5 ms·
That’s dangerously close to attacking a Nato country…
by bertil 5y ago
That’s dangerously close to attacking a Nato country…
- MattGaiser 5y agoI am curious whether it is deliberate to test what happens.
- bpodgursky 5y agoRussia seems to have run out of precision-guided munitions on the first day of the war, so I personally doubt it.
- fluidcruft 5y agoIs that true that they've run out of them or have they just shifted to not using them?
- Mikeb85 5y agoMaybe but it seems more like they're embarrassed by their lack of progress so are just shelling civilian areas to try force a surrender...
- bpodgursky 5y agoIt seems like if they could have taken out Ukraine's remaining TB2 drones, they would have.
- throwaway4good 5y agoFrom the article: "Ilves said the vessel might have struck a mine." My guess is that those mines were put out by Ukraine military to fend off the invasion, but the article doesn't say.
- okl 5y agoPreviously there were reports that the Russians forced the ship to cover them as "human shield": https://www.jpost.com/international/article-699109 https://www.jpost.com/international/article-699109
- whimsicalism 5y agoReports by the Ukrainian military. TBH, many of the direct reports put out by the Ukrainian military have later been retracted. For instance, Ukrainian military claimed that tank that drove over civilian car in Kyiv was Russian, but it was Ukrainian.
- allisdust 5y agoWait how did that happen. Was it a mistake on the tank crew's part?
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThe tank was maneuvering at high speed because it was engaged in a firefight and briefly lost control. Nobody was seriously injured.
- adolph 5y agoIIRC it looked like a BMP backing up into a roadway. If it was buttoned up then at best the vehicle commander might have a glimpse of a car. The driver never saw it, just felt a shift in vehicle level. If it was Ukrainian I don't see an excuse to fail to have a ground guide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_development
- zatertip 5y agoSource?
- okl 5y agoFrom what I've read the Russians said that they didn't use this type of vehicle in that location and it didn't carry their markings. But see my other comment to parent.
- muzika 5y agoFrom a video it’s obvious that it wasn’t due to a mine. Supposedly locals say the ship was parked there for days prior to being hit.
- 01100011 5y agoCould a mine have broken loose from its anchor and drifted into the ship?
- mtmail 5y agoWould the registration flag on the ship make a difference here? Many ships use the Panama flag. Being owned by an Estonian company isn't immediately obvious. (I haven't seen photos, maybe it was immediately obvious). That said of course no cargo ship should be attacked.
- lupire 5y agoIf it's a mine, it's impossible to control who it "attacks".
- thatwasunusual 5y agoIndeed. Russia will probably claim that the crew jumped the ship after setting off a bomb just to make a scene, though...
- lupire 5y agoPlease don't spread misinformation about a war.
- thatwasunusual 5y agoIt's not misinformation. It's not even information. It's a sarcastic comment.
- pests 5y agoHow is it sarcasitc?
- adventured 5y agoThe fantasy premise, with "probably" along with the "..." at the end, strongly suggests sarcasm with an obvious negative tone and negative being implied about Russia generally. It's exceptionally clear they were not spreading misinformation, they did not structure the comment as a factual statement.
- deeviant 5y agoThe ellipsis seemed like a dead giveaway.
- logicalmonster 5y agoA prediction is an opinion that can be right or wrong and does not qualify as misinformation in any form.
- shoulderfake 5y ago
- joshuajill 5y agoThat is a dangerous bunch of presumptions: 1. Presuming the boat was attacked. 2. Presuming it was the Russian (or I'm presuming you did lol) 3. Based on the previous two presuming it was not an accident, and 4. Presuming apologies and compensations would not be issued in case it was.
- alex_sf 5y agoIt definitely is a dangerous bunch of presumptions. We start investigating based on presumptions, though.
- teh_klev 5y ago> We start investigating based on presumptions No, you start investigating based on available facts.
- alex_sf 5y agoLike an active war in the region, Russian warships in the vicinity, a history of aggressive action towards neighboring states? Don't be pedant, especially when it doesn't even make sense.
- teh_klev 5y agoI'm not being a pedant. Presumptions and assumptions are how we got into this mess in the first place.
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoIt's also a sign we are through the looking glass and into a non-Geneva world again, because this is even uglier than Saddam's human shield, and comparable to the (ultimately unprovable but plausible) allegation that the British allowed the RMS Lusitania to remain at risk of U-boat attack in order to drag the USA into WW1.
- pseudo0 5y agoIt is undisputed that the British were using the Lusitania to transport war munitions and thus American passengers were effectively human shields. Whether the British allowed the Lusitania to remain at risk or not, they were putting neutral civilian lives in peril through that conduct.
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoWell I think that bit about the mixed cargo might sort of be a retrospective projection onto a common mixed use of a liner, even in wartime. I don't think one can say with any certainty that other liners did not do this. Post-Lusitania, line operators might have refused it as a general rule, but those were early days of submarine warfare. I do think (as a Brit) that the argument they were deliberately left unprotected from U-boats has significant credibility; I would not be at all surprised. I am not a pacifist at this stage of my life, but I am regularly surprised at what my fellow Brits in particular do not know about our military history. Then again, in this country, schoolkids don't generally study the First World War until they are of an age where the boys among them would have been illicitly signing up for it, and by that age, studying history is optional.