine could do is become a prosperous country and show the DNR/LNR population what they're missing out on (as there does seem to be a heavy pro-Russian sentiment there).

I think Crimea is gone for the Ukrainians, period. The Russians won't give that up.

The problem is that Putin probably doesn’t want the DNR and LNR to be a burden on Russia. He was interested in them being a cancerous growth on Ukraine, through which he could indirectly exert influence, but there’s little to suggest he has ever wanted to incorporate them into Russia and take responsibility for them.

 

[sglowrider]

I think the DNR/LNR is so destroyed at this point that the Ukrainians would be better off leaving them to the Russians who probably won't invest in those regions anyway. Best thing Ukraine could do is become a prosperous country and show the DNR/LNR population what they're missing out on (as there does seem to be a heavy pro-Russian sentiment there).

I think Crimea is gone for the Ukrainians, period. The Russians won't give that up.

Look at the untapped gas fields:

 

[sglowrider]

Pope Francis considering trip to Kyiv amid Russian withdrawal in parts of Ukraine
Pope Francis said a trip to the Ukrainian capital was ‘on the table’

 

[golden_blunder]

That video just broke me