Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Carolina Red]

Case closed. They can't even be bothered to do the fake apartment raids anymore, just create a story and move on.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Clearly the same super sleuths that solved the apartment complex bombings back in 1999 were on this case.

 

[NicolaSacco]

I'm super sceptical about this actually existing.

Even under worse dictators with more evil secret police there are underground resistance movements, however risky, so I don't doubt the existence of something in Russia. And in a relatively well armed country with an enormous amount of weapons around, and a well established black market (remember the nuclear sub someone bought!?), some of these groups will have access to arms. But i agree with your skepticism regarding the extent and influence of these groups, and their ability to actually wage an underground war. It would be nice to see but I think the West has to plan it's response on the assumption that Putin will be an all-powerful leader for the next decade with very little internal dissent. Unless the health rumours are true of course.

 

[The Firestarter]

I'm super sceptical about this actually existing.

So am I, in fact I wouldnt be surprised if such an organisation is created by the fsb to catch dissidents.

 

[harms]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Hmm, missed that somehow. Ponomarev doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence though. The speed with which FSB found “the culprit” also point towards their own planned operation and not something unexpected.

Even under worse dictators with more evil secret police there are underground resistance movements, however risky, so I don't doubt the existence of something in Russia. And in a relatively well armed country with an enormous amount of weapons around, and a well established black market (remember the nuclear sub someone bought!?), some of these groups will have access to arms. But i agree with your skepticism regarding the extent and influence of these groups, and their ability to actually wage an underground war. It would be nice to see but I think the West has to plan it's response on the assumption that Putin will be an all-powerful leader for the next decade with very little internal dissent. Unless the health rumours are true of course.

I’m far from knowledgeable on the matter so it’s a speculation but I’m not sure that there’s tons of unregistered weapons lying around in a fight-ready condition. It was a Wild West in the 90’s but since the turn of the 00’s FSB had been constantly tightening the screws, getting rid of any “competition” (any criminal & paramilitary organizations, including mafia, neo-nazi and antifa groups).

The only regions that still have a lot of weapons are the ones on the Caucasus mountains due to a very different political & social situation. But you won’t get any organized resistance in Chechnya where Kadyrov controls everything even tighter than FSB does in other regions (his opponents are either dead or abroad, many of the latter fight for Ukraine). Not sure about Dagestan, North Ossetia etc., but traditionally (well, in the last 10-15 years) those regions are very pro-Putin.

 

[Sir Matt]

Clearly the same super sleuths that solved the apartment complex bombings back in 1999 were on this case.

Much like the apartment bombings, the FSB has a much easier time finding the perpetrators because they were there when it happened.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Hmm, missed that somehow. Ponomarev doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence though.



I’m far from knowledgeable on the matter so it’s a speculation but I’m not sure that there’s tons of unregistered weapons lying around in a fight-ready condition. It was a Wild West in the 90’s but since the turn of the 00’s FSB had been constantly tightening the screws, getting rid of any “competition” (any criminal & paramilitary organizations, including mafia, neo-nazi and antifa groups).

The only regions that still have a lot of weapons are the ones on the Caucasus mountains due to a very different political & social situation. But you won’t get any organized resistance in Chechnya where Kadyrov controls everything even tighter than FSB does in other regions (his opponents are either dead or abroad, many of the latter fight for Ukraine). Not sure about Dagestan, North Ossetia etc., but traditionally (well, in the last 10-15 years) those regions are very pro-Putin.

It's very difficult to know. My estimation, and maybe 'estimation' is too strong a word, maybe i mean 'blind guess', is that there will be an enormous amount of Soviet era weaponry still around. I'm talking about enough weapons to sustain a low level insurgency rather than to actually fight the Russian army directly.

 

[harms]

So am I, in fact I wouldnt be surprised if such an organisation is created by the fsb to catch dissidents.

Even if not, FSB has a habit of infiltrating potentially dangerous organizations (or simply groups with young radicals that are easy to provoke into something in order to boost the arrest numbers — like “Novoe Velichie”, “Set’” etc.).

 

[The Firestarter]

Even if not, FSB has a habit of infiltrating potentially dangerous organizations (or simply groups with young radicals that are easy to provoke into something in order to boost the arrest numbers — like “Novoe Velichie”, “Set’” etc.).

...They have decades (a century?)of institutional experience doing this stuff.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Wild how you can follow a modern war. There were reports of explosions in Sevastopol earlier, and we can track an RAF surveillance plane in the area.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Carolina Red]

Much like the apartment bombings, the FSB has a much easier time finding the perpetrators because they were there when it happened.

Oh indeed. I always love how the story is concluded by them finding an unexploded bomb in another apartment complex and them just explaining it away as "a training exercise".

 

[4bars]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Do you think he will get money to purchase a Lada like his fellow soldier parents?

 

[harms]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This tweet will most likely get forgotten since the Skripal's murder obviously gets overshadowed by the ongoing war in Ukraine, but if there's going to be a tribunal for them at some point...

Margarita Simonyan, the chief editor of RT, says that the supposed "killer" of Darya Dugina has already fled to Estonia... only to suggest that hopefully "there's going to be some professionals who would go there to look at some cathedral spires near Tallin".

Let me remind you that it was Margarita Simonyan herself who interviewed Skripal killers for RT in order to establish their ridiculous cover up story.

Of course no one in their sane mind would believe their story or that Simonyan wouldn't know that they're lying but to basically confess her role in the cover up for a lousy tweet is a ridiculous level of cynicism.

 

[VorZakone]

So did they accuse some random Ukrainian citizen for this? Who is this woman anyway?

 

[Raoul]

So did they accuse some random Ukrainian citizen for this? Who is this woman anyway?

A Russian state propagandist

 

[harms]

A Russian state propagandist

I think he’s asking about the accused.

So did they accuse some random Ukrainian citizen for this? Who is this woman anyway?

Looks like it. I’d imagine that we’ll get an interview from her in a few days if she’s actually in Estonia/out of Russia.

 

[VorZakone]

I think he’s asking about the accused.

Looks like it. I’d imagine that we’ll get an interview from her in a few days if she’s actually in Estonia/out of Russia.

Yes I meant the accused. They showed someone's picture so I'm just wondering who the person is. I mean, if they are accusing some random citizen and showing their picture, it could affect their life.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[hasanejaz88]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

We're losing our humanity.

 

[calodo2003]

They appear to be legit…

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Beans]

They appear to be legit…

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Explains a lot of the explosions inside Russia since they invaded, I’m guessing.

 

[frostbite]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Gehrman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[harms]

They appear to be legit…

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Based on?

He was one of the biggest supporters of the “Mizulina law” that legitimized government censorship over internet in Russia, worked closely with Vyacheslav Surkov and Konstantin Malofeev (google them if you don’t know who they are; funnily enough, Malofeev is the highest-profiled open ally of Dugin), earned millions on shady government contracts on Skolkovo… I can go on for ages.

He’s well-known as a unscrupulous liar and cheap populist. Just because he switched sides at the right moment doesn’t make him trustworthy. If he says that it’s sunny outside, I’m not leaving a house without an umbrella.

 

[stefan92]

Based on?

He was one of the biggest supporters of the “Mizulina law” that legitimized government censorship over internet in Russia, worked closely with Vyacheslav Surkov and Konstantin Malofeev (google them if you don’t know who they are; funnily enough, Malofeev is the highest-profiled open ally of Dugin), earned millions on shady government contracts on Skolkovo… I can go on for ages.

He’s well-known as a unscrupulous liar and cheap populist. Just because he switched sides at the right moment doesn’t make him trustworthy. If he says that it’s sunny outside, I’m not leaving a house without an umbrella.

When you say that he switched at the right moment, does that mean that you feel like Putin is losing his control over Russia and it makes sense to not be on his side any longer?

 

[Roger]

NATO is a defensive alliance ffs. Nobody on this whole planet honestly believes that NATO under any circumstances would have invaded Russia preemptively. In fact, nobody believes that NATO would invade Russia under ANY circumstances.

It's like criticizing somebody for learning self defense. What is even Russia's problem with "NATO expansion"? "If you join NATO now, you rob us of the option of invading you, so unfortunately we have to do it immediately! Sorry, but the blame is on you!"

Jesus. Do you guys have any capacity for independent thinking at all? Start using your head.

The same defensive organisation that attacked and bombed Serbia, Bosnia and invaded Afghanistan and whose members invaded Iraq. Self defensive organisations set up to prevent Soviet expansion do not invade sovereign nations in the Middle East. To think that Russia would sit there and do nothing is naive. NATO was formed to deal with the perceived threat from the Soviet Union following WW2 or rather to guarantee a US military presence in Europe. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. There is no reason for NATO to even exist other than to facilitate a US military presence in Europe.

The fact is that NATO gave an undertaking not to expand into Europe. NATO were well aware of Russias concerns even if you are not.

With regard to your claim that NATO is a group of friends with no hostile intentions here's part of a report from Human Rights Watch regarding NATOs intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).

It concluded that while there was no evidence of war crimes the investigation did conclude that NATO violated international humanitarian law.

And then there is the bombing of Syria and NATO involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. In fact most of NATOs combat activity has been centred in the Middle East.

NATO are not the squeaky clean, defensive organisation you claim them to be. Independent thought is not about spouting propaganda from CCN it's about looking at both sides and certainly being sceptical of any reporting from the mainstream Western press and politicians. Neither have a particularly good record for reporting facts. I don't believe the bullshit being put out by the Russians either.

It's not a question of who's to blame but rather understanding why this has happened in the first place, something you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

 

[stefan92]

The same defensive organisation that attacked and bombed Serbia, Bosnia and invaded Afghanistan and whose members invaded Iraq. Self defensive organisations set up to prevent Soviet expansion do not invade sovereign nations in the Middle East. To think that Russia would sit there and do nothing is naive. NATO was formed to deal with the perceived threat from the Soviet Union following WW2 or rather to guarantee a US military presence in Europe. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. There is no reason for NATO to even exist other than to facilitate a US military presence in Europe.

The fact is that NATO gave an undertaking not to expand into Europe. NATO were well aware of Russias concerns even if you are not.

With regard to your claim that NATO is a group of friends with no hostile intentions here's part of a report from Human Rights Watch regarding NATOs intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).

It concluded that while there was no evidence of war crimes the investigation did conclude that NATO violated international humanitarian law.

And then there is the bombing of Syria and NATO involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. In fact most of NATOs combat activity has been centred in the Middle East.

NATO are not the squeaky clean, defensive organisation you claim them to be. Independent thought is not about spouting propaganda from CCN it's about looking at both sides and certainly being sceptical of any reporting from the mainstream Western press and politicians. Neither have a particularly good record for reporting facts. I don't believe the bullshit being put out by the Russians either.

It's not a question of who's to blame but rather understanding why this has happened in the first place, something you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

I give you Serbia and Afghanistan, but all the other missions were not NATO missions, especially not from a German perspective were public and government absolutely were opposing the Iraq war for example and didn't participate. For us Germans most of the middle east adventures aren't related to NATO, just to US imperialism. I don't know if the perception is different in countries that happily followed the US into these adventures, I guess it is?

 

[harms]

When you say that he switched at the right moment, does that mean that you feel like Putin is losing his control over Russia and it makes sense to not be on his side any longer?

He switched around 2014 after the Crimea annexation, having voted against it, so it was certainly not the case of him noticing the foundations of Putin's regime crumbling (it was stronger than ever actually). To be fair to him he was never fully on board with everything that Putin was doing but he was always closer to the institutionalised opposition (when it was still a thing) rather than to the real one.

What I meant is that he had found the right moment to switch to be able to keep his reputation (outside of Russia) relatively intact — standing up for Ukraine at the time gave him a lot of social capital both in Ukraine and in the West in general & it's not surprising that Ukraine didn't care much about his involvement in, say, the development of all-encompassing government control over the Russian internet.

 

[Zehner]

The same defensive organisation that attacked and bombed Serbia, Bosnia and invaded Afghanistan and whose members invaded Iraq. Self defensive organisations set up to prevent Soviet expansion do not invade sovereign nations in the Middle East. To think that Russia would sit there and do nothing is naive. NATO was formed to deal with the perceived threat from the Soviet Union following WW2 or rather to guarantee a US military presence in Europe. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. There is no reason for NATO to even exist other than to facilitate a US military presence in Europe.

The fact is that NATO gave an undertaking not to expand into Europe. NATO were well aware of Russias concerns even if you are not.

With regard to your claim that NATO is a group of friends with no hostile intentions here's part of a report from Human Rights Watch regarding NATOs intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

conducted air attacks using cluster bombs near populated areas;
· attacked targets of questionable military legitimacy, including Serb Radio and Television, heating plants, and bridges;
· did not take adequate precautions in warning civilians of attacks;
· took insufficient precautions identifying the presence of civilians when attacking convoys and mobile targets; and
· caused excessive civilian casualties by not taking sufficient measures to verify that military targets did not have concentrations of civilians (such as at Korisa).

It concluded that while there was no evidence of war crimes the investigation did conclude that NATO violated international humanitarian law.

And then there is the bombing of Syria and NATO involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. In fact most of NATOs combat activity has been centred in the Middle East.

NATO are not the squeaky clean, defensive organisation you claim them to be. Independent thought is not about spouting propaganda from CCN it's about looking at both sides and certainly being sceptical of any reporting from the mainstream Western press and politicians. Neither have a particularly good record for reporting facts. I don't believe the bullshit being put out by the Russians either.

It's not a question of who's to blame but rather understanding why this has happened in the first place, something you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

Do you honestly believe Putin was afraid NATO could invade Russia? That would be cute if it wasn't so sad that so many Western folks are buying into his red herrings. Putin didn't even expect the response he is getting now for invading a soveign European country. But of course he's afraid that NATO would invade a nuclear power without provocation. I'm aware that many people see the US and NATO very cynically but this is definitely not within the spectrum of tenable opinions, it's just delusional.

And by the way, in my opinion the comparisons you're making are triviliazing Russian war crimes and are effectively disprespectful to the victims of them. No conflict of the US or NATO in the last 50 years was comparable to what Russia is doing to Ukraine. The motives weren't as despicable and the acts weren't as cruel.

 

[Roger]

I hope there is competent mental health institutions in your country, go log off and get help ASAP. We are all rooting for you and Ukraine to destroy the Orcs. UwU

Oh I see. Anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you has got to be mentally ill, and to conclude a nice topping of racism. Why don't you save your juvenile comments for the nursery playground.

 

[Simbo]

The same defensive organisation that attacked and bombed Serbia, Bosnia

Thankfully.

Self defensive organisations set up to prevent Soviet expansion do not invade sovereign nations in the Middle East

The NATO treaty isn't specific to Soviet Russia.

There is no reason for NATO to even exist other than to facilitate a US military presence in Europe.

Blows my mind anybody can put these words together in a sentence in that order.

The fact is that NATO gave an undertaking not to expand into Europe.

NATO has absolutely never given such an undertaking. It is written into the NATO charter that any European country can apply to join and would be accepted with unanimous consent. Such an undertaking would of resulted in an amendment to the charter, which I don't think has ever even been discussed, it is that much of a made up story.

And then there is the bombing of Syria and NATO involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. In fact most of NATOs combat activity has been centred in the Middle East.

NATO has had very little involvement in the Middle East, in the scheme of things. Not sure they've been involved in Syria at all, its a shame that the Syrian people were not members... Iraq was a training mission, not combat. Afghan is the only real military action NATO has been involved in after Serbia. The Sep 11 attack trigglered

NATO are not the squeaky clean, defensive organisation you claim them to be.

It seems to be to me, surprisingly.

 

[Roger]

Do you honestly believe Putin was afraid NATO could invade Russia? That would be cute if it wasn't so sad that so many Western folks are buying into his red herrings. Putin didn't even expect the response he is getting now for invading a soveign European country. But of course he's afraid that NATO would invade a nuclear power without provocation. I'm aware that many people see the US and NATO very cynically but this is definitely not within the spectrum of tenable opinions, it's just delusional.

And by the way, in my opinion the comparisons you're making are triviliazing Russian war crimes and are effectively disprespectful to the victims of them. No conflict of the US or NATO in the last 50 years was comparable to what Russia is doing to Ukraine. The motives weren't as despicable and the acts weren't as cruel.

Where have I ever trivialised Russian war crimes. I haven't. But don't let that stop you misrepresenting my position. Not a single war crime has been independently verified and before you jump in. Im not suggesting there hasn't been any. The only one that has been verified is the invasion itself. Are you seriously suggesting the NATO invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq ( a war crime in of itself) are the civilians killed any less dead than the civilian dead in Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq. Around 200, 000 civilian deaths following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of cluster bombs in heavily built up civilian areas in Yugoslavia. Aren't you doing the same thing that you're accusing me of trivialising civilian deaths. Or are the lives of white Europeans more valuable than the lives of Middle Eastern civilians.

I don't agree with what NATO are doing, therefore I must be supporting Russia or being taken in by Russian propaganda. This is a classic use of a logical fallacy. You roll the same fallacy out with your conclusion, that any questioning of NATOs motives cannot be tenable are must be delusional.

Of course NATO would not invade Russia to suggest that I believe that is utterly ridiculous. It doesn't matter a jot what I think. What matters is what the Russians, a country with a long bitter history of invasion think.

 

[nimic]

Independent thought is not about spouting propaganda from CCN it's about looking at both sides and certainly being sceptical of any reporting from the mainstream Western press and politicians. Neither have a particularly good record for reporting facts. I don't believe the bullshit being put out by the Russians either.

See, the thing is that you think this means you're an independent thinker who has managed to avoid being fooled by Russian propaganda. But in fact, "both sides are equally bad" is the very goal of Russian propaganda. It's not trying to convince you Russian media isn't a sham, it's trying to convince you Western media is also a sham, so you might as well not care.

Their propaganda also does the same thing when it comes to democracy. It hasn't fooled Russians into believing that Russian democracy is genuine, but it has fooled Russians into believing that Western democracy isn't genuine either. And then Russians go around thinking they've seen through the propaganda, because they know Russia isn't a democracy, but actually they've been had.

 

[Roger]

Thankfully.

You're ok with dropping cluster bombs on civilians. Ok


The NATO treaty isn't specific to Soviet Russia.


Blows my mind anybody can put these words together in a sentence in that order.


NATO has absolutely never given such an undertaking. It is written into the NATO charter that any European country can apply to join and would be accepted with unanimous consent. Such an undertaking would of resulted in an amendment to the charter, which I don't think has ever even been discussed, it is that much of a made up story.


NATO has had very little involvement in the Middle East, in the scheme of things. Not sure they've been involved in Syria at all, its a shame that the Syrian people were not members... Iraq was a training mission, not combat. Afghan is the only real military action NATO has been involved in after Serbia. The Sep 11 attack trigglered


It seems to be to me, surprisingly.

I won't even dignify the majority these comments with a response, apart from your mind being blown. If your brain was made out of TNT there wouldn't be enough to blow your wig off.

 

[goalscholes]

Bizarre how anyone thinks that Afghanistan wasn't a defensive operation.

NATO wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan without the US first having been attacked.

The Taliban offered safe harbour and had deep financial links with a terrorist organisation that had just attacked the US for a second time and this time killed thousands of people. They permitted terrorist training camps in their country. It was to all intensive purposes state sponsored terrorism. If action wasn't taken on Al Qaeda and those protecting them, clearly a number of NATO states would have been attacked again.

If responding to an attack on a NATO country (9/11) doesn't fall under self-defence, I'm not sure what does.

 

[Gehrman]

Bizarre how anyone thinks that Afghanistan wasn't a defensive operation.

NATO wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan without the US first having been attacked.

The Taliban offered safe harbour and had deep financial links with a terrorist organisation that had just attacked the US for a second time and this time killed thousands of people. They permitted terrorist training camps in their country. It was to all intensive purposes state sponsored terrorism. If action wasn't taken on Al Qaeda and those protecting them, clearly a number of NATO states would have been attacked again.

If responding to an attack on a NATO country (9/11) doesn't fall under self-defence, I'm not sure what does.

True, even if it became a cluster feck of a war.

 

[Stactix]

There is no reason for NATO to even exist other than to facilitate a US military presence in Europe.

???????? You are aware of whats happening in Ukraine right?

Take Nato away and you think Russia sits idly by peacefully? That's an opinion...
Russias war in Ukraine has nothing to do with Nato.

 

[NicolaSacco]

I won't even dignify the majority these comments with a response, apart from your mind being blown. If your brain was made out of TNT there wouldn't be enough to blow your wig off.

I might be wrong, but it looks like you've twice claimed that there was an agreement between Russia and NATO that it would not expand, and you've twice been told that no such agreement exists. But in neither case have you responded to that absolutely crucial issue. Do you fancy answering?

 

[NicolaSacco]

???????? You are aware of whats happening in Ukraine right?

Take Nato away and you think Russia sits idly by peacefully? That's an opinion...
Russias war in Ukraine has nothing to do with Nato.

It's such a deliberately obtuse argument. Nato exists to dissuade countries from invading them. The fact that a Nato member has not been invaded by Russia (whereas multiple non-nato countries have) surely points to the fact that Nato works, and is therefore necessary and justified.

 

[Gehrman]

@Roger just seems like a troll.

 

[onemanarmy]

@Roger just seems like a troll.

I think it's Paxi's second account.

Not a single war crime has been independently verified and before you jump in. Im not suggesting there hasn't been any.