4 ms·

When you read about local episodes, like a single bombing event, there is not much to filter: such small scale details are unknowable by the public, you can onl

by kkfx 5y ago

When you read about local episodes, like a single bombing event, there is not much to filter: such small scale details are unknowable by the public, you can only know a bit if you were there or have someone you trust in place. Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. But as always people at scale do not like to reason, prefer being fed with emotions. With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. Unfortunately for those élites that move means pushing Russia toward China witch is less weak alone than Russia and far more important with Russian natural resources and a far augmented military tech transfer from Russia China will arrive in few years to have enough military capacity to counter USA and UK together. Those élites play the same game they have played with nazi Germany, counting on similar outcome, of course as back then against their own citizens interests. On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. China needs stability to keep growing, as any dictatorship that need to grow, but also to sustain it's population. There is no morale on all sides, just mix of interests, some legit some criminal, and different school of thoughts confronting.

trhway 5y ago
>because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant Russia is mostly using in Ukraine (like before in Syria) dirt cheap unguided WWII style bombs, like FAB-250 (550lb) and FAB-500 (1100lb). > if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. You forgot to update your Russian propaganda version to spread. For example Russia hitting the Mariupol hospital because there supposedly was an Ukrainian army command center is the old version of their propaganda. Now they tell that they didn't hit the hospital, and that there were no Ukrainian military there, and it was just a real hospital which Ukrainians intentionally blown up.
kergonath 5y ago
> Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. This is disingenuous. Russia has a long history of bombing civilians as a psychological weapon. Both Grozny and Aleppo are well documented. Your arguments “the Russians are not stupid, so if they seem to be doing stupid, then it’s propaganda” rests on very faulty premises. They are not stupid, and are deliberately targeting civilian populations. We know their doctrine and we have seen their playbook. You are only carrying water here and your rhetorics are obvious. > With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. This is an interesting conspiracy theory. > On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. Come off it. NATO is an existential threat to Russia only if Russia’s existence depends on being able to invade its neighbours. The fact that its former satellites ran to the West at the moment they got the chance is telling. If they wanted stability, they’d have increased cooperation instead of rattling their metaphorical sabre for 20 years. NATO was not more menacing 2 months ago than it was 20 years ago, quite the contrary. It was desegregating before being reinvigorated by this stupid, pointless agression. Finland and Sweden applying was unimaginable just a couple of weeks ago. If stability was the point, a hot war was the absolute last thing to do. Also, is there any evidence, even circumstantial, that Ukraine has a significantly larger nazi relative population compared to any surrounding country? Its government is just as incompetent and corrupt as you’d expect given the context. Where are their nazi policies? You seem to be making a lot of effort to sound reasonable, but ultimately
- kkfx 5y ago
  I suggest again reading some westerns reports like https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf especially for nazi density and who finance them or https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html for the why those nazis are financed and armed. Beside that "psychological weapons" still have a target, such bombing as described have not. All countries have attacked civilians, did you remember WWII USA in Europe mass bombing even on ally countries? Iraqi ones? French ones in Libya and Siria? NATO Belgrade siege? But their purpose is evident: WWII mass bombing were used to force rich European countries to reconstruct under the Marshall plan agreements a thing would not happen if those countries were not so badly treated, modern bombing in Iraq &c was done for similar reasons, less ample now, but equally in principles: making room for western private companies big earnings. Russia do not have such targets, they are meaningless for them, they do not have the western military-industrial complex, most of their activities are still public in military and health domains, private activities suffer more from sanctions and war than the outcome [1], they advance slowly and methodically clearly to minimize damages in area they want operational under their control. [1] to a point I suspect some western sanctions are negotiated with Putin gov. to hit some oligarchs he dislike...
megous 5y ago
> For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda Or it's just a fact... I guess some people may think Ukrainian's are blowing up those palces themselves, or making it up. But this is not really the first time in history of indiscriminate bombings have been happening to terrorize the population of some place into submission/demoralization out of spite. (And I guess it will not be the first time, where it may strenghten such population's resolve, looking at you London...) > but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing You seem to just explain away the fact that these places are being bombed/shelled with some reasoning amounting to "makes no sense to me, therefore it must be propaganda", without knowing about current leadership's real decision making, or taking into account results of any fact finding missions, like OSCE's. All I can agree on is that we don't know for sure if it's a policy. But it sure looked like it was a policy in Syria, in addition to an apparent campaign to demonize the civil service and health care workers, so it's not really out of question. Especially not because of some flimsy reasoning about "I don't know who would benefit". Qucks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc.
- alienicecream 5y ago
  Ukrainian forces have been shelling civilian areas in the Donbass since 2014. How much of a stretch is it to believe they would use them as human shields as well? We don't know for sure what is happening on the ground but speculation can go both ways.
  - megous 5y ago
    Well, I dislike reasoning about this without facts, so maybe you can add some statistics from monitoring missions, like how many shells hit civilian areas each year since 2014. How many civilian victims there were each year, etc. I guess to understand the scale of the issue... to see if it's more like an active terror campaign with a city/village being shelled every single day (like the joint Russian/Assad terror campaigns in the northwest of Syria), or more like something else. If it looks more like a former, then yes, I'll accept that UA gov doesn't care about civilians there.
- kkfx 5y ago

by kkfx 5y ago

trhway 5y ago

>because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant Russia is mostly using in Ukraine (like before in Syria) dirt cheap unguided WWII style bombs, like FAB-250 (550lb) and FAB-500 (1100lb). > if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. You forgot to update your Russian propaganda version to spread. For example Russia hitting the Mariupol hospital because there supposedly was an Ukrainian army command center is the old version of their propaganda. Now they tell that they didn't hit the hospital, and that there were no Ukrainian military there, and it was just a real hospital which Ukrainians intentionally blown up.

kergonath 5y ago

> Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. This is disingenuous. Russia has a long history of bombing civilians as a psychological weapon. Both Grozny and Aleppo are well documented. Your arguments “the Russians are not stupid, so if they seem to be doing stupid, then it’s propaganda” rests on very faulty premises. They are not stupid, and are deliberately targeting civilian populations. We know their doctrine and we have seen their playbook. You are only carrying water here and your rhetorics are obvious. > With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. This is an interesting conspiracy theory. > On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. Come off it. NATO is an existential threat to Russia only if Russia’s existence depends on being able to invade its neighbours. The fact that its former satellites ran to the West at the moment they got the chance is telling. If they wanted stability, they’d have increased cooperation instead of rattling their metaphorical sabre for 20 years. NATO was not more menacing 2 months ago than it was 20 years ago, quite the contrary. It was desegregating before being reinvigorated by this stupid, pointless agression. Finland and Sweden applying was unimaginable just a couple of weeks ago. If stability was the point, a hot war was the absolute last thing to do. Also, is there any evidence, even circumstantial, that Ukraine has a significantly larger nazi relative population compared to any surrounding country? Its government is just as incompetent and corrupt as you’d expect given the context. Where are their nazi policies? You seem to be making a lot of effort to sound reasonable, but ultimately

kkfx 5y ago
I suggest again reading some westerns reports like https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf especially for nazi density and who finance them or https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html for the why those nazis are financed and armed. Beside that "psychological weapons" still have a target, such bombing as described have not. All countries have attacked civilians, did you remember WWII USA in Europe mass bombing even on ally countries? Iraqi ones? French ones in Libya and Siria? NATO Belgrade siege? But their purpose is evident: WWII mass bombing were used to force rich European countries to reconstruct under the Marshall plan agreements a thing would not happen if those countries were not so badly treated, modern bombing in Iraq &c was done for similar reasons, less ample now, but equally in principles: making room for western private companies big earnings. Russia do not have such targets, they are meaningless for them, they do not have the western military-industrial complex, most of their activities are still public in military and health domains, private activities suffer more from sanctions and war than the outcome [1], they advance slowly and methodically clearly to minimize damages in area they want operational under their control. [1] to a point I suspect some western sanctions are negotiated with Putin gov. to hit some oligarchs he dislike...

megous 5y ago

> For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda Or it's just a fact... I guess some people may think Ukrainian's are blowing up those palces themselves, or making it up. But this is not really the first time in history of indiscriminate bombings have been happening to terrorize the population of some place into submission/demoralization out of spite. (And I guess it will not be the first time, where it may strenghten such population's resolve, looking at you London...) > but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing You seem to just explain away the fact that these places are being bombed/shelled with some reasoning amounting to "makes no sense to me, therefore it must be propaganda", without knowing about current leadership's real decision making, or taking into account results of any fact finding missions, like OSCE's. All I can agree on is that we don't know for sure if it's a policy. But it sure looked like it was a policy in Syria, in addition to an apparent campaign to demonize the civil service and health care workers, so it's not really out of question. Especially not because of some flimsy reasoning about "I don't know who would benefit". Qucks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc.

alienicecream 5y ago
Ukrainian forces have been shelling civilian areas in the Donbass since 2014. How much of a stretch is it to believe they would use them as human shields as well? We don't know for sure what is happening on the ground but speculation can go both ways.
- megous 5y ago
  Well, I dislike reasoning about this without facts, so maybe you can add some statistics from monitoring missions, like how many shells hit civilian areas each year since 2014. How many civilian victims there were each year, etc. I guess to understand the scale of the issue... to see if it's more like an active terror campaign with a city/village being shelled every single day (like the joint Russian/Assad terror campaigns in the northwest of Syria), or more like something else. If it looks more like a former, then yes, I'll accept that UA gov doesn't care about civilians there.
kkfx 5y ago