Do you understand how military tactics work at all? Do you really think attacking power grids, train stations, and other important infrastructure, etc, are not related to a military strategy? If thst is the case you are damn blind.
Do you understand how hard communications become if you destroy the power grid? How ressuply becomes harder? Not all of the missiles were targeted at civilian structures, from what I am seeing on Telegram at least two or three hits per city had some important infrastructure such energy, military command or communications. Yes, there were civilian infrastructure targets, probably used as fear mongering after the bombing of the bridge, but this is a war, none of the parties involved are free of guilt, but thinking there is no military objective is plain stupid. Why would you spend all this resources to achieve nothing?
Yes, there were civilian infrastructure targets, probably used as fear mongering after the bombing of the bridge
And this is absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible. It doesn’t matter if Russia does it, if Ukraine does it, if the US does it, if Israel does it, if Al-Qaeda does it, or if the unabomber does it. I don’t care about what the political or military goals are, or if this is done in retaliation to an attack. Any strategy that targets civilians is complete and utter bullshit.
Okay, let’s start by punishing the wrong doers in chronological order then, the US is going to have a bad time with all the economic sanctions that will be applied to them for the tens of thousands of war crimes they have commited.
Applying economic sanctions will hurt the common people much more than those in power. Let’s imagine for a moment that you and I do have enough power to choose what happens. Why would we choose to harm the people who are virtually powerless, continuing the trend that those currently in power love to follow? Justice should be applied selectively and proportionally to the people in power that actively fuel and manage the conflict. Not to the people who happened to be born in a place and tried to live their lives.
I agree, death penalty to the bourgeoisie sounds like a more charming alternative, the whole damn congress of the Usonian Empire is going to get wrecked, lol.
The reality is that all wars end up hurting the civilian population. The only way to avoid that is to stop the wars. Unfortunately, the west is determined to fight this proxy war to the last Ukrainian, and Russia sees this war as existential.
It is, but we live in a world where might makes right. Unless different countries learn to respect each others boundaries, and work towards solutions that are mutually beneficial, we’re doing to keep seeing more of this going forward.
Yes, and it is quite sad. The ability and will to exercise violence is one of the most fundamental forms of power. Hopefully we can solve this one day. Even the more elaborate attempts to do so today - such as nuclear deterrence - uses the threat of violence to prevent violence.
And by that you imply that Russia should leave Ukrainian territory (including Crimea) and start paying retributions for the damage the war caused, right? RIGHT?!
I imply that Russia will not leave Ukraine and that the west is not able to force Russia to leave Ukraine. Russia will win this war, and the only question is how many people will die to make that happen. Moralizing solves nothing.
Tell me about one war commited in the last 50 years were war crimes weren’t commited, tell me about a war crime that had any repercussions in the last 50 years, I can think of a lot of them commited by the West going unpunished. I’m not saying it’s good, only that’s how wars work under the current political system. Yes, what the Russian military is doing right now is something ugly and despiteful, but it is a really good military tactic. They are destroying important infrastructure at a time when winter looms nearer and nearer and energy is a tremendous issue in Europe, generating disorganisation in the chain of command through the whole country, general chaos, disruption of communication, and psychological warfare. I’m not writing about ethics here, but your comment and most of what I’ve seen on Reddit seem to think this is some silly nilly willy attack with no logical warfare thought put into it, while it’s not, precisely at this moment of the war Russia would not attack so far West without some tactical gain.
And Ukraine targeting civilians in the donbass republics for 8 fucking years isn’t? Luhansk has an entire memorial site dedicated to the children and infants killed by Ukraine and their Nazi paramilitaries. Why haven’t you been calling out Ukraine for war crimes for the past 8 years? But as soon as Russia steps in and stops the endless shelling of schools and markets they’re the bad guys.
The war crime there is Ukraine purposefully putting military equipment there. According to international law, as well as the UN speaking on this specifically, Russia has every right to do that once they start putting their weapons there.
Yes, all of them. People in this thread are clearly judging both Russia and Ukraine. I guess you’ve been doing some selective reading on your part. You are literally one of the people judging Russia in this threat. 🤡
this piece that reveals Washington, via CIA paramilitaries, has been fighting a proxy war against Russia in the Donbas since 2014
Versus the Russian little green men that infiltrated Crimea in 2014 and the full fledged invasion that is occurring now? Forgive me if I’m less than upset with the US and NATO for training and equipping Ukraine to defend itself while also avoiding direct confrontation.
Why don’t we look at what a US government study has to say about Crimea. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
First, they never say that Crimea is not part of Ukraine. The USSR had plenty of republics and Russia retains that trait. It doesn’t make them not part of the USSR or Russia except in the loosest sense.
Now, for the survey. First, it’s hard to read the tea leaves on it. What do those answers mean? Someone could ask me whether I consider myself a Portlander, an Oregonian or an American. I’m all of those, how do I answer that? Also, Russian is just a plurality there.
Going further through the study, it’s notable that at least at that time, Crimeans were largely unconcerned about ethnic issues like Russian language status, interethnic relations, and such. Unfortunately it does not continue past the annexation, so it’s largely worthless for gauging current opinion. For that matter, any currently done study would be tainted by fear that the survey takers are secretly trying to find disloyal households.
They literally refer to Crimea as an autonomous republic. What exactly do you think the word autonomous means?
The study is clearly not worthless, and anybody who knows a modicum of history realizes that Crimea was literally part of Russia until the 70s, and it’s populated by Russians. The notions that these people would somehow be opposed of being reintegrated into Russia after a nationalistic and vehemently anti Russian coup regime took power is frankly absurd. People continue to parrot this because it’s required for the narrative to work.
They literally refer to Crimea as an autonomous republic. What exactly do you think the word autonomous means?
Autonomous republic. Look it up. It has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t mean “not really part of”.
The notions that these people would somehow be opposed of being reintegrated into Russia after a nationalistic and vehemently anti Russian coup regime took power is frankly absurd.
I was talking about the opinion section of the study, not the identity part. The opinion section shows little concern for ethnic/culture questions, somewhere in the single digits. It also showed a majority favoring the status quo for Crimea, double the number that wanted to join Russia. What would have happened if Russia had not invaded Crimea and annexed them, as well as encouraging separatists in the Donbass region? We’ll never know, because Russia never gave the Ukrainian government a chance. They just swept in with soldiers, held a sham election, and took it.
There is a dedicated English-speaking telegram channel I know https://t.me/InfoDefenseEn, which is publishing mostly current events, and it also contains a lot of materials about warcrimes on the Ukraine.
How are there not better sources than that? For all I know the book is Russian propaganda and the Telegram channels are conspiracy theorists who will say anything to convince me. Are there no videos and pictures of the events? 3rd party news sites? Anything cross-referencable?
If I spent effort researching every rabbit hole someone on Lemmy said “trust me bro, you’ll understand after you dO yOuR rEaSEaRcH” I would be 80yrs old and hardly any more informed by now
deleted by creator
Do you understand how military tactics work at all? Do you really think attacking power grids, train stations, and other important infrastructure, etc, are not related to a military strategy? If thst is the case you are damn blind.
deleted by creator
Do you understand how hard communications become if you destroy the power grid? How ressuply becomes harder? Not all of the missiles were targeted at civilian structures, from what I am seeing on Telegram at least two or three hits per city had some important infrastructure such energy, military command or communications. Yes, there were civilian infrastructure targets, probably used as fear mongering after the bombing of the bridge, but this is a war, none of the parties involved are free of guilt, but thinking there is no military objective is plain stupid. Why would you spend all this resources to achieve nothing?
And this is absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible. It doesn’t matter if Russia does it, if Ukraine does it, if the US does it, if Israel does it, if Al-Qaeda does it, or if the unabomber does it. I don’t care about what the political or military goals are, or if this is done in retaliation to an attack. Any strategy that targets civilians is complete and utter bullshit.
Okay, let’s start by punishing the wrong doers in chronological order then, the US is going to have a bad time with all the economic sanctions that will be applied to them for the tens of thousands of war crimes they have commited.
Applying economic sanctions will hurt the common people much more than those in power. Let’s imagine for a moment that you and I do have enough power to choose what happens. Why would we choose to harm the people who are virtually powerless, continuing the trend that those currently in power love to follow? Justice should be applied selectively and proportionally to the people in power that actively fuel and manage the conflict. Not to the people who happened to be born in a place and tried to live their lives.
I agree, death penalty to the bourgeoisie sounds like a more charming alternative, the whole damn congress of the Usonian Empire is going to get wrecked, lol.
The reality is that all wars end up hurting the civilian population. The only way to avoid that is to stop the wars. Unfortunately, the west is determined to fight this proxy war to the last Ukrainian, and Russia sees this war as existential.
I don’t disagree, but I stand by what I said. Targeting civilians is unacceptable, regardless of perceived or actual existential threats.
It is, but we live in a world where might makes right. Unless different countries learn to respect each others boundaries, and work towards solutions that are mutually beneficial, we’re doing to keep seeing more of this going forward.
Yes, and it is quite sad. The ability and will to exercise violence is one of the most fundamental forms of power. Hopefully we can solve this one day. Even the more elaborate attempts to do so today - such as nuclear deterrence - uses the threat of violence to prevent violence.
deleted by creator
And by that you imply that Russia should leave Ukrainian territory (including Crimea) and start paying retributions for the damage the war caused, right? RIGHT?!
I imply that Russia will not leave Ukraine and that the west is not able to force Russia to leave Ukraine. Russia will win this war, and the only question is how many people will die to make that happen. Moralizing solves nothing.
Are you some kinda doctor strange and can go into the future to see all the possibilities to state such things with clear certainty?
**or you’re just a Russian propagandist who’s not allowed to accept any deviation to the fixed point of view?
🤔 I wonder which is more likely
deleted by creator
Tell me about one war commited in the last 50 years were war crimes weren’t commited, tell me about a war crime that had any repercussions in the last 50 years, I can think of a lot of them commited by the West going unpunished. I’m not saying it’s good, only that’s how wars work under the current political system. Yes, what the Russian military is doing right now is something ugly and despiteful, but it is a really good military tactic. They are destroying important infrastructure at a time when winter looms nearer and nearer and energy is a tremendous issue in Europe, generating disorganisation in the chain of command through the whole country, general chaos, disruption of communication, and psychological warfare. I’m not writing about ethics here, but your comment and most of what I’ve seen on Reddit seem to think this is some silly nilly willy attack with no logical warfare thought put into it, while it’s not, precisely at this moment of the war Russia would not attack so far West without some tactical gain.
deleted by creator
And Ukraine targeting civilians in the donbass republics for 8 fucking years isn’t? Luhansk has an entire memorial site dedicated to the children and infants killed by Ukraine and their Nazi paramilitaries. Why haven’t you been calling out Ukraine for war crimes for the past 8 years? But as soon as Russia steps in and stops the endless shelling of schools and markets they’re the bad guys.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The war crime there is Ukraine purposefully putting military equipment there. According to international law, as well as the UN speaking on this specifically, Russia has every right to do that once they start putting their weapons there.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/19/zrjy-j19.html
deleted by creator
Let’s just put this into context and look at what shock and awe campaign US used in Iraq right from the start looks like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yr-LaMhvro
deleted by creator
US and Iraq set up important context within which Russian actions need to be judged.
deleted by creator
Yes, all of them. People in this thread are clearly judging both Russia and Ukraine. I guess you’ve been doing some selective reading on your part. You are literally one of the people judging Russia in this threat. 🤡
deleted by creator
Isn’t it the Ukraine forces, who did terrorism attacks on Donetsk last 8 years?
deleted by creator
here are a few sources
Versus the Russian little green men that infiltrated Crimea in 2014 and the full fledged invasion that is occurring now? Forgive me if I’m less than upset with the US and NATO for training and equipping Ukraine to defend itself while also avoiding direct confrontation.
Why don’t we look at what a US government study has to say about Crimea. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
🤔
First, they never say that Crimea is not part of Ukraine. The USSR had plenty of republics and Russia retains that trait. It doesn’t make them not part of the USSR or Russia except in the loosest sense.
Now, for the survey. First, it’s hard to read the tea leaves on it. What do those answers mean? Someone could ask me whether I consider myself a Portlander, an Oregonian or an American. I’m all of those, how do I answer that? Also, Russian is just a plurality there.
Going further through the study, it’s notable that at least at that time, Crimeans were largely unconcerned about ethnic issues like Russian language status, interethnic relations, and such. Unfortunately it does not continue past the annexation, so it’s largely worthless for gauging current opinion. For that matter, any currently done study would be tainted by fear that the survey takers are secretly trying to find disloyal households.
They literally refer to Crimea as an autonomous republic. What exactly do you think the word autonomous means?
The study is clearly not worthless, and anybody who knows a modicum of history realizes that Crimea was literally part of Russia until the 70s, and it’s populated by Russians. The notions that these people would somehow be opposed of being reintegrated into Russia after a nationalistic and vehemently anti Russian coup regime took power is frankly absurd. People continue to parrot this because it’s required for the narrative to work.
deleted by creator
Autonomous republic. Look it up. It has a specific meaning, and it doesn’t mean “not really part of”.
I was talking about the opinion section of the study, not the identity part. The opinion section shows little concern for ethnic/culture questions, somewhere in the single digits. It also showed a majority favoring the status quo for Crimea, double the number that wanted to join Russia. What would have happened if Russia had not invaded Crimea and annexed them, as well as encouraging separatists in the Donbass region? We’ll never know, because Russia never gave the Ukrainian government a chance. They just swept in with soldiers, held a sham election, and took it.
There is a book about warcrimes of the Ukraine, published in 2020.
https://украинские-преступления.org/#p=2 . The things you are asking for starting from the page 365. It is in Russian, sorry.
There is a dedicated English-speaking telegram channel I know https://t.me/InfoDefenseEn, which is publishing mostly current events, and it also contains a lot of materials about warcrimes on the Ukraine.
How are there not better sources than that? For all I know the book is Russian propaganda and the Telegram channels are conspiracy theorists who will say anything to convince me. Are there no videos and pictures of the events? 3rd party news sites? Anything cross-referencable?
If I spent effort researching every rabbit hole someone on Lemmy said “trust me bro, you’ll understand after you dO yOuR rEaSEaRcH” I would be 80yrs old and hardly any more informed by now
There are plenty of other sources on that https://lemmy.ml/post/533698/comment/308893
The book has pictures, though.
deleted by creator