5 ms·

> As far as I can tell (and I am merely hours away from the Ukraine border), the land he has occupied is precisely what he set out to achieve, and it doesn't lo

by sofixa 1y ago

> As far as I can tell (and I am merely hours away from the Ukraine border), the land he has occupied is precisely what he set out to achieve, and it doesn't look like that is about to change any time soon. Is that why the best Russian forces attacked Kyiv, including a paratroop landing to capture Antonov airport, which is in the Kyiv suburbs? You don't do that kind of thing if you're not expecting to capture the city. Also, why did Russia need to mobilise if it got what it wanted? Add in Russia's claims that they're just removing the Ukrainian government, which it accused of being neo-Nazis. > Putin's address was aired during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on the situation in Ukraine that began on the evening of 23 February.[14][15] At the meeting itself, Vasily Nebenzya, Russia's representative to the UN, stated: "We are not carrying out aggression against the Ukrainian people, but against the group that seized power in Kyiv."[16] > Our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_conducting_a_special_military_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_conducting_a_special_milita... That's called delusional backpedaling by both the Russians, and people like you who seem intent on giving them the benefit of the doubt for no apparent reason. Russia is not a rational actor, and no, nothing that has happened has been to plan, unless you believe their plan included having to mobilise, and losing the Black Sea fleet to a country with no navy.

aa-jv 1y ago
"People like you" - you lost me here. I'm asking out of interest, not because I'm a useful idiot for Russians, and I'm not challenging your position because someone might consider that "you are a bootlicker for Western war-mongers", but because I have a legitimate interest in the conclusions you've made and the means you've taken to reach them, and I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on. I'm not interested in the vitriol - name-calling and invalidation of ones intelligence is a limited technique in terms of effectiveness - I am interested in the source of your understanding, such as it is. I work with refugees regularly from various conflicts, including Gaza and Ukraine, so my personal insight is based on on-the-ground assessments from civilian victims of these conflicts, whose voice is not often heard in the masses. What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do. So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground? Russia got its land corridor to Sebastopol, Crimea, where they continue to operate their nuclear-armed naval base: a requirement they made very clear early on in the conflict. Russia have gained control over the territories in the east where they claimed that Ukraine was committing crimes against the mostly-Russian speaking population prior to their invasion. A consequence of their actions has been the result where, a significant portion of Europes' population now have a greater understanding of the nature of the various groups involved in the conflict - and yes, that includes a broader understanding of the Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups involved. And .. a million men are dead because neither side had what it took to actually maintain peace. >Russia is not a rational actor By which standard can you make this claim of any nation which has invaded and demolished sovereign states this century? There are literally no states involved in any conflict today which can be considered rational actors. States are, by very stint of necessity, duplicitous and calculating in their actions - which is why I think it is very selective to make conclusions on the state of the conflict in Ukraine on the basis of public statements and propaganda - from both sides of the conflict. I'd like to have a distinct set of statements which can be verified against the current reality, but this is not forthcoming - so far, the vitriol is getting in the way of rational discussion. So .. What do you think of Putins' statements made on Croatian Channel 4 TV on Monday, regarding Russia's position vis a vis its relationship with Europe? All lies? Should be ignored on the basis of some masterful application of coffeeshop psychology techniques?
- mopsi 1y ago
  > I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on. /---/ What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do. It goes without saying that nobody in Ukraine wants the war, but indeed, let's examine facts and not personal anecdotes. KIIS and other surveyors have consistently found ~80% support for continuing to resist the invasion (graph 6): https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1509&page=1 https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1509&page=1 Likewise, saying that the Sevastopol naval base "continues to operate" is quite a stretch when we look at the facts: * The HQ of Sevastopol naval base was blown up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_strike_on_the_Black_Sea_Fleet_headquarters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_strike_on_the_Black_Se... * The flagship was sunk along with a third of the entire fleet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva https://x.com/HudsonInstitute/status/1765453597829935482 https://x.com/HudsonInstitute/status/1765453597829935482 * The remaining fleet has fled to Russian ports (primarily Novorossiysk) on the eastern coast of the Black Sea to escape destruction: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/06/new-sat-images-show-russian-vessels-fleeing-black-sea-ports/397378/ https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/06/new-sat-images... * Even there, unmanned Ukrainian naval drones continue to pose a significant danger. In the past week, in the first ever aerial combat of this kind, they shot down two fighter jets near Novorossiysk: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-naval-drones-shoot-down-russian-jets-in-military-first-kyiv-says-bc0eaf08 https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-naval-drones-shoo... Quite a different picture from the victory parade you were trying to draw us. When reality and narrative differ this much, "people like you" labels shouldn't offend, because you indeed represent a certain distinct type.
- sofixa 1y ago
  > "People like you" - you lost me here. I'm asking out of interest, not because I'm a useful idiot for Russians I'm sorry, but you are. Might not be your intention (I strongly doubt it), but you are. > and I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on. I linked you a Wikipedia page with the timeline, quotes and Putin's official announcement of the war on kremlin.ru. What do you have to say about that, other than "wanting to review the evidence"? Come on, gave you plenty, go ahead and review it, and come back to us telling us how Russia supposedly achieved its aims. > So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground? Their starting position, which is that they're bringing peace to the bad Ukraine Nazis, and that they're fighting NATO encroachment, both of which are objective failures - Ukraine is still there, and NATO got even closer to Russia with Sweden and Finland. > Russia got its land corridor to Sebastopol, Crimea, where they continue to operate their nuclear-armed naval base: a requirement they made very clear early on in the conflict. Cool, and the Black Sea Fleet is still in Sevastopol, right? Wait, there's a Black Sea Fleet, right? Right? Russia lost the Black Sea Fleet to a country with no navy. It had to evacuate whatever was remaining of it to Novorossiysk, far out of range of Ukrainian drones. They could have saved a lot of lives and their fleet by just moving the fleet there in the first place. > A consequence of their actions has been the result where, a significant portion of Europes' population now have a greater understanding of the nature of the various groups involved in the conflict - and yes, that includes a broader understanding of the Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups involved. One party, Russia, invaded and is genociding the other [1]. Ukraine had a negligible problem with neo-Nazis in a militia. Totally the same "extremist groups on both sides", right? > What do you think of Putins' statements made on Croatian Channel 4 TV on Monday, regarding Russia's position vis a vis its relationship with Europe? All lies? Should be ignored on the basis of some masterful application of coffeeshop psychology techniques? So, I Googled around, and saw some youtube/facebook/linkedin links talking about that and how Russia isn't Europe's enemy (even though they're literally invading a European neighbour and threatening others, sure mate) and bla bla nonsense. But on further searching... there is no such thing? Grok (not that it's very reliable) says that it can't find any proof of such statements. Googling with HRT 4, the name of the Croatian channel, finds nothing. Their website with the Putin tag shows nothing: https://www.hrt.hr/tag/vladimir-putin https://www.hrt.hr/tag/vladimir-putin So it's fake... Good job being a useful idiot for the enemy of Europe. 1 Russia is indeed (without trying to hide it, it's all out in the open, their chief of staff and various ministers have talked about it) kidnapping people and specifically children from Ukraine. Those children are being educated to be good Russian citizens, which is genocide as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (to which Russia is a signatory), Article II (e). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-... https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...

by sofixa 1y ago

aa-jv 1y ago

"People like you" - you lost me here. I'm asking out of interest, not because I'm a useful idiot for Russians, and I'm not challenging your position because someone might consider that "you are a bootlicker for Western war-mongers", but because I have a legitimate interest in the conclusions you've made and the means you've taken to reach them, and I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on. I'm not interested in the vitriol - name-calling and invalidation of ones intelligence is a limited technique in terms of effectiveness - I am interested in the source of your understanding, such as it is. I work with refugees regularly from various conflicts, including Gaza and Ukraine, so my personal insight is based on on-the-ground assessments from civilian victims of these conflicts, whose voice is not often heard in the masses. What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do. So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground? Russia got its land corridor to Sebastopol, Crimea, where they continue to operate their nuclear-armed naval base: a requirement they made very clear early on in the conflict. Russia have gained control over the territories in the east where they claimed that Ukraine was committing crimes against the mostly-Russian speaking population prior to their invasion. A consequence of their actions has been the result where, a significant portion of Europes' population now have a greater understanding of the nature of the various groups involved in the conflict - and yes, that includes a broader understanding of the Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups involved. And .. a million men are dead because neither side had what it took to actually maintain peace. >Russia is not a rational actor By which standard can you make this claim of any nation which has invaded and demolished sovereign states this century? There are literally no states involved in any conflict today which can be considered rational actors. States are, by very stint of necessity, duplicitous and calculating in their actions - which is why I think it is very selective to make conclusions on the state of the conflict in Ukraine on the basis of public statements and propaganda - from both sides of the conflict. I'd like to have a distinct set of statements which can be verified against the current reality, but this is not forthcoming - so far, the vitriol is getting in the way of rational discussion. So .. What do you think of Putins' statements made on Croatian Channel 4 TV on Monday, regarding Russia's position vis a vis its relationship with Europe? All lies? Should be ignored on the basis of some masterful application of coffeeshop psychology techniques?

mopsi 1y ago
> I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on. /---/ What I know so far: nobody in the civilian cadre wants these wars, only their utterly insane leaders do. It goes without saying that nobody in Ukraine wants the war, but indeed, let's examine facts and not personal anecdotes. KIIS and other surveyors have consistently found ~80% support for continuing to resist the invasion (graph 6): https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1509&page=1 https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1509&page=1 Likewise, saying that the Sevastopol naval base "continues to operate" is quite a stretch when we look at the facts: * The HQ of Sevastopol naval base was blown up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_strike_on_the_Black_Sea_Fleet_headquarters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_strike_on_the_Black_Se... * The flagship was sunk along with a third of the entire fleet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva https://x.com/HudsonInstitute/status/1765453597829935482 https://x.com/HudsonInstitute/status/1765453597829935482 * The remaining fleet has fled to Russian ports (primarily Novorossiysk) on the eastern coast of the Black Sea to escape destruction: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/06/new-sat-images-show-russian-vessels-fleeing-black-sea-ports/397378/ https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/06/new-sat-images... * Even there, unmanned Ukrainian naval drones continue to pose a significant danger. In the past week, in the first ever aerial combat of this kind, they shot down two fighter jets near Novorossiysk: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-naval-drones-shoot-down-russian-jets-in-military-first-kyiv-says-bc0eaf08 https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-naval-drones-shoo... Quite a different picture from the victory parade you were trying to draw us. When reality and narrative differ this much, "people like you" labels shouldn't offend, because you indeed represent a certain distinct type.
sofixa 1y ago
> "People like you" - you lost me here. I'm asking out of interest, not because I'm a useful idiot for Russians I'm sorry, but you are. Might not be your intention (I strongly doubt it), but you are. > and I want to see the details - not the anecdotes, not the vitriol - based on evidence that can be reviewed and which is not keyed to emotional levers being pushed and pulled depending on which 'side' you are on. I linked you a Wikipedia page with the timeline, quotes and Putin's official announcement of the war on kremlin.ru. What do you have to say about that, other than "wanting to review the evidence"? Come on, gave you plenty, go ahead and review it, and come back to us telling us how Russia supposedly achieved its aims. > So, again, what of the Russian governments' official positions have you evaluated against the reality of the facts on the ground? Their starting position, which is that they're bringing peace to the bad Ukraine Nazis, and that they're fighting NATO encroachment, both of which are objective failures - Ukraine is still there, and NATO got even closer to Russia with Sweden and Finland. > Russia got its land corridor to Sebastopol, Crimea, where they continue to operate their nuclear-armed naval base: a requirement they made very clear early on in the conflict. Cool, and the Black Sea Fleet is still in Sevastopol, right? Wait, there's a Black Sea Fleet, right? Right? Russia lost the Black Sea Fleet to a country with no navy. It had to evacuate whatever was remaining of it to Novorossiysk, far out of range of Ukrainian drones. They could have saved a lot of lives and their fleet by just moving the fleet there in the first place. > A consequence of their actions has been the result where, a significant portion of Europes' population now have a greater understanding of the nature of the various groups involved in the conflict - and yes, that includes a broader understanding of the Ukrainian and Russian extremist groups involved. One party, Russia, invaded and is genociding the other [1]. Ukraine had a negligible problem with neo-Nazis in a militia. Totally the same "extremist groups on both sides", right? > What do you think of Putins' statements made on Croatian Channel 4 TV on Monday, regarding Russia's position vis a vis its relationship with Europe? All lies? Should be ignored on the basis of some masterful application of coffeeshop psychology techniques? So, I Googled around, and saw some youtube/facebook/linkedin links talking about that and how Russia isn't Europe's enemy (even though they're literally invading a European neighbour and threatening others, sure mate) and bla bla nonsense. But on further searching... there is no such thing? Grok (not that it's very reliable) says that it can't find any proof of such statements. Googling with HRT 4, the name of the Croatian channel, finds nothing. Their website with the Putin tag shows nothing: https://www.hrt.hr/tag/vladimir-putin https://www.hrt.hr/tag/vladimir-putin So it's fake... Good job being a useful idiot for the enemy of Europe. 1 Russia is indeed (without trying to hide it, it's all out in the open, their chief of staff and various ministers have talked about it) kidnapping people and specifically children from Ukraine. Those children are being educated to be good Russian citizens, which is genocide as per the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (to which Russia is a signatory), Article II (e). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-... https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...