|
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 July 28 2023 19:40 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2023 15:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 28 2023 13:32 gobbledydook wrote:
What does a Russian defeat in Ukraine mean for Russians in Russia?
Suppose next month the floodgates open, Ukraine takes back the land corridor, and the bad news is impossible to hide or explain away. What do we expect to happen? Absolutely nothing. There is no will to resist in Russia, the people are not going to revolt or complain to loudly because then you get imprisoned. There will be no pressure from the people for peace because the people have no power. A coup against Putin does not have to come from the people. It can also come from some of the elite that has supported him up till now. Quite clearly the Russian people and army don't really care for Putin considering the ease at which Prigozhin could walk on Moscow. Putin's position is weak and losing the war wil only make it worse. He asked what it would mean for the Russians in Russia.
For the people there is no difference between knowing the war is going terrible or not knowing the war is going terrible.
|
|
|
They were lost on their own objectives from the start lol. They actually believed Ukraine wasn't going to put up a fight and they could just annex it like they did with Crimea. They never planned for nor had any idea how they were going to fight a prolonged ground war like this.
During the discussions, it became evident that Ukraine’s chances of regaining its occupied territories were extremely slim. Crimea remains a particularly contentious issue, as Ukraine asserts its intent to reclaim the region which Russia annexed in 2014.
“If Russia thought it might lose Crimea,” the ex-official said, “it would almost certainly resort to [using] tactical nuclear weapons.”
From that article. That's a bunch of bullshit. So these Kremlin guys want the US to recognize Russia's control of Crimea or else they'll use nukes to defend it? No way. We're right back to square one.
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries.
|
On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries.
I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up.
Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine.
|
On July 29 2023 18:57 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries. I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up. Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine.
Nuclear blackmail does not work and cannot be allowed to work, otherwise you will see a very rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. And THAT is much more threatening to everyone on earth than anything that Russia can say in negotiations. And unless their leadership has been lobotomized, they know this as well.
But I think we had this discussion about half a dozen times here as well. And since then, we have climbed a few more steps on the escalation ladder and so far, all the red lines have been bluffs. Russia is not going to start using nuclear weapons just because they are getting pushed out of Ukrainian territory, no matter how they call that. If they do, they might as well use their entire arsenal because the reaction to that will be about the same.
Apologies to all the doomsday folks, but Fallout isn't going to happen over Crimea. And if that former official would be worth his salt, he would absolutely know the same.
|
On July 29 2023 19:27 Nezgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 18:57 Artesimo wrote:On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries. I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up. Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine. Nuclear blackmail does not work and cannot be allowed to work, otherwise you will see a very rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. And THAT is much more threatening to everyone on earth than anything that Russia can say in negotiations. And unless their leadership has been lobotomized, they know this as well. But I think we had this discussion about half a dozen times here as well. And since then, we have climbed a few more steps on the escalation ladder and so far, all the red lines have been bluffs. Russia is not going to start using nuclear weapons just because they are getting pushed out of Ukrainian territory, no matter how they call that. If they do, they might as well use their entire arsenal because the reaction to that will be about the same. Apologies to all the doomsday folks, but Fallout isn't going to happen over Crimea. And if that former official would be worth his salt, he would absolutely know the same.
I was not speaking on nuclear blackmail or draw any conclusions on the likelihood of russian nuclear threats. The point was solely that dragging nato into matters completely outside their responsibility and trying to draw conclusions from that is something I completely disagree with and find a very flawed line of reasoning. This was just about the boundaries of nato and my trust that nato won't step outside of these boundaries and stay true to its goal because otherwise it would be incredibly hurtful to the alliance itself and its credibility.
|
On July 29 2023 19:27 Nezgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 18:57 Artesimo wrote:On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries. I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up. Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine. Nuclear blackmail does not work and cannot be allowed to work, otherwise you will see a very rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. And THAT is much more threatening to everyone on earth than anything that Russia can say in negotiations. And unless their leadership has been lobotomized, they know this as well. But I think we had this discussion about half a dozen times here as well. And since then, we have climbed a few more steps on the escalation ladder and so far, all the red lines have been bluffs. Russia is not going to start using nuclear weapons just because they are getting pushed out of Ukrainian territory, no matter how they call that. If they do, they might as well use their entire arsenal because the reaction to that will be about the same. Apologies to all the doomsday folks, but Fallout isn't going to happen over Crimea. And if that former official would be worth his salt, he would absolutely know the same. I fail to see what Russia threatening with nukes if Crimea gets invaded has to do with NATO's defence clause?
Threatening a country outside of NATO can, by definition, not poke a hole in article 5. Because article 5 requires an attack upon a NATO member.
Which Ukraine is not.
|
On July 29 2023 20:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 19:27 Nezgar wrote:On July 29 2023 18:57 Artesimo wrote:On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries. I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up. Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine. Nuclear blackmail does not work and cannot be allowed to work, otherwise you will see a very rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. And THAT is much more threatening to everyone on earth than anything that Russia can say in negotiations. And unless their leadership has been lobotomized, they know this as well. But I think we had this discussion about half a dozen times here as well. And since then, we have climbed a few more steps on the escalation ladder and so far, all the red lines have been bluffs. Russia is not going to start using nuclear weapons just because they are getting pushed out of Ukrainian territory, no matter how they call that. If they do, they might as well use their entire arsenal because the reaction to that will be about the same. Apologies to all the doomsday folks, but Fallout isn't going to happen over Crimea. And if that former official would be worth his salt, he would absolutely know the same. I fail to see what Russia threatening with nukes if Crimea gets invaded has to do with NATO's defence clause? Threatening a country outside of NATO can, by definition, not poke a hole in article 5. Because article 5 requires an attack upon a NATO member. Which Ukraine is not.
Not yet.
Ukraine has been promised to join one day and the stated reason for the war is Russian opposition to that.
NATO credibility (articel 5 included) is in question whether it likes it or not.
|
On July 29 2023 19:49 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 19:27 Nezgar wrote:On July 29 2023 18:57 Artesimo wrote:On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries. I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up. Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine. Nuclear blackmail does not work and cannot be allowed to work, otherwise you will see a very rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. And THAT is much more threatening to everyone on earth than anything that Russia can say in negotiations. And unless their leadership has been lobotomized, they know this as well. But I think we had this discussion about half a dozen times here as well. And since then, we have climbed a few more steps on the escalation ladder and so far, all the red lines have been bluffs. Russia is not going to start using nuclear weapons just because they are getting pushed out of Ukrainian territory, no matter how they call that. If they do, they might as well use their entire arsenal because the reaction to that will be about the same. Apologies to all the doomsday folks, but Fallout isn't going to happen over Crimea. And if that former official would be worth his salt, he would absolutely know the same. I was not speaking on nuclear blackmail or draw any conclusions on the likelihood of russian nuclear threats. The point was solely that dragging nato into matters completely outside their responsibility and trying to draw conclusions from that is something I completely disagree with and find a very flawed line of reasoning. This was just about the boundaries of nato and my trust that nato won't step outside of these boundaries and stay true to its goal because otherwise it would be incredibly hurtful to the alliance itself and its credibility.
I was mostly replying to that last bit:
Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine.
Russia using nuclear weapons is not just a NATO responsibility, it is the responsibility of ALL global nuclear powers. China has almost as much at stake there, as does India and Pakistan and all the rest.
It has nothing to do with Article 5, I agree with that.
|
On July 29 2023 21:16 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 20:59 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2023 19:27 Nezgar wrote:On July 29 2023 18:57 Artesimo wrote:On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries. I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up. Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine. Nuclear blackmail does not work and cannot be allowed to work, otherwise you will see a very rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. And THAT is much more threatening to everyone on earth than anything that Russia can say in negotiations. And unless their leadership has been lobotomized, they know this as well. But I think we had this discussion about half a dozen times here as well. And since then, we have climbed a few more steps on the escalation ladder and so far, all the red lines have been bluffs. Russia is not going to start using nuclear weapons just because they are getting pushed out of Ukrainian territory, no matter how they call that. If they do, they might as well use their entire arsenal because the reaction to that will be about the same. Apologies to all the doomsday folks, but Fallout isn't going to happen over Crimea. And if that former official would be worth his salt, he would absolutely know the same. I fail to see what Russia threatening with nukes if Crimea gets invaded has to do with NATO's defence clause? Threatening a country outside of NATO can, by definition, not poke a hole in article 5. Because article 5 requires an attack upon a NATO member. Which Ukraine is not. Not yet. Ukraine has been promised to join one day and the stated reason for the war is Russian opposition to that. NATO credibility (articel 5 included) is in question whether it likes it or not.
No it isn't. Nato has been extremely clear in that ukraine can not expect any direct support prior to joining and that joining is not possible as long as the war is still going. Its only because you have completely unrealistic expectations of Nato and its duties. Ukraines prospects of joining Nato right now are about the same as for every other country that has applied but hasn't been confirmed yet. If this was finland instead of ukraine, then you would have a point. This way you can at best argue that it matters in public opinion, aka the eyes of the people who luckily do not matter, and seem to not pay attention to what is said.
|
On July 29 2023 21:40 Nezgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2023 19:49 Artesimo wrote:On July 29 2023 19:27 Nezgar wrote:On July 29 2023 18:57 Artesimo wrote:On July 29 2023 15:16 Vindicare605 wrote:
These negotiations can't go anywhere without Russia ceding all of the territory it's tried to conquer including Crimea. If we recognize Russia's control of Crimea then they will have successfully managed to poke a hole in article 5 of NATO where all they have to do is threaten nukes enough times and we'll back off when they know they are completely in the wrong as the aggressor.
We'd be appeasing Putin by doing that and he'll just take the wrong lesson that he can now do the same thing with other countries. I categorically refuse the idea that anything that is happening to any country that is completely outside of nato has any indication for how well article 5 would hold up. Unless we suddenly want to agree with russian claims that nato is not a purely defensive alliance. Nato is only responsible for the protection of its members. Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine. Nuclear blackmail does not work and cannot be allowed to work, otherwise you will see a very rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. And THAT is much more threatening to everyone on earth than anything that Russia can say in negotiations. And unless their leadership has been lobotomized, they know this as well. But I think we had this discussion about half a dozen times here as well. And since then, we have climbed a few more steps on the escalation ladder and so far, all the red lines have been bluffs. Russia is not going to start using nuclear weapons just because they are getting pushed out of Ukrainian territory, no matter how they call that. If they do, they might as well use their entire arsenal because the reaction to that will be about the same. Apologies to all the doomsday folks, but Fallout isn't going to happen over Crimea. And if that former official would be worth his salt, he would absolutely know the same. I was not speaking on nuclear blackmail or draw any conclusions on the likelihood of russian nuclear threats. The point was solely that dragging nato into matters completely outside their responsibility and trying to draw conclusions from that is something I completely disagree with and find a very flawed line of reasoning. This was just about the boundaries of nato and my trust that nato won't step outside of these boundaries and stay true to its goal because otherwise it would be incredibly hurtful to the alliance itself and its credibility. I was mostly replying to that last bit: Show nested quote +Nato being willing to risk nuclear war, or any war for that matter, over something completely outside of nato responsibility would be more threatening to its existence than any decision that could be made in regards to ukraine. Russia using nuclear weapons is not just a NATO responsibility, it is the responsibility of ALL global nuclear powers. China has almost as much at stake there, as does India and Pakistan and all the rest. It has nothing to do with Article 5, I agree with that. Oh absolutely, the first use of nuclear weapons since their initial use to end ww2 would be a massive global event and no one wants to open that Pandora's box.
Which is also why China has repeatedly told Russia to stop with the nuclear threats. No one wants to wake up in a world where even small scale tactical nuclear weapons are acceptable to use.
|
Besides useless saber rattling, what is the plan here. No way would Russia would allow any incursion to happen, and who is Wagner chest thumping for. Belarus, or themselves?
WARSAW, July 29 (Reuters) - A group of a hundred soldiers from the Russian Wagner group have moved closer to the Belarusian city of Grodno near the Polish border, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Saturday.
Poland, a former Warsaw Pact member which has been a full member of the U.S.-led NATO military alliance since 1999, has been concerned about the possible spillover of war on to its territory ever since Russian invaded Ukraine in February 2022.
Earlier this month, Poland began moving more than 1,000 troops to the east of the country amid rising concerns that the presence of Wagner fighters in Belarus could lead to increased tension on its border.
"The situation is getting increasingly dangerous ... Most likely they (the Wagner personnel) will be disguised as the Belarusian border guard and help illegal migrants get to the Polish territory (and) destabilise Poland," Morawiecki said at a press conference in Gliwice, western Poland.
"They will most likely try to enter Poland pretending to be illegal migrants and this poses additional threats," Morawiecki said.
However he did not give the source of his information on the Wagner movements, and Anton Motolko, founder of the Belarusian opposition Hajun project which monitors military activity in the country, told Reuters his group had not seen any evidence of the Wagner group moving closer to Grodno.
The city has a potentially significant position given it is near the Suwalki Gap, a strategic strip of land along the Polish-Lithuanian border, which divides Belarus, Russia's ally, from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.
Earlier in July, Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin was shown in a video welcoming his fighters to Belarus, telling them they would take no further part in the Ukraine war for now but ordering them to gather their strength for Africa - where they are involved in a number of conflicts - while they train the Belarusian army.
The following day, some Wagner fighters arrived at the training ground of the 38th airborne assault brigade outside the city of Brest, just a few miles from the Polish border.
Wagner's move to Belarus was part of a deal that ended the group's mutiny attempt in June, when they took control of a Russian military headquarters, marched on Moscow and threatened to tip Russia into civil war, President Vladimir Putin has said.
Source
|
On July 30 2023 01:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Besides useless saber rattling, what is the plan here. No way would Russia would allow any incursion to happen, and who is Wagner chest thumping for. Belarus, or themselves? Show nested quote +WARSAW, July 29 (Reuters) - A group of a hundred soldiers from the Russian Wagner group have moved closer to the Belarusian city of Grodno near the Polish border, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Saturday.
Poland, a former Warsaw Pact member which has been a full member of the U.S.-led NATO military alliance since 1999, has been concerned about the possible spillover of war on to its territory ever since Russian invaded Ukraine in February 2022.
Earlier this month, Poland began moving more than 1,000 troops to the east of the country amid rising concerns that the presence of Wagner fighters in Belarus could lead to increased tension on its border.
"The situation is getting increasingly dangerous ... Most likely they (the Wagner personnel) will be disguised as the Belarusian border guard and help illegal migrants get to the Polish territory (and) destabilise Poland," Morawiecki said at a press conference in Gliwice, western Poland.
"They will most likely try to enter Poland pretending to be illegal migrants and this poses additional threats," Morawiecki said.
However he did not give the source of his information on the Wagner movements, and Anton Motolko, founder of the Belarusian opposition Hajun project which monitors military activity in the country, told Reuters his group had not seen any evidence of the Wagner group moving closer to Grodno.
The city has a potentially significant position given it is near the Suwalki Gap, a strategic strip of land along the Polish-Lithuanian border, which divides Belarus, Russia's ally, from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.
Earlier in July, Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin was shown in a video welcoming his fighters to Belarus, telling them they would take no further part in the Ukraine war for now but ordering them to gather their strength for Africa - where they are involved in a number of conflicts - while they train the Belarusian army.
The following day, some Wagner fighters arrived at the training ground of the 38th airborne assault brigade outside the city of Brest, just a few miles from the Polish border.
Wagner's move to Belarus was part of a deal that ended the group's mutiny attempt in June, when they took control of a Russian military headquarters, marched on Moscow and threatened to tip Russia into civil war, President Vladimir Putin has said. Source
Please don't take polish government too seriously on this.
It's election season and fear is good for the ruling party.
|
Apparently Moscow is under UAV attack.
|
United States43528 Posts
Given all the jamming in Moscow it’s likely that whatever it hit wasn’t the intended target. Still, Nazis never seem to learn why it’s a bad idea to sow the wind.
In Nazi ideology the very exercise of state terrorism is justification for it. They have the power to kill Ukrainians and therefore they have the right to rule Ukraine, might makes right. They murder with impunity to show that they can murder with impunity, the goal of terror is terror. They believe that with enough murder the Ukrainians will eventually concede Russian superiority and submit and therefore terror is the righteous and necessary path. By killing they believe they are making their argument.
Nazis mistake compromise and dialogue for weakness. They believe that the strong simply dominate the weak and that any rival that does not dominate them fails to do so because it is too weak to do so. They cannot be reasoned with because within their ideology the only counter argument they will listen to is force.
Bombing their cities is a rebuttal of their arguments. The only one they’re willing to listen to.
|
These words sound righteous on the surface, unfortunately in the context of the drone attacks in Moscow they're very misled. They aren't hitting any Nazis or their families. These are regular folk who don't want anything to do with any of this.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On July 30 2023 16:51 Magic Powers wrote:
These words sound righteous on the surface, unfortunately in the context of the drone attacks in Moscow they're very misled. They aren't hitting any Nazis or their families. These are regular folk who don't want anything to do with any of this.
I mean, ultimately the reason they hit random people is the same reason GPS has not been working properly ever since that funny incident with drone hitting the Russian Flag in Kremlin: it is interfered to all hell so the only navigation that can reasonably work to send them into buildings that matter now is "offline" (And i can confidently tell you it is more hassle than these drones are worth). If people getting hit should be mad at anyone that would be the genius decision of Russian Ministry of Invading to use comm blockers instead of actual air defence.
P. S. And how much the people that get randomly hit in process don't want to do with any of this is really up to debate even in Moscow.
|
On July 30 2023 16:51 Magic Powers wrote:
These words sound righteous on the surface, unfortunately in the context of the drone attacks in Moscow they're very misled. They aren't hitting any Nazis or their families. These are regular folk who don't want anything to do with any of this.
First of all, the majority of Russians support the war and they're very smug about the war and sanctions not affecting them. And while they certainly don't want to become collateral damage, they couldn't give a shit about the Russian military striking civilian targets on purpose. You should've checked out Russian social media when Russia was trying to freeze the EU/Ukraine to death during the winter...
Secondly, the attack occurred at night, at a time when that part of the city is mostly empty. There is no indication that Ukraine was trying to hit a civilian target. There are plenty of valid targets in Moscow and Ukraine has every right to try to hit them. Minor collateral damage shouldn't even be a consideration considering the fact that Russia is actively committing a genocide in Ukraine.
Finally, Russia is perfectly capable of using air raid alarms and urging people to take shelter. The Kremlin is making a conscious decision not to use them (afaik).
|
On July 30 2023 18:01 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 16:51 Magic Powers wrote:
These words sound righteous on the surface, unfortunately in the context of the drone attacks in Moscow they're very misled. They aren't hitting any Nazis or their families. These are regular folk who don't want anything to do with any of this. I mean, ultimately the reason they hit random people is the same reason GPS has not been working properly ever since that funny incident with drone hitting the Russian Flag in Kremlin: it is interfered to all hell so the only navigation that can reasonably work to send them into buildings that matter now is "offline" (And i can confidently tell you it is more hassle than these drones are worth). If people getting hit should be mad at anyone that would be the genius decision of Russian Ministry of Invading to use comm blockers instead of actual air defence. P. S. And how much the people that get randomly hit in process don't want to do with any of this is really up to debate even in Moscow.
Pedestrians generally enjoy getting hit by drone attacks? In what world exactly?
Where in this footage is the military target?
I will not stop countering KwarK's extremely misled views on terrorism against innocent people. He's talking as if these pedestrians are equally valid targets as actual Nazis. I will push back against this kind of talk 100% of the time.
Civilians living in the same country as the genocidal psychopath who oppresses them are not valid targets of drone attacks. There's no world in which this kind of action should be trivialized or justified.
If the target was in fact of military importance and the likelihood of destroying it was sufficiently high, then we could at least argue that it's a case of collateral damage. To be avoided if possible, but less morally black and white than a direct assault against innocent people.
|
On July 30 2023 18:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2023 18:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On July 30 2023 16:51 Magic Powers wrote:
These words sound righteous on the surface, unfortunately in the context of the drone attacks in Moscow they're very misled. They aren't hitting any Nazis or their families. These are regular folk who don't want anything to do with any of this. I mean, ultimately the reason they hit random people is the same reason GPS has not been working properly ever since that funny incident with drone hitting the Russian Flag in Kremlin: it is interfered to all hell so the only navigation that can reasonably work to send them into buildings that matter now is "offline" (And i can confidently tell you it is more hassle than these drones are worth). If people getting hit should be mad at anyone that would be the genius decision of Russian Ministry of Invading to use comm blockers instead of actual air defence. P. S. And how much the people that get randomly hit in process don't want to do with any of this is really up to debate even in Moscow. Pedestrians generally enjoy getting hit by drone attacks? In what world exactly? Where in this footage is the military target?
Afaik, there are many governmental offices in that district. They are a valid target, especially at night.
I will not stop countering KwarK's extremely misled views on terrorism against innocent people. He's talking as if these pedestrians are equally valid targets as actual Nazis. I will push back against this kind of talk 100% of the time.
There is zero evidence that Ukraine was targeting innocent people and they have every incentive not to do that. We don't even know whether the drone hit its intended target as Russia is using EW to take down those drones instead of proper AA.
Civilians living in the same country as the genocidal psychopath who oppresses them are not valid targets of drone attacks. There's no world in which this kind of action should be trivialized or justified.
The genocide is perpetrated and cheered on by those ordinary Russians. It's not Putin who's kidnapping those Ukrainian children, committing massacres, torturing people, attacking residential areas, hospitals and shelters. It's Russian soldiers who do that and Russian people who support that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
