4 ms·

>>>>16 civilians died in Donbas in 2021, that's on both sides. 25 died in 2020. It was a very low-scale war and most people were living in peace. And how many

>>>>16 civilians died in Donbas in 2021, that's on both sides. 25 died in 2020. It was a very low-scale war and most people were living in peace. And how many were bombed by their own government 2014-2019? I get the impression they are still pissed about that. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-airstrike-kills-11-demolishes-apartment-block-in-separatist-area-1.2707282 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-airstrike-kills-11-dem... Everyone with an interest in this conflict should be searching on DuckDuckGo with their date range set to 2021 at the latest. Western persectives on Zelensky (-2021), perspectives on the conflict in the east (2014-2016), or the really good stuff is Western experts warning about the risks of NATO expansion (set your date range 2000-2010).

vladgur 5y ago
The article itself mentions that both sides blame each other without taking accountability. The story of Donetsk and Luhansk is littered with influence by FSB operatives as well pro-Russian ukrainian politics back in 2014. The statement above with civilian deaths being in low double digits in 2021 is correct as the conflict has reached the status quo which had a good chance of being resolved politically. Whatever our stance on the reason behind the conflict in Eastern Ukraine is, we seem to agree that it was pretty bad in 2014-2019 and it has been relatively low-key in 2019(Zelenskiy got elected) and on. Any civilian deaths are terrible, but to put things in perspective: more people Died in car accidents in DNR/LNR then due to the conflict. So any reasoning of Russia attacking Ukraine, flattening cities, destroying civilian buildings as being caused by a conflict in DNR/LNR is pure Russian propaganda.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "more people Died in car accidents in DNR/LNR then due to the conflict." Traffic related deaths should not be underestimated, they are more common than people think. In fact, so far more civilians have died in car accidents in Ukraine (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...) than in the conflict (using statistics by the UN https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115042 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115042). Although I personally don't understand the point of this argument. If "only" 40 people die then it's somehow ok but if 1000 die then military action is suddenly justifiable?
kspacewalk2 5y ago
>I get the impression they are still pissed about that. Well, that makes not a lick of sense. A war took place 8 years ago, mostly died down, people lived in relative peace, and now Russia starts a war of aggression on a whole new scale, rains death from the air, unleashes its troops to commit mass murder, takes thousands of civilian lives because "they are still pissed about that"? And pissed about what? Its own actions? Russia instigated a war in 2014 by creating a proxy army out of thin air (and funding, arming and manning it with its own soldiers), then just straight up invaded in August of 2014 with its own regular forces. They routinely bombed civilian areas without any regard for the civilians still in them, used civilians as human shields, positioned MRLS launchers inside apartment blocks, etc. I don't know what happened in the airstrike you brought up, except to say that by July 2014 Ukrainian air force wasn't used much due to Russians bringing in their SAM systems, such as the Buk that shot down MH-17 just two days after this article. Especially in 2014, Ukrainian army was a rag-tag outfit using Soviet-era tactics, and they did occasionally hit civilian areas in situations when a more modern army would be able to avoid it. There were instances where you can say they tactics did not sufficiently account for civilians. There were many more instances where Russia proxies used civilians as shields with success, however, and the Ukrainian military showed restraint. Either way, at the end of the day the blame for wars of aggression has to lie with the aggressor, not the victim that's defending itself. This was true in 2014, and it's sure as fuck true in 2022. Not even gonna get into that whole "NATO expansion" clusterfuck. If you think a fascist dictatorship should have veto powers over which defensive alliances its democratic neighbours voluntarily choose to join, there's not much there left to discuss.
- cies 5y ago
  > Not even gonna get into that whole "NATO expansion" clusterfuck. If you think a fascist dictatorship should have veto powers over which defensive alliances its democratic neighbours voluntarily choose to join, there's not much there left to discuss. Russia now a "fascist dictatorship"? Hmm... What about a western democracy (US) that claims "veto powers over which defensive alliances its" neighour (Cuba) has? But than it is different, right, when it is Nato, and it has scared it's population shitless for "the communists". Then it is allowed to invade... Yeah right. To me Russia invading Ukraine is like US invading Cuba: you could see it coming from miles ahead. The big bad agressor's "security needs".

vladgur 5y ago

The article itself mentions that both sides blame each other without taking accountability. The story of Donetsk and Luhansk is littered with influence by FSB operatives as well pro-Russian ukrainian politics back in 2014. The statement above with civilian deaths being in low double digits in 2021 is correct as the conflict has reached the status quo which had a good chance of being resolved politically. Whatever our stance on the reason behind the conflict in Eastern Ukraine is, we seem to agree that it was pretty bad in 2014-2019 and it has been relatively low-key in 2019(Zelenskiy got elected) and on. Any civilian deaths are terrible, but to put things in perspective: more people Died in car accidents in DNR/LNR then due to the conflict. So any reasoning of Russia attacking Ukraine, flattening cities, destroying civilian buildings as being caused by a conflict in DNR/LNR is pure Russian propaganda.

ttybird2 5y ago
"more people Died in car accidents in DNR/LNR then due to the conflict." Traffic related deaths should not be underestimated, they are more common than people think. In fact, so far more civilians have died in car accidents in Ukraine (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...) than in the conflict (using statistics by the UN https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115042 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115042). Although I personally don't understand the point of this argument. If "only" 40 people die then it's somehow ok but if 1000 die then military action is suddenly justifiable?

kspacewalk2 5y ago

>I get the impression they are still pissed about that. Well, that makes not a lick of sense. A war took place 8 years ago, mostly died down, people lived in relative peace, and now Russia starts a war of aggression on a whole new scale, rains death from the air, unleashes its troops to commit mass murder, takes thousands of civilian lives because "they are still pissed about that"? And pissed about what? Its own actions? Russia instigated a war in 2014 by creating a proxy army out of thin air (and funding, arming and manning it with its own soldiers), then just straight up invaded in August of 2014 with its own regular forces. They routinely bombed civilian areas without any regard for the civilians still in them, used civilians as human shields, positioned MRLS launchers inside apartment blocks, etc. I don't know what happened in the airstrike you brought up, except to say that by July 2014 Ukrainian air force wasn't used much due to Russians bringing in their SAM systems, such as the Buk that shot down MH-17 just two days after this article. Especially in 2014, Ukrainian army was a rag-tag outfit using Soviet-era tactics, and they did occasionally hit civilian areas in situations when a more modern army would be able to avoid it. There were instances where you can say they tactics did not sufficiently account for civilians. There were many more instances where Russia proxies used civilians as shields with success, however, and the Ukrainian military showed restraint. Either way, at the end of the day the blame for wars of aggression has to lie with the aggressor, not the victim that's defending itself. This was true in 2014, and it's sure as fuck true in 2022. Not even gonna get into that whole "NATO expansion" clusterfuck. If you think a fascist dictatorship should have veto powers over which defensive alliances its democratic neighbours voluntarily choose to join, there's not much there left to discuss.

cies 5y ago
> Not even gonna get into that whole "NATO expansion" clusterfuck. If you think a fascist dictatorship should have veto powers over which defensive alliances its democratic neighbours voluntarily choose to join, there's not much there left to discuss. Russia now a "fascist dictatorship"? Hmm... What about a western democracy (US) that claims "veto powers over which defensive alliances its" neighour (Cuba) has? But than it is different, right, when it is Nato, and it has scared it's population shitless for "the communists". Then it is allowed to invade... Yeah right. To me Russia invading Ukraine is like US invading Cuba: you could see it coming from miles ahead. The big bad agressor's "security needs".