8 ms·

The situation in that city is beyond description. The international community should really pay attention https://mobile.twitter.com/christogrozev/status/15042

by jdrc 5y ago

The situation in that city is beyond description. The international community should really pay attention https://mobile.twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1504213961633378304 https://mobile.twitter.com/christogrozev/status/150421396163...

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I don't think the international community is not paying attention. "Unwilling to go to direct war against Russia" is not the same as ignoring it.
- rasz 5y ago
  "Unwilling to go to direct war against Putin" means Putin can nibble at Europe one country at a time. "cant risk WW3 over Ukraine" "cant risk WW3 over Poland" "cant risk WW3 over Latvia" "cant risk WW3 over Estonia" etc, etc ...
  - archagon 5y ago
    The realpolitik of the modern world is that you can't mess too much with any nuclear nation, no matter how much it sucks. All you can do is get your own nukes and make the red lines very clear, and cut off trading and diplomatic ties to the extent it won't be treated as a declaration of war. Unfortunately, the decision of x vs. total nuclear annihilation is very heavily weighed towards x, no matter what that x may be. I'm starting to feel that our sense of morality is not well adapted to a world where a despot can end civilization with the push of a button.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    The situation is closer to 1914 than 1939. And I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the escalation that led to the first world was a colossal mistake
    - danieljacksonno 5y ago
      I vehemently disagree. 1914 saw large imperialist empires on both sides. There were no real "good guys" in that war, as both sides were looking to either keep and consolidate power over colonial empires (the Entente) or break up the colonial empires to get some for themselves (the Germans and Austrians). 1939 saw an ambitious despot attack democracies to brutally subjugate them. That is also what we are seeing now.
      - mardifoufs 5y ago
        It literally started with the Austrian empire invading semi recently independant Serbia for bullshit reasons. Yes I guess we can see how russia is evil now. And when we look back at ww1 we think that the situation Was much more ambiguous with tons factors and motivations from all sides. but that's hindsight! if you go back to 100 years ago that was exactly how the french or the russians were justifying the war. "The evil Austrians were trying to subjugate our slav brothers and we need to save them". The Austrians will probably not stop at serbia, and take over the balkan. Yet, we can still see that saving the Serbs was not worth the carnage of the great war. My point here isn't that russia will be proven right in the future. Its that war always sounds like a good solution, or even the only solution to avoid something worse. But we have to avoid getting into that same cycle over and over again, Especially when we are in a nuclear world. By the way, the comparison with 1939 Germany is completely spurious imo. Germany did not attack Poland because it was a democracy, had already purged it's own Jewish population, had started gassing the disabled and mentally ill, had already eaten 2 medium-sized countries in a year, was in an offensive pact with italy, openly planned to engage in ethnic cleansing... If you think that is comparable to the current situation then all nuance has been lost and all wars are comparable to ww2. That ww2 was morally unambiguous makes it very convenient to use and project ourselves as the equivalent of the allies in 1939 and call for military action while the opposite is true for the first war. But the comparison is still baseless beyond the war rhetoric
  - tim333 5y ago
    It's not quite like that though. In Ukraine Putin's already lost 466 tanks, 95 planes, 5 generals, a few thousand troops depending on how you define that one and so on. And that's in three weeks - not sure how long they can keep it up. Also the west seems to be increasing support a bit - I think there are better surface to air missiles and switchblades on the way. We may be a week or two from "culmination point" when the strength of the Ukrainian forces exceeds that of the Russian ones. And then those other countries are NATO and attacking them would be quite a different kettle of fish. Those truck convoys probably would have been smoking ruins within a day if NATO air forces had had a go.
    - rasz 5y ago
      You are high on twitter propaganda. Loses are meaningless to Putin as long as objectives are completed. Mariupol is done, surrounded and in ruins. Messages showed up suggesting Russians started sending people to gulags/concentration camps https://twitter.com/timesobs1/status/1505258913398235145 https://twitter.com/timesobs1/status/1505258913398235145 My country is next on the list together with other Baltic nations. This current inaction is identical to start of WW2 with everyone paranoid about their own nose and "unnecessary escalation". We have maybe 2-3 weeks to sent troops into UKR before its too late. If we dont help Ukraine its a sign NATO wont intervene beyond sending arms and "stay strong" prayers when our time comes. Another Yalta is on the table, after all why should we risk Nuclear war if Putin gives us a word he will stop at German border, right? :(
- Giorgi 5y ago
  Unwilling to go to direct war against Russia by ignoring it.
- thow16161 5y ago
  It works out to approximately the same thing in terms of the outcome of the invasion.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Not pushing the world really close to a nuclear war also counts, in the eyes of those who think that a direct involvement of NATO would trigger the MAD scenario.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Ukraine would be in substantially worse straits if NATO hadn't been helping with training the last few years, and providing thousands upon thousands of modern antitank and antiair missiles. I don't think Ukraine would benefit from Russia and NATO coming to blows.
    - crateless 5y ago
      Are we now admitting that NATO was in Ukraine? I thought that was verboten.
      - WJW 5y ago
        NATO is not "in" Ukraine with troops, they are supplying weapons to Ukraine. This is not exactly a secret, it's all over the news.
        kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        NATO soldiers have been conducting training operations in Ukraine since the Crimea takeover.
        yyyk 5y ago
        I recall these soldiers were evacuated just before the war. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/12/uk-troops-sent-to-help-train-ukrainian-army-to-leave-country-this-weekend https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/12/uk-troops-se...
- yyyk 5y ago
  There's much more the international community could do even without direct war. It should be possible to station troops in the West of country, thus freeing up Ukrainians to fight. If Putin wishes to attack them, than he'll be the one escalating. It would be not too different than Idlib, which hasn't led to massive war, with the exception the government will have invited these troops.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Yes exactly where you want to be is sitting there watching the ICBMs fly saying "well I wasn't the one to escalate so."
    - yyyk 5y ago
      Sure, we should act according to Putin's whims. So if Putin says 'do not help Ukraine or else' we stay. If Putin invades the Baltics, well, no ICBMs, right. If Putin nukes Ukraine we do nothing (no ICBMs right?). Can't we just surrender the world to him to stop these ICBMs? Good thing we didn't have this attitude during the Cold War. We can help, and we should not going to listen to a non-ultimatum which hasn't been even given.
      - giraffe_lady 5y ago
        We had exactly this attitude during the cold war lol. Nato's actions here are absolutely consistent with the principles of deterrence worked out during the cold war. There's a reason there were endless proxy wars, guerrilla trainings, and secret arms supplying back then. Neither side would risk a direct conflict with the other, so they did all that instead. You'll notice that's the exact same toolbox they're drawing on now. They didn't invent this shit for putin.
      - bluehorseray 5y ago
        That's basically the predicament the entire world has been in ever since the first nuke was developed. It's just that no nuclear power has quite passed a line that another nuclear power isn't willing to accept. If what you said above were to happen we're basically in uncharted territory. I'd step out on a limb and say maybe the best move is to let the aggressors take whatever they want, nobody really knows.
itronitron 5y ago
Israel has a team specifically trained in recovering people from destroyed buildings. Hopefully they can send their team to Mariupol >> https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2021/07/26/surfside-condo-collapse-how-israeli-team-found-majority-victims/8021350002/ https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2021/07/26/surfside-...
- colpabar 5y ago
  - gotts 5y ago
    It probably does but I never heard Israeli forces specifically targeted civilian bomb shelters, hospitals and schools.
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      just civilian housing
      - xdennis 5y ago
        Which are used for military purposes, and they always give warnings to avoid loss of life.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Is Israel currently blowing up Mariupol and murdering innocent people there? Is there new news that the West is keeping from us? /s Because we're currently talking about Mariupol here...
- jdrc 5y ago
  The city is surrounded and cut off from electric/water
- golemiprague 5y ago

by jdrc 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I don't think the international community is not paying attention. "Unwilling to go to direct war against Russia" is not the same as ignoring it.

rasz 5y ago
"Unwilling to go to direct war against Putin" means Putin can nibble at Europe one country at a time. "cant risk WW3 over Ukraine" "cant risk WW3 over Poland" "cant risk WW3 over Latvia" "cant risk WW3 over Estonia" etc, etc ...
- archagon 5y ago
  The realpolitik of the modern world is that you can't mess too much with any nuclear nation, no matter how much it sucks. All you can do is get your own nukes and make the red lines very clear, and cut off trading and diplomatic ties to the extent it won't be treated as a declaration of war. Unfortunately, the decision of x vs. total nuclear annihilation is very heavily weighed towards x, no matter what that x may be. I'm starting to feel that our sense of morality is not well adapted to a world where a despot can end civilization with the push of a button.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  The situation is closer to 1914 than 1939. And I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the escalation that led to the first world was a colossal mistake
  - danieljacksonno 5y ago
    I vehemently disagree. 1914 saw large imperialist empires on both sides. There were no real "good guys" in that war, as both sides were looking to either keep and consolidate power over colonial empires (the Entente) or break up the colonial empires to get some for themselves (the Germans and Austrians). 1939 saw an ambitious despot attack democracies to brutally subjugate them. That is also what we are seeing now.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      It literally started with the Austrian empire invading semi recently independant Serbia for bullshit reasons. Yes I guess we can see how russia is evil now. And when we look back at ww1 we think that the situation Was much more ambiguous with tons factors and motivations from all sides. but that's hindsight! if you go back to 100 years ago that was exactly how the french or the russians were justifying the war. "The evil Austrians were trying to subjugate our slav brothers and we need to save them". The Austrians will probably not stop at serbia, and take over the balkan. Yet, we can still see that saving the Serbs was not worth the carnage of the great war. My point here isn't that russia will be proven right in the future. Its that war always sounds like a good solution, or even the only solution to avoid something worse. But we have to avoid getting into that same cycle over and over again, Especially when we are in a nuclear world. By the way, the comparison with 1939 Germany is completely spurious imo. Germany did not attack Poland because it was a democracy, had already purged it's own Jewish population, had started gassing the disabled and mentally ill, had already eaten 2 medium-sized countries in a year, was in an offensive pact with italy, openly planned to engage in ethnic cleansing... If you think that is comparable to the current situation then all nuance has been lost and all wars are comparable to ww2. That ww2 was morally unambiguous makes it very convenient to use and project ourselves as the equivalent of the allies in 1939 and call for military action while the opposite is true for the first war. But the comparison is still baseless beyond the war rhetoric
- tim333 5y ago
  It's not quite like that though. In Ukraine Putin's already lost 466 tanks, 95 planes, 5 generals, a few thousand troops depending on how you define that one and so on. And that's in three weeks - not sure how long they can keep it up. Also the west seems to be increasing support a bit - I think there are better surface to air missiles and switchblades on the way. We may be a week or two from "culmination point" when the strength of the Ukrainian forces exceeds that of the Russian ones. And then those other countries are NATO and attacking them would be quite a different kettle of fish. Those truck convoys probably would have been smoking ruins within a day if NATO air forces had had a go.
  - rasz 5y ago
    You are high on twitter propaganda. Loses are meaningless to Putin as long as objectives are completed. Mariupol is done, surrounded and in ruins. Messages showed up suggesting Russians started sending people to gulags/concentration camps https://twitter.com/timesobs1/status/1505258913398235145 https://twitter.com/timesobs1/status/1505258913398235145 My country is next on the list together with other Baltic nations. This current inaction is identical to start of WW2 with everyone paranoid about their own nose and "unnecessary escalation". We have maybe 2-3 weeks to sent troops into UKR before its too late. If we dont help Ukraine its a sign NATO wont intervene beyond sending arms and "stay strong" prayers when our time comes. Another Yalta is on the table, after all why should we risk Nuclear war if Putin gives us a word he will stop at German border, right? :(
Giorgi 5y ago
Unwilling to go to direct war against Russia by ignoring it.
thow16161 5y ago
It works out to approximately the same thing in terms of the outcome of the invasion.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Not pushing the world really close to a nuclear war also counts, in the eyes of those who think that a direct involvement of NATO would trigger the MAD scenario.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Ukraine would be in substantially worse straits if NATO hadn't been helping with training the last few years, and providing thousands upon thousands of modern antitank and antiair missiles. I don't think Ukraine would benefit from Russia and NATO coming to blows.
  - crateless 5y ago
    Are we now admitting that NATO was in Ukraine? I thought that was verboten.
    - WJW 5y ago
      NATO is not "in" Ukraine with troops, they are supplying weapons to Ukraine. This is not exactly a secret, it's all over the news.
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        NATO soldiers have been conducting training operations in Ukraine since the Crimea takeover.
        yyyk 5y ago
        I recall these soldiers were evacuated just before the war. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/12/uk-troops-sent-to-help-train-ukrainian-army-to-leave-country-this-weekend https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/12/uk-troops-se...
yyyk 5y ago
There's much more the international community could do even without direct war. It should be possible to station troops in the West of country, thus freeing up Ukrainians to fight. If Putin wishes to attack them, than he'll be the one escalating. It would be not too different than Idlib, which hasn't led to massive war, with the exception the government will have invited these troops.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Yes exactly where you want to be is sitting there watching the ICBMs fly saying "well I wasn't the one to escalate so."
  - yyyk 5y ago
    Sure, we should act according to Putin's whims. So if Putin says 'do not help Ukraine or else' we stay. If Putin invades the Baltics, well, no ICBMs, right. If Putin nukes Ukraine we do nothing (no ICBMs right?). Can't we just surrender the world to him to stop these ICBMs? Good thing we didn't have this attitude during the Cold War. We can help, and we should not going to listen to a non-ultimatum which hasn't been even given.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      We had exactly this attitude during the cold war lol. Nato's actions here are absolutely consistent with the principles of deterrence worked out during the cold war. There's a reason there were endless proxy wars, guerrilla trainings, and secret arms supplying back then. Neither side would risk a direct conflict with the other, so they did all that instead. You'll notice that's the exact same toolbox they're drawing on now. They didn't invent this shit for putin.
    - bluehorseray 5y ago
      That's basically the predicament the entire world has been in ever since the first nuke was developed. It's just that no nuclear power has quite passed a line that another nuclear power isn't willing to accept. If what you said above were to happen we're basically in uncharted territory. I'd step out on a limb and say maybe the best move is to let the aggressors take whatever they want, nobody really knows.

itronitron 5y ago

Israel has a team specifically trained in recovering people from destroyed buildings. Hopefully they can send their team to Mariupol >> https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2021/07/26/surfside-condo-collapse-how-israeli-team-found-majority-victims/8021350002/ https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2021/07/26/surfside-...

colpabar 5y ago
- gotts 5y ago
  It probably does but I never heard Israeli forces specifically targeted civilian bomb shelters, hospitals and schools.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    just civilian housing
    - xdennis 5y ago
      Which are used for military purposes, and they always give warnings to avoid loss of life.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Is Israel currently blowing up Mariupol and murdering innocent people there? Is there new news that the West is keeping from us? /s Because we're currently talking about Mariupol here...
jdrc 5y ago
The city is surrounded and cut off from electric/water
golemiprague 5y ago