3 ms·

You know, there's information war on both sides, so all your assertions might have to be nuanced. And even if the facts are 100% true, it doesn't mean automati

You know, there's information war on both sides, so all your assertions might have to be nuanced. And even if the facts are 100% true, it doesn't mean automatically that they want terror. They might just be helpless about it (doesn't excuse it of course).

glogla 5y ago
I think Russian actions in Chechnya, Syria and Ukraine and USSR actions everywhere they went are very good proof they want terror. I mean how do you accidentally destroy maternity ward of a hospital? How likely is that to be an accident and opposed to deliberate terror bombing? And then there's the kidnapping of Ukrainian officials and replacing them with collaborants. That is deliberate terror tactics as well. Watching them in action makes me thing their approach didn't really change since their Katyn days. But I live in a place Russians visited in 1968 leaving in the 90's so you could say I'm biased.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Russian-caused war casualties have indeed consistently been huge compared to similar NATO-caused wars. On the other hand, specific incidents do happen quite similarly. NATO or the USA have bombed red cross hospitals, medicine factories, media outlets and others claiming that they were being used as human shield and so on. The largest difference is scale (well, and perception in the media, though that is to be expected). The US may have bombed 1 or 2 hospitals in, say, Afghanistan, while the Russians seem to be on track for bombing 10 or more as this war drags on.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  > I mean how do you accidentally destroy maternity ward of a hospital? An army that uses un-ecrypted radio communicatuon and pins artillery targets on google maps labelled as 'farm' probably doesn't have the best targeting. US has far better targetting, and they bomb two weddings or a funerals a year. What we do know for sure two facts: the demoralised, corrupt and lying system goes all the day through soldiers, officers, generals, there is probably no accountability. And that putin came to power by blowing up apartment blocks while his own people were asleep in them, so he is largely capable of anything
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I mean how do you accidentally destroy maternity ward of a hospital? That's actually fairly easy without precision munitions or with bad targeting info. Stuff like that happens in war sometimes. What makes it clear that it is not just that is (1) the frequency of repetitions, and (2) the explanations. In Mariupol, which was a maternity and children's hospital, not the maternity ward of a hospital, that was destroyed, Russia first claimed they didn't do it at all and that it was Ukrainian propaganda, and that they probably did it to themselves, the claimed they (Russia) did attack it intentionally but that it had not been used as a hospital for years and was an Azov Battalion base and the women and children shown as victims were crisis actors, then finally (last story I heard) claimed they didn't know what happened and were investigating the incident.

glogla 5y ago

I think Russian actions in Chechnya, Syria and Ukraine and USSR actions everywhere they went are very good proof they want terror. I mean how do you accidentally destroy maternity ward of a hospital? How likely is that to be an accident and opposed to deliberate terror bombing? And then there's the kidnapping of Ukrainian officials and replacing them with collaborants. That is deliberate terror tactics as well. Watching them in action makes me thing their approach didn't really change since their Katyn days. But I live in a place Russians visited in 1968 leaving in the 90's so you could say I'm biased.

tsimionescu 5y ago
Russian-caused war casualties have indeed consistently been huge compared to similar NATO-caused wars. On the other hand, specific incidents do happen quite similarly. NATO or the USA have bombed red cross hospitals, medicine factories, media outlets and others claiming that they were being used as human shield and so on. The largest difference is scale (well, and perception in the media, though that is to be expected). The US may have bombed 1 or 2 hospitals in, say, Afghanistan, while the Russians seem to be on track for bombing 10 or more as this war drags on.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> I mean how do you accidentally destroy maternity ward of a hospital? An army that uses un-ecrypted radio communicatuon and pins artillery targets on google maps labelled as 'farm' probably doesn't have the best targeting. US has far better targetting, and they bomb two weddings or a funerals a year. What we do know for sure two facts: the demoralised, corrupt and lying system goes all the day through soldiers, officers, generals, there is probably no accountability. And that putin came to power by blowing up apartment blocks while his own people were asleep in them, so he is largely capable of anything
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I mean how do you accidentally destroy maternity ward of a hospital? That's actually fairly easy without precision munitions or with bad targeting info. Stuff like that happens in war sometimes. What makes it clear that it is not just that is (1) the frequency of repetitions, and (2) the explanations. In Mariupol, which was a maternity and children's hospital, not the maternity ward of a hospital, that was destroyed, Russia first claimed they didn't do it at all and that it was Ukrainian propaganda, and that they probably did it to themselves, the claimed they (Russia) did attack it intentionally but that it had not been used as a hospital for years and was an Azov Battalion base and the women and children shown as victims were crisis actors, then finally (last story I heard) claimed they didn't know what happened and were investigating the incident.