NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 28 2022 23:40 JimmiC wrote: So strange to be on the side that is justifying civillian deaths instead of apologizing for them. That tells you their many more to come and they are OK with them.
To be fair, he has said a long time ago that he would refrain from moral judgement. Nothing in his post is justifying/defending this missile strike. Also do you want him to end each and every post by "sorry for being Russian" ? He's contributing to this thread far better than any china apologists in the china thread.
You missed my point, im saying the Russian state media, which is Putins mouth piece, is justifying the attack and not apoligizing giving away their future intentions.
They are ok with civillian deaths as an acceptable cost.
This is the most significant defence related development this century (so far). The rest of the summit will be necessarily underwhelming. But the achilles heel of NATO just received an iron boot.
While BRICS countries are not as tightly connected between each other as those in EU, it's still a continuously developing partnership (though China and India have their tensions regarding disputed land and stance on Pakistan), and, due to Russia being part of it, it now becomes somewhat political union, as Brazil, India and China take neutral stance towards war in Ukraine (didn't check on SA about that), so the will to apply into BRICS sends a certain message to the world, regarding Russia especially. From what I've read, China is the main advocate of increasing the number of participants (unsurprisingly, since it is the lead economy of the organization). If these applications go through, it will also be big for Iran, because it would mean that these countries are willing to conduct business, and are unlikely to follow Western sanctions imposed on it. So I'm not surprised about it, but didn't expect Argentina to proceed as well.
I don’t get it, surely we’re not taking this seriously as a counterbalance to the west. With Iran and Argentina joining the club they’re still weaker than they were before Putin’s humiliation fetish took an international turn.
In practical matters, BRICS is barely a relevant institution.
It's only there to be a discussion group to be brought up when its members want to demonstrate they can coordenate outside of UN forums and without US or EU participation. There is little political drive to take it beyond that.
This is Russia's official stance in regards to the recent missile strike on the mall in Kremenchuk where it's currently said that 20 people were killed from 1000+ people or so that were present.
"Russia's government claimed the shopping center caught fire after Russia struck a nearby weapons depot."
It seems that the missile was carried by a Tu-22M3 bomber, which can travel intercontinentally using in-flight refueling and could carry one or two KH-22 missiles (perhaps up to three). It has been used in Georgia and Syria, and lately in Ukraine.
According to the following article from May 12th this year, this attack was not the first of its kind during this war. I can't find any sources on the accuracy of the KH-22, but here it's suggested that the error rate on land is very high (up to 3 miles). That could mean that the intended target was of military importance, but the missile just isn't capable of striking accurately enough, thus very often hitting militarily irrelevant targets, like a mall for example.
Thoughts: my best guess is that, with these kinds of attacks, Russia is heavily gambling on hitting anything meaningful, while fully accepting lots of civilian casualties. The odds of hitting the intended target - at least on land - appear to be low. This would also support the saying to not attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. Russia's official stance would then be a near-truth. The intended target may well have been something else (possibly located up to a few miles away) but they're unwilling to admit how far off the missile strike actually was. One of the more objective reasons why this matters so much is because the truth could make a huge difference for Ukraine's military intelligence.
Catherine Philp supports this theory, saying the missile is very imprecise on land.
The Madrid Summit will be remembered as one of the turning points in European security architecture for all the wrong reasons.
The most important part is that FI and SE ladies apparently cornered Erdogan during a bathroom break and got the OK to join. Probably not what really happened, but nobody can tell me otherwise.
Whatever the cost, it's incredibly damaging to Russia and a huge boon to NATO, the Nordics and the Baltics. Nato just solved all its logistics and intelligence issues in one move. Especially if the rumors about a fast track process are to be believed. We now have wartime troop and supply movement capability around the Baltic Sea. And both new members bring high level intelligence into the alliance. Furthermore, the fight for the arctic and its resources just tipped in our favour. While RU will have to reformulate its entire security stance for the Baltic region, and as losses in the UA war came to a large part from units stationed in this region, building the necessary capability will be time and money draining, essentially making all countries around RU a bit safer.
Otherwise I expect the summit to be a wash. I think large European countries will seize the opportunity to veto permanent bases in the east, the frugal countries will stymie Stoltenberg's push for more funding by hiding the fact that inflation will eat most of the gains and the troop increases for the east will be on paper only, as in, they'll get a new label but very few will be added to the tripwire defence of the Baltics. Hopefully, I'm wrong on a few of these points.
The entirety of thought when it came to a modern war between NATO and Russia was that the baltics would-be stormed and that the Russians would need to be held in poland long enough for a counterattack to turn them back.
Now swamping the Baltic sea with battleships and battlecrusiers being covered by fighters from Swedish bases means they won't get that far. We don't need more troops in the east we will be much safer with Finland exploding the frontage russia needs to defend and to move existing aircraft bases to Sweden.
On June 29 2022 16:52 Magic Powers wrote: This is Russia's official stance in regards to the recent missile strike on the mall in Kremenchuk where it's currently said that 20 people were killed from 1000+ people or so that were present.
"Russia's government claimed the shopping center caught fire after Russia struck a nearby weapons depot."
It seems that the missile was carried by a Tu-22M3 bomber, which can travel intercontinentally using in-flight refueling and could carry one or two KH-22 missiles (perhaps up to three). It has been used in Georgia and Syria, and lately in Ukraine.
According to the following article from May 12th this year, this attack was not the first of its kind during this war. I can't find any sources on the accuracy of the KH-22, but here it's suggested that the error rate on land is very high (up to 3 miles). That could mean that the intended target was of military importance, but the missile just isn't capable of striking accurately enough, thus very often hitting militarily irrelevant targets, like a mall for example.
Thoughts: my best guess is that, with these kinds of attacks, Russia is heavily gambling on hitting anything meaningful, while fully accepting lots of civilian casualties. The odds of hitting the intended target - at least on land - appear to be low. This would also support the saying to not attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. Russia's official stance would then be a near-truth. The intended target may well have been something else (possibly located up to a few miles away) but they're unwilling to admit how far off the missile strike actually was. One of the more objective reasons why this matters so much is because the truth could make a huge difference for Ukraine's military intelligence.
Catherine Philp supports this theory, saying the missile is very imprecise on land.
I’d still put it down to malice, if you’re firing something that supposedly inaccurate you’re just spinning a roulette wheel as to it hitting its target, missing anything meaningful or hitting a big cluster of civilians.
It’s not really all that functional different from being that cavalier with the potential for civilian casualties, and actively targeting them.
That said it is extremely useful for the Ukrainians to ascertain which it is, as you said.
I'd agree that civilian casualties as a consequence of imprecision can be attributed to malice, but I'd also argue that after months of deliberate and targeted shelling against populated areas without a clear military purpose, we have more than sufficient evidence to attribute malice to every part of Russia's three-days special underwater operation. At this point the question is only to what degree malice does or doesn't play a role in various decisions.
On June 29 2022 16:52 Magic Powers wrote: This is Russia's official stance in regards to the recent missile strike on the mall in Kremenchuk where it's currently said that 20 people were killed from 1000+ people or so that were present.
"Russia's government claimed the shopping center caught fire after Russia struck a nearby weapons depot."
It seems that the missile was carried by a Tu-22M3 bomber, which can travel intercontinentally using in-flight refueling and could carry one or two KH-22 missiles (perhaps up to three). It has been used in Georgia and Syria, and lately in Ukraine.
According to the following article from May 12th this year, this attack was not the first of its kind during this war. I can't find any sources on the accuracy of the KH-22, but here it's suggested that the error rate on land is very high (up to 3 miles). That could mean that the intended target was of military importance, but the missile just isn't capable of striking accurately enough, thus very often hitting militarily irrelevant targets, like a mall for example.
Thoughts: my best guess is that, with these kinds of attacks, Russia is heavily gambling on hitting anything meaningful, while fully accepting lots of civilian casualties. The odds of hitting the intended target - at least on land - appear to be low. This would also support the saying to not attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. Russia's official stance would then be a near-truth. The intended target may well have been something else (possibly located up to a few miles away) but they're unwilling to admit how far off the missile strike actually was. One of the more objective reasons why this matters so much is because the truth could make a huge difference for Ukraine's military intelligence.
Catherine Philp supports this theory, saying the missile is very imprecise on land.
I’d still put it down to malice, if you’re firing something that supposedly inaccurate you’re just spinning a roulette wheel as to it hitting its target, missing anything meaningful or hitting a big cluster of civilians.
It’s not really all that functional different from being that cavalier with the potential for civilian casualties, and actively targeting them.
That said it is extremely useful for the Ukrainians to ascertain which it is, as you said.
I don't that any tribunal would agree. I was reading through that link someone provided on the NATO induced casualties in Kosovo and that investigation or tribunal or whatever noted that even though bombs of WWII were inaccurate to 5 miles, 3 miles, and 1 mile of intended target, they wouldn't consider the inaccuracies as intent to kill the populace. Whereas the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo would have come under investigation had they been done in the present day. It also noted the difficulty of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum when living in a technological society where city planners have built military infrastructure in amongst the populace.
Now since then we've developed all manner of guided missiles. However, I think it is not tenable to argue that since guided missiles exist, bombing campaigns may only use them and if you run out, tough. No more bombing for you. It's certainly very advantageous to argue for the few rich countries that can afford to fight an entire war with guided missiles (NATO). But it's unreasonable to expect anyone else to follow. (A caveat, I expect the US would expect it of themselves, but the US can afford to do better than drop dumb bombs on a military target... and it's just all around better. You actually hit military infrastructure which what you wanted in the first place.)
TLDR: The artillery shelling certainly looks like an intent to cause mass destruction on the civilian population and therefore malice. If, however, a dumb bomb was used on a military target and then missed- the fact that a dumb bomb was used, I do not think shows malice.
On June 29 2022 16:52 Magic Powers wrote: This is Russia's official stance in regards to the recent missile strike on the mall in Kremenchuk where it's currently said that 20 people were killed from 1000+ people or so that were present.
"Russia's government claimed the shopping center caught fire after Russia struck a nearby weapons depot."
It seems that the missile was carried by a Tu-22M3 bomber, which can travel intercontinentally using in-flight refueling and could carry one or two KH-22 missiles (perhaps up to three). It has been used in Georgia and Syria, and lately in Ukraine.
According to the following article from May 12th this year, this attack was not the first of its kind during this war. I can't find any sources on the accuracy of the KH-22, but here it's suggested that the error rate on land is very high (up to 3 miles). That could mean that the intended target was of military importance, but the missile just isn't capable of striking accurately enough, thus very often hitting militarily irrelevant targets, like a mall for example.
Thoughts: my best guess is that, with these kinds of attacks, Russia is heavily gambling on hitting anything meaningful, while fully accepting lots of civilian casualties. The odds of hitting the intended target - at least on land - appear to be low. This would also support the saying to not attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. Russia's official stance would then be a near-truth. The intended target may well have been something else (possibly located up to a few miles away) but they're unwilling to admit how far off the missile strike actually was. One of the more objective reasons why this matters so much is because the truth could make a huge difference for Ukraine's military intelligence.
Catherine Philp supports this theory, saying the missile is very imprecise on land.
I’d still put it down to malice, if you’re firing something that supposedly inaccurate you’re just spinning a roulette wheel as to it hitting its target, missing anything meaningful or hitting a big cluster of civilians.
It’s not really all that functional different from being that cavalier with the potential for civilian casualties, and actively targeting them.
That said it is extremely useful for the Ukrainians to ascertain which it is, as you said.
I don't that any tribunal would agree. I was reading through that link someone provided on the NATO induced casualties in Kosovo and that investigation or tribunal or whatever noted that even though bombs of WWII were inaccurate to 5 miles, 3 miles, and 1 mile of intended target, they wouldn't consider the inaccuracies as intent to kill the populace. Whereas the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo would have come under investigation had they been done in the present day. It also noted the difficulty of keeping civilian casualties to a minimum when living in a technological society where city planners have built military infrastructure in amongst the populace.
Now since then we've developed all manner of guided missiles. However, I think it is not tenable to argue that since guided missiles exist, bombing campaigns may only use them and if you run out, tough. No more bombing for you. It's certainly very advantageous to argue for the few rich countries that can afford to fight an entire war with guided missiles (NATO). But it's unreasonable to expect anyone else to follow. (A caveat, I expect the US would expect it of themselves, but the US can afford to do better than drop dumb bombs on a military target... and it's just all around better. You actually hit military infrastructure which what you wanted in the first place.)
TLDR: The artillery shelling certainly looks like an intent to cause mass destruction on the civilian population and therefore malice. If, however, a dumb bomb was used on a military target and then missed- the fact that a dumb bomb was used, I do not think shows malice.
In a defensive, existential war, sure it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to pull punches if they can’t deploy smart missiles that can be guided up a particular target’s arse reliably.
Russia aren’t fighting such a war, it’s a conflict they themselves instigated for their own gain.
If they don’t have the ability to deploy missiles with the efficiency of a surgeon’s scalpel, they can either not do bombings or do them with the very real possibility that they wipe out civilians.
They’ve made the latter calculation, I’m unsure how that’s anything other than malicious in intent.
The civilians in the mall certainly weren't the main target. Would you have expected them to pretend to try to avoiding civilian casualties? Obviously not. Those aren't Russians they're killing, after all. It's terrible, but war is terrible. Blame the decision to start the war, which was malicious, not this particular missile strike.
EPT
