Russia Invades Ukraine

[zombux]

5 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

That said, if Putin uses any sort of weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons...the second an atom of radiation enters NATO territory, it will be a very brief but devasting WWIII.

at that point, the whole Russia will be turned into glass and the russian leadership knows that very well.

I don't think they are THAT insane to get themselves destroyed completely, and if their president is insane, there are others in the command chain who are not. 

I don't think this threat is realistic at all.

[-Jaro-]

15 hours ago, Dazey said:

Since Trump wanted to dissolve NATO we’d probably just have seen Putin take Ukraine and move on. 

Russia (not Putin himself, because one man cannot do all this...) would be in Poland, and Baltic states by now in that case...

Edited March 27, 2022 by -Jaro-

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

12 hours ago, zombux said:

at that point, the whole Russia will be turned into glass and the russian leadership knows that very well.

I don't think they are THAT insane to get themselves destroyed completely, and if their president is insane, there are others in the command chain who are not. 

I don't think this threat is realistic at all.

I hope so because I don't trust what Putin will do next? He seems dead set on destroying Ukraine if they don't join Russia again.

Seeing all those people leaving their country and crying for their losses is heartbreaking and makes me angry too. What nerve to invade a country and kill so many innocent people on both sides.  Putin is 70 years old, does he really think he has time to destroy all in his path and have time to enjoy his victories? I hope and pray he doesn't.

Meanwhile, everytime we see Ukraine, more death and destruction. It makes me sick.

[grouse]

On 3/26/2022 at 11:40 AM, jamillos said:

Ain't gonna click, sorry. There's this thing called mental hygiene. Enuff z nuff. 

I agree with you, however I'll give you this. Ignorance is bliss and civilization is but a thin veneer.

Edited March 27, 2022 by grouse

[jamillos]

7 hours ago, grouse said:

I agree with you, however I'll give you this. Ignorance is bliss and civilization is but a thin veneer.

Definitely, but then, not clicking on every thing concerning a given issue is not ignorance, that'd be too black or white.  

Anyway, on topic: that Russian minister of war was seen again. Too bad, I thought they'd been fighting backstage or something. Assassination attempts, conspiracies etc. 

[zombux]

there's a video circulating where ukrainian soldiers are torturing russian POWs (shooting their kneecaps).

the video has stirred considerable noise and there are serious indications that it has been staged by russians, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Cnn said Putin has hired men to kill President Z.

I thought there was a law or something that said no one can kill the leaders of a country? Guess Putin didn't get the memo or doesn't give a shit just like the rest of the stuff anyone is saying.

This whole war is becoming a joke on Ukraine and the rest of the world because Putin is doing what he wants and getting what he wants.

And it doesn't matter how many names Biden calls Putin (butcher) it doesn't affect him at all. 

And meanwhile the number of kids killed now is over 2000.

[downzy]

On 3/25/2022 at 6:50 PM, SoulMonster said:

Yes, when I suggest that Russia isn't "going all-in" with their war machinery but to some extent try to prevent civilian targets and casualties, in other words showing restraint, then that also implies that there are examples when they aren't doing that, where they are showing very little restraint. Mariupol is an obvious example of much more ruthless warfare, which again suggests that this is a more important target for them. The fact that more civilians are now dying could be a consequence of Russia showing less restraints and feel "forced" to be more brutal to force the outcome they are looking for. It has gone from an attempted blitz war to a war of attrition. 

Again, the concept of restraint can mean several things.  By your definition every country has shown restraint.  Even Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons to any great extent (though there were a few exceptions) within areas of combat. 

My issue with the idea that Russia is showing restraint because it isn't using all the destructive power at its disposal is that it somehow ignores all the ways in which it has shown zero restraint against civilians and non-military targets.  

On 3/25/2022 at 6:50 PM, SoulMonster said:

Well, "speeding" is a binary thing, you either are speeding or you aren't (the extent to which you are speeding is not binary). The same goes for showing restraint, you either are or you aren't (and the extent to which you show restrain can vary). I would argue that the fact that they aren't going all-in suggests they are showing some restraint.

But you can always speed more.  You can always rape and pillage more.  You can always destroy more residential neighbourhoods or target more civilians.  Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia didn't employ chemical or biological weapons when it flattened Grozny or went after Assad's enemies in Aleppo.  Are you going to argue then that Russia was showing restraint in Syria or Chechnya?

On 3/25/2022 at 6:50 PM, SoulMonster said:

Then I would argue that unless the targeting of civilians has become Russia's strategy of war and is not isolated to certain regions (like mostly Mariupol)

It's not limited to just Mariupol.  Most of the smaller towns north of Kiev have been flattened.  Many citizens trying to use the green or human corridors have been targeted all over the country.  Schools and hospitals have been destroyed in many parts of central and eastern Ukraine.  

On 3/25/2022 at 6:50 PM, SoulMonster said:

there isn't plenty of examples where civilian targets hasn't been targeted (which there are plenty of), then that is also evidence of restraint.

Like where?  Where has Russia had the capacity to limit its military force against civilian areas but chosen not to?  

 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Well, all the news channels said Russian Troops are moving away from the capital and might just go back to the east and south of Ukraine.

Z and P are supposed to talk. I hope President Z doesn't eat or drink anything, but wanna bet President Z will meet Putin's demands if he stays in power and Putin just takes part of Ukraine.

Guess we'll find out. I don't know what else President Z can do to end this horror since Putin won't be stopped no matter what the US and others do.

[Blackstar]

On 3/28/2022 at 9:18 AM, zombux said:

there's a video circulating where ukrainian soldiers are torturing russian POWs (shooting their kneecaps).

the video has stirred considerable noise and there are serious indications that it has been staged by russians, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

The BBC has been investigating it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/60907259

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

"The Nazis showed restraint in the concentration camps because they didn't bomb them."

Weird pedantic hill to die on.

Not what I said.

In combat there were only a few instances where they used chemical weapons against Allied forces.  

[StrangerInThisTown]

One thing I read is that the "Asov" regiment is a neo-nazi force which is actually incorporated into the official ukrainian millitary force, and it is one of the last remaining units resisting the russians in Mariupol. Interesting from a western perspective, because it is bad guys battling bad guys, from "our" perspective. Russia invading Ukraine doesn't mean Ukraine didn't have a nazi problem before, especially if you look at the media reports about this subject before the invasion. Quite a sudden shift, a "silencing" if you will, about this.

Edited March 30, 2022 by StrangerInThisTown

[StrangerInThisTown]

16 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

If that's true it is rather awkward, isn't it? Hopefully they survive and grow into having better beliefs.

One thing it shows is that you really have to dig a bit to find unbiased reporting about the war. I haven't heard one word said about this in german media, which seem to have fallen prey to ukrainian propaganda instead of reporting from a neutral, truthful standpoint. They only seem interested in shaking their fist angrily at the russians.

Edited March 30, 2022 by StrangerInThisTown

[SoulMonster]

10 hours ago, downzy said:

Again, the concept of restraint can mean several things.  By your definition every country has shown restraint.  Even Nazi Germany didn't use chemical weapons to any great extent (though there were a few exceptions) within areas of combat. 

My issue with the idea that Russia is showing restraint because it isn't using all the destructive power at its disposal is that it somehow ignores all the ways in which it has shown zero restraint against civilians and non-military targets.  

But you can always speed more.  You can always rape and pillage more.  You can always destroy more residential neighbourhoods or target more civilians.  Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but Russia didn't employ chemical or biological weapons when it flattened Grozny or went after Assad's enemies in Aleppo.  Are you going to argue then that Russia was showing restraint in Syria or Chechnya?

It's not limited to just Mariupol.  Most of the smaller towns north of Kiev have been flattened.  Many citizens trying to use the green or human corridors have been targeted all over the country.  Schools and hospitals have been destroyed in many parts of central and eastern Ukraine.  

Like where?  Where has Russia had the capacity to limit its military force against civilian areas but chosen not to?  

When arguing that Russia is showing restraint, that is certainly in comparison to what they could have done. As for chemical weapons, there are claims that Russia used them in both Chechnya and Syria (Harvard analyst assesses chemical weapon threat posed by Russia – Harvard Gazette), although I am not sure that is entirely correct. It is certainly disputed. Anyway, the fear of them using chemical weapons is certainly there, it is not exactly unheard of to use chemical weapons even in modern warfare, unfortunately, and Russia could if they would but have decided not to. Restraint? I would say so.

But more importantly, it is Russia's decision to limit airstrikes and rockets against civilian targets, to mostly focus on strategic, military targets, and their decision to only deploy a smaller amount of their combined massive military forces, that are evidence of restraint. Russia could have shelled so much more, over so many more targets, than what they have done. Kiev, for instance, has been mostly spared in its entirety, although Russia apparently has the capacity to devastate it, too, as most other cities in Ukraine. They don't though, and that's restraint.  

It is only recently, with the war not going in their director, that Russia has resorted to more brutal warfare (like in Mariupol) and has started moving more troops into the area (although the latest news if, of course, that they will move forces away from the northern parts of Ukraine and focus on the eastern parts instead - yay!). 

So yeah, Russia has been showing restraint. 

[zombux]

they are only "showing restraint" because UA destroys their armies so much that they have serious troubles continuing the war operations. it's not that ruZZians become more mellow, it's that they are forced so. fuck them and their blatant lies.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, zombux said:

they are only "showing restraint" because UA destroys their armies so much that they have serious troubles continuing the war operations. it's not that ruZZians become more mellow, it's that they are forced so. fuck them and their blatant lies.

It's definitely a combination. The resolve and effectiveness of the Ukraine's army has been admirable and this definitely caused huge problems for Russia to effectively use their forces. Still, they could have put in much more troops (granted, initially Russia thought only 170-200k soldiers would be sufficient) and done a lot more long-range shelling than what they have. What has happened in Mariupol really shows what they are capable of when they are not shoring restraint, and fortunately they have not taken that approach to most parts of Ukraine. They might be forced to, though, if they keep failing. And if you look at newspaper coverage it is a recurring theme how the war may get more brutal as it drags on and Russia will feel they have no other choice, in other words, less restraint.

[lilacmess]

9 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

One thing it shows is that you really have to dig a bit to find unbiased reporting about the war. I haven't heard one word said about this in german media, which seem to have fallen prey to ukrainian propaganda instead of reporting from a neutral, truthful standpoint. They only seem interested in shaking their fist angrily at the russians.

I have to agree with this. Although I'm against Putin and most definitely against this war, I would wish for a more balanced and unbiased reporting.

I'm not an expert in foreign politics, but just from a human standpoint this war is terribly sad. It also worries me that sometimes the discussion seems to be simplified as in bad Russians (who are we talking about?) and good Ukrainans (some comments verging on racism) and not consider the complex realities and the people truely responsible.

There was a big charity event at my kids school to collect money for refugies which I wholeheartly approve of, but they were expecting the kids to wear the colours of the Ukrainian flag, which seems absurd and wrong to me. 

I'm trying hard to express myself eloquently here as English isn't my first language. 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by lilacmess

[downzy]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

But more importantly, it is Russia's decision to limit airstrikes and rockets against civilian targets, to mostly focus on strategic, military targets, and their decision to only deploy a smaller amount of their combined massive military forces, that are evidence of restraint.

There was evidence of this restraint in the first week of the invasion, but since things have not been going well, it's extremely difficult to say that such restraint is still present.  How many schools, hospitals, shopping malls, residential neighbourhoods, apartment buildings, and infrastructure systems have to be targeted and destroyed before this notion of targeting only military installations is discarded?

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Russia could have shelled so much more, over so many more targets,

Could it have?  It seems to me the cities that have been spared so far have done so because of limits imposed by the Ukraine's military to Russia's impose that level of destruction.

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It is only recently, with the war not going in their director, that Russia has resorted to more brutal warfare (like in Mariupol) and has started moving more troops into the area (although the latest news if, of course, that they will move forces away from the northern parts of Ukraine and focus on the eastern parts instead - yay!). 

We'll see.  Russia was telling the world only a day or two before the invasion that they weren't going to invade; that they were going to start drawing down forces.

And it's not just Mariupol.  Many small towns and villages between the Belarus and Kiev have been utterly flattened and destroyed.  Watch what the Russian military has done in Kharkiv:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/kharkiv-mayor-it-s-not-just-a-war-this-is-a-massacre-136538181801

The mayor says the city looks more like a massacre than a product of a limited military operation.

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Still, they could have put in much more troops (granted, initially Russia thought only 170-200k soldiers would be sufficient

Russia has a standing army of around 800k.  Sending  more troops to Ukraine would make defending the rest of its large territory impossible.  

[downzy]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

fortunately they have not taken that approach to most parts of Ukraine.

Again, not true.

[zombux]

25 minutes ago, downzy said:

And it's not just Mariupol. 

Chernigiv is getting very similar "denazification" treatment at the moment.

[SoulMonster]

34 minutes ago, downzy said:

There was evidence of this restraint in the first week of the invasion, but since things have not been going well, it's extremely difficult to say that such restraint is still present.  How many schools, hospitals, shopping malls, residential neighbourhoods, apartment buildings, and infrastructure systems have to be targeted and destroyed before this notion of targeting only military installations is discarded?

Could it have?  It seems to me the cities that have been spared so far have done so because of limits imposed by the Ukraine's military to Russia's impose that level of destruction.

We'll see.  Russia was telling the world only a day or two before the invasion that they weren't going to invade; that they were going to start drawing down forces.

And it's not just Mariupol.  Many small towns and villages between the Belarus and Kiev have been utterly flattened and destroyed.  Watch what the Russian military has done in Kharkiv:

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/kharkiv-mayor-it-s-not-just-a-war-this-is-a-massacre-136538181801

The mayor says the city looks more like a massacre than a product of a limited military operation.

Russia has a standing army of around 800k.  Sending  more troops to Ukraine would make defending the rest of its large territory impossible.  

I haven't said they are targeting only military installations. I distinctly wrote " to limit airstrikes and rockets against civilian targets, to mostly focus on strategic, military targets". 

Well, it might seem to you that the sole reason why "cities that have been spared so far have done so because of limits imposed by the Ukraine's military to Russia's impose that level of destruction" but I would say it is both Ukraine's efforts and the fact that Russia hasn't put to use all it's military might...yet. And we might argue back on forth on this, but I trust the experts quoted in that Newsweek article and it aligns with the fact that most Ukrainian cities have seen very little shelling and that Kiev, despite having Russian forces nearby, has so far been mostly spared while it should have been easy for Russia to employ much more short-and long distance rockets (like Grad). To quote that Newsweek article, "the United States flew more sorties and delivered more weapons in the first day of the 2003 Iraq war" than Russia had done per March 9. 

As for whether Russia could have sent more troops to Ukraine. Of course. At first they thought they 170-200k would be sufficient, now they have realized it isn't and is sending more, despite this making them more vulnerable elsewhere. A war is always about defining objectives and then allocating enough resources to achieve them. 

[SoulMonster]

40 minutes ago, downzy said:

Again, not true.

You are saying that Russia has taken the same approach as they have done to Mariupol to most of Ukraine? 

[zombux]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

You are saying that Russia has taken the same approach as they have done to Mariupol to most of Ukraine? 

yes, absolutely.

[downzy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

You are saying that Russia has taken the same approach as they have done to Mariupol to most of Ukraine? 

Not to the entire Ukraine, because they're not in a position to do so.  But in areas where their forces are positioned to do so, we see too many non-military targets destroyed and civilians killed to justify any notion that Russia is showing any real level of restraint as it matters to those living in those areas.  

[SoulMonster]

Just now, downzy said:

Not to the entire Ukraine, because they're not in a position to do so. 

But in most parts of Ukraine? Here's what I wrote;

"What has happened in Mariupol really shows what they are capable of when they are not shoring restraint, and fortunately they have not taken that approach to most parts of Ukraine."

And you then said the bold parts were not true.