|
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. |
If the maps are accurate, then Ukraine has been making very significant progress again over the past week or so. It's actually quite a lot of ground, but not one single very big push, instead a few infrequent gains. I think this signals that Russia is trying to hold all the fronts but is overall losing. All of Russia's offensive attempts continue to be thwarted. So overall it's clearly not a stalemate at the moment and Ukraine is quite serious about continuing the offensive.
|
Yeah I agree with that analysis. I'm expecting Lyman to be liberated any day now.
|
Occasional lurker here. Appreciate all the updates from everyone.
On September 26 2022 21:45 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:42 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture. So you are admitting that you are actually lying? Because apparently you are the opinion that he is not lying, but is propagating false information (lies from someone else), yet you accuse him of lying. Finally the mask comes off. Being an ass in the name of good does not make you less of an ass. If someone is lying(hint: that means knowingly and deliberately spreading false information) you are free to call it out, when someone is wrong you are free to correct them without false accusations. Nowhere did I say you should just accept it silently, all I ask is stop relying on accusations and being a cancer to any discourse in this thread. That way you might actually get taken seriously by them and can manage to change their mind. Le sigh. First, how about you watch your language? Or prove that I have uttered lies, that I'm an ass and that I'm cancer to any discourse. How is that not just attempting to silence me, huh? Secondly, I was replying to your post towards maybenexttime. There, as far as I see, he was spreading Kremlin's lies. But I wasn't here for that discussion. In the "gunpoint" view, he was spreading his own lies about voting not being at gunpoint. He had evidence for a case of it not being at gunpoint, but he was undermining the general claim. And "I didn't know" should be quickly followed by an admission that his post was wrong and preferably an edit of the original post. Remind me again, what kind of valuable nuance does Ardias add to this discussion? Should we heed his arguments for why these elections aren't that bad and endorse the referenda? Let those regions be annexed? Is that the valuable nuance? I expect your diversion within the hour. Also the expressed part where I encourage you to disagree in a way that can actually create a fruitful discussion... yeah, I am really silencing you there... EDIT: Got him I guess
Yeah, way to go. "Got 'em", that's fruitful discussion right there.
Speaking of which, you all know this but just to do a quick recap to paint a picture - some of the things Russian imperialism entails just this year, mostly on an industrial scale:
- murder
- rape
- torture
- looting
- annihilated cities
- constant shelling of residential areas, schools, hospitals, power plants across the country
- forced deportations
- forced conscriptions - including conscripting Ukrainian citizens to fight against their own country
- forced bs "referendums"
- lies and misinformation to the point of absurdity
- thinly veiled threats of nuclear armageddon
- elimination of political opponents, free speech and free media
- overt militarism and nationalism
- rampant corruption
- heavily disproportionate use of ethnic minorities as cannon fodder
- blatant disregard of international law
- generally using terror, blackmail and violence as the basis of foreign and domestic policy
So when looking at the big picture, nuanced discussion around these topics amounts to something in between "Russia is as bad as Nazi Germany" and "Russia isn't quite as bad as Nazi Germany, but it's a photo finish", and I fail to see how anything fruitful is going to come out of that.
Russian sympathizers have been shouting from the rooftops trying to make their case for months. The only thing I've heard resembling anything from this planet that someone could even remotely argue to justify the invasion (without all the genocide) is "Ukraine bombed civilians in Donbass for eight years" which is highly manipulative at best.
So, what exactly is there to argue about, is Russia guilty of all these crimes or just most of them? I'm sure there's a nuanced, philosophical discussion to be had as to what extent are the Russian people as a whole responsible for all this.
Also, Ardias is a big boy, I'm sure he doesn't need you to speak on his behalf.
|
Evidently the only way into Georgia is by foot, vehicles have been prohibited.
|
On September 27 2022 03:54 Jones313 wrote:Occasional lurker here. Appreciate all the updates from everyone. Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:45 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 21:42 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:
[quote]
He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture. So you are admitting that you are actually lying? Because apparently you are the opinion that he is not lying, but is propagating false information (lies from someone else), yet you accuse him of lying. Finally the mask comes off. Being an ass in the name of good does not make you less of an ass. If someone is lying(hint: that means knowingly and deliberately spreading false information) you are free to call it out, when someone is wrong you are free to correct them without false accusations. Nowhere did I say you should just accept it silently, all I ask is stop relying on accusations and being a cancer to any discourse in this thread. That way you might actually get taken seriously by them and can manage to change their mind. Le sigh. First, how about you watch your language? Or prove that I have uttered lies, that I'm an ass and that I'm cancer to any discourse. How is that not just attempting to silence me, huh? Secondly, I was replying to your post towards maybenexttime. There, as far as I see, he was spreading Kremlin's lies. But I wasn't here for that discussion. In the "gunpoint" view, he was spreading his own lies about voting not being at gunpoint. He had evidence for a case of it not being at gunpoint, but he was undermining the general claim. And "I didn't know" should be quickly followed by an admission that his post was wrong and preferably an edit of the original post. Remind me again, what kind of valuable nuance does Ardias add to this discussion? Should we heed his arguments for why these elections aren't that bad and endorse the referenda? Let those regions be annexed? Is that the valuable nuance? Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again? I expect your diversion within the hour. Also the expressed part where I encourage you to disagree in a way that can actually create a fruitful discussion... yeah, I am really silencing you there... EDIT: Got him I guess Yeah, way to go. "Got 'em", that's fruitful discussion right there. Speaking of which, you all know this but just to do a quick recap to paint a picture - some of the things Russian imperialism entails just this year, mostly on an industrial scale: - murder - rape - torture - looting - annihilated cities - constant shelling of residential areas, schools, hospitals, power plants across the country - forced deportations - forced conscriptions - including conscripting Ukrainian citizens to fight against their own country - forced bs "referendums" - lies and misinformation to the point of absurdity - thinly veiled threats of nuclear armageddon - elimination of political opponents, free speech and free media - overt militarism and nationalism - rampant corruption - heavily disproportionate use of ethnic minorities as cannon fodder - blatant disregard of international law - generally using terror, blackmail and violence as the basis of foreign and domestic policy So when looking at the big picture, nuanced discussion around these topics amounts to something in between "Russia is as bad as Nazi Germany" and "Russia isn't quite as bad as Nazi Germany, but it's a photo finish", and I fail to see how anything fruitful is going to come out of that. Russian sympathizers have been shouting from the rooftops trying to make their case for months. The only thing I've heard resembling anything from this planet that someone could even remotely argue to justify the invasion (without all the genocide) is "Ukraine bombed civilians in Donbass for eight years" which is highly manipulative at best. So, what exactly is there to argue about, is Russia guilty of all these crimes or just most of them? I'm sure there's a nuanced, philosophical discussion to be had as to what extent are the Russian people as a whole responsible for all this. Also, Ardias is a big boy, I'm sure he doesn't need you to speak on his behalf.
Yes it is not a way to have a fruitful discussion. Maybe you should read more of our past exchanges to realise why we end up at that point, I am tired of constantly trying to be the better man. I no longer owe any decency, or allow him to just scurry away when I deliver exactly what asked for. Go through my post history here, with a few exceptions after a frustrating exchange you will see how much of an effort for fruitful discussions I put in, and how I am repeatedly talking to someone who just tries to shout me down and relies on attacks on peoples characters when that does not work. How about you complain about the person that constantly throws out accusations instead. The person that has been the catalyst for most of the instances where things got ugly in here. The person that usually started the shitflinging.
I don't speak for Ardias, but someone needs to reign our little extremists in to keep this from being a pure echo chamber, and I think voicing support for someone who has been shown very unfair treatment repeatedly is important. Certain people here always try their best to interpret what he is saying in a bad way, and seemingly don't care when he even bothers to clarify with them. If you prefer to punch down or watch others doing so, that is just you. I prefer not to.
If you want to do the thing where anything that deviates even slightly from your POV or criticises it is the absolute evil, there is twitter for that. This forum is expressively for discussions and so far we have managed pretty well whenever full blown russian propaganda has popped up, because we have people who can actually argue against it rather than just turn it into a shouting match.
|
More updates on mobilization. We're watching a trainwreck in slow motion. ;-)
|
On September 27 2022 04:23 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2022 03:54 Jones313 wrote:Occasional lurker here. Appreciate all the updates from everyone. On September 26 2022 21:45 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 21:42 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture. So you are admitting that you are actually lying? Because apparently you are the opinion that he is not lying, but is propagating false information (lies from someone else), yet you accuse him of lying. Finally the mask comes off. Being an ass in the name of good does not make you less of an ass. If someone is lying(hint: that means knowingly and deliberately spreading false information) you are free to call it out, when someone is wrong you are free to correct them without false accusations. Nowhere did I say you should just accept it silently, all I ask is stop relying on accusations and being a cancer to any discourse in this thread. That way you might actually get taken seriously by them and can manage to change their mind. Le sigh. First, how about you watch your language? Or prove that I have uttered lies, that I'm an ass and that I'm cancer to any discourse. How is that not just attempting to silence me, huh? Secondly, I was replying to your post towards maybenexttime. There, as far as I see, he was spreading Kremlin's lies. But I wasn't here for that discussion. In the "gunpoint" view, he was spreading his own lies about voting not being at gunpoint. He had evidence for a case of it not being at gunpoint, but he was undermining the general claim. And "I didn't know" should be quickly followed by an admission that his post was wrong and preferably an edit of the original post. Remind me again, what kind of valuable nuance does Ardias add to this discussion? Should we heed his arguments for why these elections aren't that bad and endorse the referenda? Let those regions be annexed? Is that the valuable nuance? Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again? I expect your diversion within the hour. Also the expressed part where I encourage you to disagree in a way that can actually create a fruitful discussion... yeah, I am really silencing you there... EDIT: Got him I guess Yeah, way to go. "Got 'em", that's fruitful discussion right there. Speaking of which, you all know this but just to do a quick recap to paint a picture - some of the things Russian imperialism entails just this year, mostly on an industrial scale: - murder - rape - torture - looting - annihilated cities - constant shelling of residential areas, schools, hospitals, power plants across the country - forced deportations - forced conscriptions - including conscripting Ukrainian citizens to fight against their own country - forced bs "referendums" - lies and misinformation to the point of absurdity - thinly veiled threats of nuclear armageddon - elimination of political opponents, free speech and free media - overt militarism and nationalism - rampant corruption - heavily disproportionate use of ethnic minorities as cannon fodder - blatant disregard of international law - generally using terror, blackmail and violence as the basis of foreign and domestic policy So when looking at the big picture, nuanced discussion around these topics amounts to something in between "Russia is as bad as Nazi Germany" and "Russia isn't quite as bad as Nazi Germany, but it's a photo finish", and I fail to see how anything fruitful is going to come out of that. Russian sympathizers have been shouting from the rooftops trying to make their case for months. The only thing I've heard resembling anything from this planet that someone could even remotely argue to justify the invasion (without all the genocide) is "Ukraine bombed civilians in Donbass for eight years" which is highly manipulative at best. So, what exactly is there to argue about, is Russia guilty of all these crimes or just most of them? I'm sure there's a nuanced, philosophical discussion to be had as to what extent are the Russian people as a whole responsible for all this. Also, Ardias is a big boy, I'm sure he doesn't need you to speak on his behalf. Yes it is not a way to have a fruitful discussion. Maybe you should read more of our past exchanges to realise why we end up at that point, I am tired of constantly trying to be the better man. I no longer owe any decency, or allow him to just scurry away when I deliver exactly what asked for. Go through my post history here, with a few exceptions after a frustrating exchange you will see how much of an effort for fruitful discussions I put in, and how I am repeatedly talking to someone who just tries to shout me down and relies on attacks on peoples characters when that does not work. How about you complain about the person that constantly throws out accusations instead. The person that has been the catalyst for most of the instances where things got ugly in here. The person that usually started the shitflinging. I don't speak for Ardias, but someone needs to reign our little extremists in to keep this from being a pure echo chamber, and I think voicing support for someone who has been shown very unfair treatment repeatedly is important. Certain people here always try their best to interpret what he is saying in a bad way, and seemingly don't care when he even bothers to clarify with them. If you prefer to punch down or watch others doing so, that is just you. I prefer not to. If you want to do the thing where anything that deviates even slightly from your POV or criticises it is the absolute evil, there is twitter for that. This forum is expressively for discussions and so far we have managed pretty well whenever full blown russian propaganda has popped up, because we have people who can actually argue against it rather than just turn it into a shouting match.
Hey, thanks for the response. I hope you'll forgive me for not going through the entire thread - admittedly kinda awkward for me to just jump in here like this but I've read a good chunk of the thread and honestly I don't recognize the drama and hostility to the extent that you describe, but hey, I might've missed it. I tend to just check here for news that I may have otherwise missed every now and then.
I can't speak to anyone's character but in any case, many people's takes here are undoubtedly uncompromising, or "extreme", because the topics being discussed are extreme. This goes beyond the usual day-to-day politics, you could argue that we're basically at war. You can't take emotion out of it.
I wouldn't exactly call pushing back against Russian talking points - or even points of view - "punching down" and I don't think it needs to be done with kid gloves. Though I have to say that presenting those views here is sort of brave in a way - if such a thing can manifest on the internet. Either that or not reading the room. And hey, I'm not even going to throw a fit about you insinuating I may prefer punching down or calling people here "little extremists" - we're all adults here, I assume.
In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of fruitful discussions to be had here - things aren't usually black and white but some things are more black and white than others.
|
|
|
Small update from our end. It is really frustrating that Germany is still not budging on the tanks, and hopefully that changes soon.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 27 2022 00:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:46 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. He claimed that an aggressive pro-Ukrainian crowd murdered innocent, peaceful pro-Russian protesters trapping them in a building and setting it on fire, and that people were stopped from helping them. I showed footage of the pro-Russian protesters firing live rounds from the rooftop and throwing molotovs from the building (and some pro-Ukrainians throwing theirs at the building). The footage also showed many pro-Ukrainian protesters helping people escape, with no one obstructing them. I also linked to investigations proving that the fire started in several places, including some that only the pro-Russian side had access to. In other words, the pro-Russian side was not peaceful, the people were not trapped by the pro-Ukrainian side but by the fire, and nobody was stopping anyone from escaping, on the contrary - the pro-Ukrainian crowd was actively helping people escape. There is tons of evidence supporting the official account of the events and zero evidence supporting the Kremlin narrative shared by Ardias. So forgive me if after that I assume he's more likely to post in bad faith. because most likely you just hate our guts I'm also curious what you meant by that.
Well:
On July 25 2022 04:23 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2022 03:43 Sent. wrote:
Well it is hard to understand why Kremlin is so reluctant to use Russia's core manpower while using ethnic Russians from their puppet states in eastern Ukraine like an 19th century imperialist power would use people from its African or Asian colonies. Because most Russians are couch patriots by design. They don't mind a genocide next door, as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty.
On July 27 2022 07:59 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 07:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If it is destroyed then 15k Russian troops will be trapped with no supply route. I hope the Ukrainians kill all of them. I've read what they've been up to in Kherson and it's shocking even for Russia...
On September 12 2022 03:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2022 02:38 Dav1oN wrote:
Russia just attacked critical electrical/water civilian infrastructure in 5 of the eastern region with missiles. Many cities are in blackout. This is the only way they can compensate for their retarted army. Hopefully no negotiations until kremlin state is disassembled into pieces Ukraine should retaliate and attack every Russian power plant within range. Fuck those fascist cunts.
I wonder how many minutes poster would have survived on TL forums before being banned if he wrote something like this about the population of any other country. I'm not questioning your reasoning for that, but the tone of your posts speaks for yourself.
@Oleo won't be arguing your points, on the main conclusion we do agree. Just want to answer a bit on the E) - Russia seemed very eager to enforce Minsk agreements up to the late 2021. So it wasn't forcing any Russians to go and settle there, the one who came, believe it or not, did that on their own volition. In fact, many Russian volunteers had issues crossing the border, especially with military hardware, and were very toxic towards Kremlin as they believed that it would give LDPR back to Ukraine in accordance to Minsk agreements and they would all be rounded up and sentenced/killed along with actual separatists by the Ukrainian army/SBU.
On the topic of ongoing mobilization - some regions start to report that they fullfilled their quota (Crimea), or will do so in couple of days (Yakutia). Some regions seem to be given increased quotas (Primorskiy Krai was apparently required to deliver 7,7k men with the population of 1,9 million), but numbers seem to be generally in line with 2k men per million people. Basing that on Crimea reporting that 2k of the mobilized served in AFU before (which means before 2014), population of it being 1,9 million and top age of conscription being 35 (though I know military recruitment go overboard with that). That constitutes general recruitment range from the people who ended their service between 2007 and 2021, which is equally divided by 2014 (though it's hard to count former contract soldiers/officers in there). So the number of mobilized from Crimea seem to be around 4-5k men.
Edit: some videos showing how different mobilization may be in different regions/facilities
https://t.me/historywarweapon/16929
Here the guy says that they have been given everything, urges new mobilized not to take a lot with them, since it would be hard to drag along. He also said that there is a new Motorized Rifle Regiment forming, how long will it take and when they would depart - he doesn't know.
https://t.me/m0sc0wcalling/11939
This is different kind of situation. Deputy commander of the rear services instructs the mobilized that army may only provide uniform, weapons and armor, other necessary stuff like sleeping bags, medical supplies and other day-to-day things they should aquire themselves. She also shares her Chechnya experience with some field know-hows, saying that simple menstrual tampon is doing good against the bullet wound (you just stick it in the wound, it widens up with the bloodflow, sufficently stopping the bleeding) and the cheapest menstrual pads are working nice as insoles to soak the water and sweat from the boots.
|
United States41988 Posts
The idea that Russian occupation of Donetsk was somehow in conflict with Russian state policy is odd given they seemed to routinely have access to Russian military hardware. Either these people are casually wandering onto Russian bases, breaking into the armouries, and then sneaking across the border with anti aircraft missile launchers in their pockets or they’re state sponsored. And to be clear, it’s not the first one.
|
On July 25 2022 04:23 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2022 03:43 Sent. wrote:
Well it is hard to understand why Kremlin is so reluctant to use Russia's core manpower while using ethnic Russians from their puppet states in eastern Ukraine like an 19th century imperialist power would use people from its African or Asian colonies. Because most Russians are couch patriots by design. They don't mind a genocide next door, as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty.
Is my assessment unfair? That's the opinion of leading Russian sociologists. Most Russians are couch patriots and passively support the war (or at least did until the recent mobilization). The indifference to what Russia has been doing in Ukraine for the past seven months has been absolutely stunning. And don't tell me that they had no idea. People were somehow informed enough to flee/fear the mobilization. They know the story peddled by their TV is bullshit.
On July 27 2022 07:59 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2022 07:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If it is destroyed then 15k Russian troops will be trapped with no supply route. I hope the Ukrainians kill all of them. I've read what they've been up to in Kherson and it's shocking even for Russia...
Jones313 made a neat little list of what Russian troops have been up to throughout the war. Wishing them to die is hardly controversial. They made a conscious choice to invade a neighbouring country and kill innocent people.
On September 12 2022 03:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2022 02:38 Dav1oN wrote:
Russia just attacked critical electrical/water civilian infrastructure in 5 of the eastern region with missiles. Many cities are in blackout. This is the only way they can compensate for their retarted army. Hopefully no negotiations until kremlin state is disassembled into pieces Ukraine should retaliate and attack every Russian power plant within range. Fuck those fascist cunts.
I was obviously agitated by the relentless Russian strikes on civilian targets and critical infrastructure when I wrote that. By "Fascist cunts" I meant people involved in the war/Russian government, not ordinary people.
On September 27 2022 06:05 Ardias wrote:
I wonder how many minutes poster would have survived on TL forums before being banned if he wrote something like this about the population of any other country. I'm not questioning your reasoning for that, but the tone of your posts speaks for yourself.
What's so egregious about what I said? Also, if Russia were a normal country, I'd be considered a Russophile, considering that I studied Russian for three semesters at the uni, listen to Russian music almost daily and read Russian literature. Unfortunately, it's hard not to hate Russia as a country.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On September 27 2022 06:20 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Russian occupation of Donetsk was somehow in conflict with Russian state policy is odd given they seemed to routinely have access to Russian military hardware. Either these people are casually wandering onto Russian bases, breaking into the armouries, and then sneaking across the border with anti aircraft missile launchers in their pockets or they’re state sponsored. And to be clear, it’s not the first one.
It's not exactly in conflict, if it's the leverage for the federalization of Ukraine (which was basically the main idea of the 2nd Minsk agreement in 2015, emphasized in point 11) which would allow for the shady deals with now more empowered regions (Ukraine is a centralized state, Crimea before 2014 was the only exeption as the autnomous republic, and that was due to the Crimean Tatar population in there) to work on Russian influence within Ukraine and insuring that right people within Russia and Ukraine (like Medvedchuk and his party, or some oligarchs who previously supported Yanukovich, like Akhmetov) would get their money, For that Putin and Co would happily trade all Russian volunteers in Donbass with all the equipment supplied.
@maybenexttime As I said, I do not question your reasoning, You asked "what do I mean by saying that "you hate our guts", I replied with quotes, to which you said "that it's hard not to hate Russia as a country". I guess we both got our answers on the matter.
Also regarding power plants - hitting them would mostly affect ordinary people, so it's easy to confuse whom you meant.
|
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining, same as you. I don't hate Russians as people. I hate the country/state. There's a difference. I'm sure you know that.
|
Lithuania is punching above its weight when it comes to supplies for UA, sending fast-moving armor in way larger quantities than is expected for its 2.8m population.
A total of fifty M113 armored personnel carriers donated by Lithuania have already reached Ukraine, but further military support will have to be discussed with NATO allies, Defense Minister Arvydas Anusauskas said on Monday. "As to military assistance to Ukraine, Lithuania has supported and will continue to support it," Anusauskas told reporters after the State Defense Council's meeting. "Our armored vehicles arrived in Ukraine (...) just three days ago, and now 50 M113s have already been handed over to Ukraine," he said. The president-chaired State Defense Council did not discuss military support to Ukraine, the minister said, adding that the meeting focused on the situation in the region, including Russia's military mobilization and possible asylum requests from Russian citizens. According to Anusauskas, Lithuania will consider further possible support to Ukraine in consultation with its NATO partners, because the country has to meet its commitments to the Alliance and ensure the security of the troops it is hosting. "Our armed forces are NATO's armed forces and our capability is also important for our allies who are here," the minister said. "This is why every time we consider a reduction of our capability (...), we have to discuss with our allies how we are going to compensate for this." "There are many issues that cannot be resolved very quickly," he added. To make up for the lost capability, Lithuania expects an earlier arrival of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs) under its contract with the United States, according to Anusauskas. "Another 50 (JLTVs) will apparently arrive in November, in addition to the 50 that came last year," he said. "We'd like this to happen faster; not everything always goes according to our wishes, but there are always those conversations." Source
+ Show Spoiler +On September 26 2022 21:45 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 21:42 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:28 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 21:10 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 21:04 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:46 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:38 maybenexttime wrote:On September 26 2022 20:34 Artesimo wrote:On September 26 2022 20:22 maybenexttime wrote:
@Ardias
Edit: As with "Odessa massacre", you are presented with video evidence that invalidates your bogus claims. Yet you refuse to admit you were wrong. Pathetic. He literally admitted that both is happening based on the evidence presented... If you people would start to actually faithfully engage instead of just going down your debate conversation tree this thread would be so much better. And if the mods would start to care about the rules set out in the first post... After spending several posts insinuating how these referendums could be legitimate and how he has doubts that people were voting at gunpoint based on some anecdotal evidence from a friend. I'm tired of the hutzpah. For someone as well informed as Ardias, I have a hard time believing that he wasn't aware of the videos posted by Ghanburighan. I understood his position as he is aware that the result of the referendum is already clear in advance, but he did not make conclusions about any claims resulting from that (i.e. if all pro ukrainian people had been filtrated out, a properly conducted referendum could lead to a real result, but that result would give no justification for anything). I also did not get the impression that he is trying to claim they are legit, just bringing some well needed nuance and caveats or even random bits of information to it. Of course a good way of seeing if he is 'insinuating' anything would be to ask in a non combative manner - but you know, that would include giving the benefit of the doubt and being interested in an actual conversation... After the "Odessa massacre" debacle I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. He was literally peddling Kremlin propaganda and when presented with heaps of evidence directly contradicting his claims, he stuck to the lies. The fact that you have to constantly go back to one single thing when he has been part of many exchanges here might led a more rational person to consider that he is... *gasp* wrong about that and not deliberately lying. His sources disagree with yours, and he values them over yours is a perfectly fine explanation. Not one you have to agree with, but one that you should be able to accept. At worst you can call him gullible for that. Or consider the fact that many times he does agree when confronted with different information. Or perhaps we shouldn't tolerate spreading the Kremlin's lies. I also don't believe Ardias is manufacturing these lies in a troll farm, but they're still lies and need to be called out at every juncture. So you are admitting that you are actually lying? Because apparently you are the opinion that he is not lying, but is propagating false information (lies from someone else), yet you accuse him of lying. Finally the mask comes off. Being an ass in the name of good does not make you less of an ass. If someone is lying(hint: that means knowingly and deliberately spreading false information) you are free to call it out, when someone is wrong you are free to correct them without false accusations. Nowhere did I say you should just accept it silently, all I ask is stop relying on accusations and being a cancer to any discourse in this thread. That way you might actually get taken seriously by them and can manage to change their mind. Le sigh. First, how about you watch your language? Or prove that I have uttered lies, that I'm an ass and that I'm cancer to any discourse. How is that not just attempting to silence me, huh? Secondly, I was replying to your post towards maybenexttime. There, as far as I see, he was spreading Kremlin's lies. But I wasn't here for that discussion. In the "gunpoint" view, he was spreading his own lies about voting not being at gunpoint. He had evidence for a case of it not being at gunpoint, but he was undermining the general claim. And "I didn't know" should be quickly followed by an admission that his post was wrong and preferably an edit of the original post. Remind me again, what kind of valuable nuance does Ardias add to this discussion? Should we heed his arguments for why these elections aren't that bad and endorse the referenda? Let those regions be annexed? Is that the valuable nuance? I expect your diversion within the hour. Also the expressed part where I encourage you to disagree in a way that can actually create a fruitful discussion... yeah, I am really silencing you there... EDIT: Got him I guess Didn't know Estonians are still German slaves that need to jump when you say so. I thought that ended a few hundred years back. Also, this is what "diversion" means: "the act or an instance of diverting or straying from a course, activity, or use" - Merriam Webster. So, how about you learn the meaning of words. This has been a problem before. Because I really don't know what kind of a diversion I'm supposed to provide.
|
On September 26 2022 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 19:27 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot. Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short. Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up. And I know how elections should be working, thanks. And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least. Simberto is right, you don't understand how elections work. If they don't conform to free and fair elections, you shouldn't believe any results of elections. They're worse than invalid, they undermine the very idea of democracy. Here are some of the reasons why: - Calling the referendum and changing relevant legislation was done in days. - there wasn't time nor the freedom to have a robust public debate on the issue beforehand. - the voting isn't private, so it's basically just voting under coercion. A person who wanted to vote "no" might publicly vote "yes", especially if it's done at gunpoint. Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again? + Show Spoiler +- There are major restrictions on who can vote: if as much as the majority of the residents of a region aren't in the region, and they're not allowed to participate in the vote, it doesn't allow their view to be heard. Like, for example, my good friend who is a resident of Donetsk but hasn't been able to return since 2014. - There are no independent observers. - There's no evidence of counting being transparent. In conclusion, this referendum theatre shows literally nothing about the right of Russia to annex these territories. And the sham should be condemned by everyone. User was warned for this post
I was warned for this post.
That's disgraceful.
This thread has of people who spout lies, propaganda and justify genocide with impunity. And the one person who actually has inside information as to what's going on is being warned for countering it. Not to mention the several people who dog my every post, calling me names. This isn't freedom of speech, it's the tyranny of the most persistent. And I'm done.
Wallow in your ignorance, goodbye.
|
Croatia9476 Posts
On September 27 2022 07:42 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 19:27 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot. Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short. Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up. And I know how elections should be working, thanks. And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least. Simberto is right, you don't understand how elections work. If they don't conform to free and fair elections, you shouldn't believe any results of elections. They're worse than invalid, they undermine the very idea of democracy. Here are some of the reasons why: - Calling the referendum and changing relevant legislation was done in days. - there wasn't time nor the freedom to have a robust public debate on the issue beforehand. - the voting isn't private, so it's basically just voting under coercion. A person who wanted to vote "no" might publicly vote "yes", especially if it's done at gunpoint. Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again? + Show Spoiler +- There are major restrictions on who can vote: if as much as the majority of the residents of a region aren't in the region, and they're not allowed to participate in the vote, it doesn't allow their view to be heard. Like, for example, my good friend who is a resident of Donetsk but hasn't been able to return since 2014. - There are no independent observers. - There's no evidence of counting being transparent. In conclusion, this referendum theatre shows literally nothing about the right of Russia to annex these territories. And the sham should be condemned by everyone. User was warned for this post I was warned for this post. That's disgraceful. This thread has of people who spout lies, propaganda and justify genocide with impunity. And the one person who actually has inside information as to what's going on is being warned for countering it. Not to mention the several people who dog my every post, calling me names. This isn't freedom of speech, it's the tyranny of the most persistent. And I'm done. Wallow in your ignorance, goodbye.
I haven't warned you, besides giving a general warning in this thread a few (hundred) pages back, but I wanted to clear something up. You weren't warned for that particular post specifically; that is just the artifact of the TL's moderation system that we have to click "warn user" on one post. You were warned for starting yet another crusade against a specific poster, instead of engaging in good faith discussion that we want to cultivate here.
And the odd thing is that you seem to be completely unaware that you're doing this in the first place. Which explains why you resort to martyring rather than some self-reflection.
|
On September 27 2022 08:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2022 07:42 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 19:27 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot. Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short. Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up. And I know how elections should be working, thanks. And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least. Simberto is right, you don't understand how elections work. If they don't conform to free and fair elections, you shouldn't believe any results of elections. They're worse than invalid, they undermine the very idea of democracy. Here are some of the reasons why: - Calling the referendum and changing relevant legislation was done in days. - there wasn't time nor the freedom to have a robust public debate on the issue beforehand. - the voting isn't private, so it's basically just voting under coercion. A person who wanted to vote "no" might publicly vote "yes", especially if it's done at gunpoint. Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again? + Show Spoiler +- There are major restrictions on who can vote: if as much as the majority of the residents of a region aren't in the region, and they're not allowed to participate in the vote, it doesn't allow their view to be heard. Like, for example, my good friend who is a resident of Donetsk but hasn't been able to return since 2014. - There are no independent observers. - There's no evidence of counting being transparent. In conclusion, this referendum theatre shows literally nothing about the right of Russia to annex these territories. And the sham should be condemned by everyone. User was warned for this post I was warned for this post. That's disgraceful. This thread has of people who spout lies, propaganda and justify genocide with impunity. And the one person who actually has inside information as to what's going on is being warned for countering it. Not to mention the several people who dog my every post, calling me names. This isn't freedom of speech, it's the tyranny of the most persistent. And I'm done. Wallow in your ignorance, goodbye. I haven't warned you, besides giving a general warning in this thread a few (hundred) pages back, but I wanted to clear something up. You weren't warned for that particular post specifically; that is just the artifact of the TL's moderation system that we have to click "warn user" on one post. You were warned for starting yet another crusade against a specific poster, instead of engaging in good faith discussion that we want to cultivate here. And the odd thing is that you seem to be completely unaware that you're doing this in the first place. Which explains why you resort to martyring rather than some self-reflection.
You have clearly failed at creating good faith discussion. Read some of the stuff directed at me and tell me whether you'd want to discuss anything on this platform.
Now, nuke my account.
|
A lot of conscription offices have been subject to arson attacks. In one of the cases a man was recorded parking a vehicle right in front of the door and throwing one burning cocktail after another at the building. This appears to be a common method.
Russians are finally beginning to fight back in their own country. As expected from human psychology, it requires a shocking event (forced mass conscription) to motivate a person to radically change course.
https://www.newsweek.com/arson-attacks-enlistment-offices-spike-after-putin-starts-mobilization-1746325
|
On September 27 2022 08:43 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2022 08:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:On September 27 2022 07:42 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 26 2022 19:27 Ardias wrote:On September 26 2022 19:12 Simberto wrote:
Ardias, i don't think you are quite clear on what the point is.
No one is disputing that some people in Luhansk or Donetsk would prefer to be in Russia.
But acting as if the referenda are anything but theater is absurd. The people talking about possible results were doing so not under the impression that the people in those areas might decide otherwise, but under the impression that military leadership might rig the vote in a different way than Putin wants.
"But people are making checkmarks" as an argument shows a complete misunderstanding about what voting is all about (which, i guess, is fair, if you are used to russian elections). It doesn't matter who the people making checkmarks are if those checkmarks don't matter. The whole process is obviously not a legitimate referendum.
In a normal election, people can freely (and secretly) choose where they place their checkmarks, those checkmarks then get counted, all of them get counted, none get counted double, none get lost, no others are added. And the result of the election is what the majority of the checkmarks say.
In this "vote", people make checkmarks (under threat and while russian military is watching), those checkmarks then don't matter, and the result is what Putin wants it to be.
Voting is not about making checkmarks. Voting is about those checkmarks actually mattering.
And once you start rigging the election, it doesn't matter if you would have needed to rig them a lot. Don't have much time to reply, so I'll try to be short. Yes, they do rig elections in Russia. Due to that you always assume, that any result of any elections in Russia should be completely reversal, because if some of them are rigged, then all of them are rigged. So you wouldn't believe any result of any election in Russia, even when they do answer popular opinion. As for my "complete misunderstanding" - I'll be asking around people whom I know there to get more clear perspective on the reality of the results, to know if they vote, how they vote, how their relatives and acquaintance did and why they did so, what people around say about it etc. Then I'll try to make a clear picture about if these results may be legit, or made up. And I know how elections should be working, thanks. And I do not talk about the legitimacy, my concern is understanding how big percentage of the people voted "Yes" or "No", and their reasons to do that. Based on anecdotal evidences maybe, but from the eyewitnesses whom I know personally and who don't have agenda at least. Simberto is right, you don't understand how elections work. If they don't conform to free and fair elections, you shouldn't believe any results of elections. They're worse than invalid, they undermine the very idea of democracy. Here are some of the reasons why: - Calling the referendum and changing relevant legislation was done in days. - there wasn't time nor the freedom to have a robust public debate on the issue beforehand. - the voting isn't private, so it's basically just voting under coercion. A person who wanted to vote "no" might publicly vote "yes", especially if it's done at gunpoint. Also, what were you lying about it not being at gunpoint again? + Show Spoiler +- There are major restrictions on who can vote: if as much as the majority of the residents of a region aren't in the region, and they're not allowed to participate in the vote, it doesn't allow their view to be heard. Like, for example, my good friend who is a resident of Donetsk but hasn't been able to return since 2014. - There are no independent observers. - There's no evidence of counting being transparent. In conclusion, this referendum theatre shows literally nothing about the right of Russia to annex these territories. And the sham should be condemned by everyone. User was warned for this post I was warned for this post. That's disgraceful. This thread has of people who spout lies, propaganda and justify genocide with impunity. And the one person who actually has inside information as to what's going on is being warned for countering it. Not to mention the several people who dog my every post, calling me names. This isn't freedom of speech, it's the tyranny of the most persistent. And I'm done. Wallow in your ignorance, goodbye. I haven't warned you, besides giving a general warning in this thread a few (hundred) pages back, but I wanted to clear something up. You weren't warned for that particular post specifically; that is just the artifact of the TL's moderation system that we have to click "warn user" on one post. You were warned for starting yet another crusade against a specific poster, instead of engaging in good faith discussion that we want to cultivate here. And the odd thing is that you seem to be completely unaware that you're doing this in the first place. Which explains why you resort to martyring rather than some self-reflection. You have clearly failed at creating good faith discussion. Read some of the stuff directed at me and tell me whether you'd want to discuss anything on this platform.
Have a look in the mirror sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
