3 ms·

>How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? You can compare this "mass destruction" with the Grozny's

by fuoqi 5y ago

>How do you square that with the mass destruction of Ukrainian cities, including by aircraft bombing? You can compare this "mass destruction" with the Grozny's state after the second Chechen war or, if you want a more recent example, with Mosul and Hudaydah.

jacquesm 5y ago
You missed the 'after' bit in your own comment.
hkpack 5y ago
It is not that different. Look up for example photos from Mariupol or Kharkiv and see for yourself. Smaller cities are being destroyed even more. City of Volnovaha for example is destroyed to the ground. The biggest difference is that the cities are much bigger, so it takes more time to completely level them.
ashwagary 5y ago
You do realize all of this makes a lot more sense if you grant the Russian army one simple thing, that they actually aren't interested in harming civilians in the grand scheme of this operation. Constant aerial bombardment and complete immediate domination would massively increase the civilian casualty count and its clear from Crimea, Odessa, and other cities in the Donbas region, that Russians have a large Ukrainian support base that are anti-banderite and consider Zelensky's cooperation with Nazi groups a betrayal. Btw, applying Occam's razor here does not automatically make one a Putin supporter regardless of what some western media outlets might claim. Sad that many smart people voluntarily or involuntarily turn their brains off when jingoism is back in vogue.
- stavros 5y ago
  > You do realize all of this makes a lot more sense if you grant the Russian army one simple thing, that they actually aren't interested in harming civilians in the grand scheme of this operation. For someone not interested in harming civilians, they're doing an amazing job at it. > Btw, applying Occam's razor here does not automatically make one a Putin supporter Certainly not, but applying Occam's Razor to such a trivially debunked argument might?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    > For someone not interested in harming civilians, they're doing an amazing job at it. I suspect that you have little reference about how many civilians are killed during conflicts. If Russia really wanted to kill civilians you would see tens of thousands of dead civilians already.
    - stavros 5y ago
      I mean, they have nukes, if they really wanted to kill civilians I'd see the entire Ukraine population dead. It's a gradient, not a binary, isn't it.
      - ashwagary 5y ago
        >if they really wanted to kill civilians I'd see the entire Ukraine population dead. It's a gradient, not a binary, isn't it. Please do post your sources for civilian casualty counts so we can better understand this gradient. My understanding is conflicts in population centers of similar size and density elsewhere in the world (parts of Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan), the civilian casualty counts are much higher than we are seeing in Ukraine.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Not to put too fine a point on it but: this war is far from over and you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith, either someone posts their sources and you will attack them or they won't, either case 'you win'. But it doesn't contribute at all.
        ashwagary 5y ago
        >you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. They are not exact but the range is worth comparing. >Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith. It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Unlike the supposed "large Ukrainian support base" for being invaded which has spectacularly failed to manifest itself in the current conflict, we have plenty of evidence that Russia is systematically levelling cities within range of its ground-based artillery. It's not "applying Occam's razor" to insist that the reason Russia failed to take out the Ukrainian air force on day one and didn't start levelling cities in earnest until its ground based units were in range is due to Ukrainian enthusiasm for being invaded. The simplest possible explanation for Russia flying few air sorties doesn't involve Ukrainian attitudes towards the Azov battalion, it simply requires looking at their aircraft attrition rate.
- detaro 5y ago
  The reports of them firing after fleeing civilians and more or less executing civilians in the streets makes it kind of hard to grant them that, even if one assumes not all of those are true.

by fuoqi 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

You missed the 'after' bit in your own comment.

hkpack 5y ago

It is not that different. Look up for example photos from Mariupol or Kharkiv and see for yourself. Smaller cities are being destroyed even more. City of Volnovaha for example is destroyed to the ground. The biggest difference is that the cities are much bigger, so it takes more time to completely level them.

ashwagary 5y ago

You do realize all of this makes a lot more sense if you grant the Russian army one simple thing, that they actually aren't interested in harming civilians in the grand scheme of this operation. Constant aerial bombardment and complete immediate domination would massively increase the civilian casualty count and its clear from Crimea, Odessa, and other cities in the Donbas region, that Russians have a large Ukrainian support base that are anti-banderite and consider Zelensky's cooperation with Nazi groups a betrayal. Btw, applying Occam's razor here does not automatically make one a Putin supporter regardless of what some western media outlets might claim. Sad that many smart people voluntarily or involuntarily turn their brains off when jingoism is back in vogue.

stavros 5y ago
> You do realize all of this makes a lot more sense if you grant the Russian army one simple thing, that they actually aren't interested in harming civilians in the grand scheme of this operation. For someone not interested in harming civilians, they're doing an amazing job at it. > Btw, applying Occam's razor here does not automatically make one a Putin supporter Certainly not, but applying Occam's Razor to such a trivially debunked argument might?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dotancohen 5y ago
  > For someone not interested in harming civilians, they're doing an amazing job at it. I suspect that you have little reference about how many civilians are killed during conflicts. If Russia really wanted to kill civilians you would see tens of thousands of dead civilians already.
  - stavros 5y ago
    I mean, they have nukes, if they really wanted to kill civilians I'd see the entire Ukraine population dead. It's a gradient, not a binary, isn't it.
    - ashwagary 5y ago
      >if they really wanted to kill civilians I'd see the entire Ukraine population dead. It's a gradient, not a binary, isn't it. Please do post your sources for civilian casualty counts so we can better understand this gradient. My understanding is conflicts in population centers of similar size and density elsewhere in the world (parts of Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan), the civilian casualty counts are much higher than we are seeing in Ukraine.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Not to put too fine a point on it but: this war is far from over and you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith, either someone posts their sources and you will attack them or they won't, either case 'you win'. But it doesn't contribute at all.
        ashwagary 5y ago
        >you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. They are not exact but the range is worth comparing. >Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith. It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse.
notahacker 5y ago
Unlike the supposed "large Ukrainian support base" for being invaded which has spectacularly failed to manifest itself in the current conflict, we have plenty of evidence that Russia is systematically levelling cities within range of its ground-based artillery. It's not "applying Occam's razor" to insist that the reason Russia failed to take out the Ukrainian air force on day one and didn't start levelling cities in earnest until its ground based units were in range is due to Ukrainian enthusiasm for being invaded. The simplest possible explanation for Russia flying few air sorties doesn't involve Ukrainian attitudes towards the Azov battalion, it simply requires looking at their aircraft attrition rate.
detaro 5y ago
The reports of them firing after fleeing civilians and more or less executing civilians in the streets makes it kind of hard to grant them that, even if one assumes not all of those are true.