Ukraine

[gerblod]

20 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

You have no idea what you're talking about. 

Is that your considered, informed opinion or are you angry because I'm not reassuring you that there'll be a mass uprising of the Russian people? 

 

You demonstrate you have no idea of the history of Tsarist/Soviet/Post-Soviet history.

I believe it was Leon Trotsky who said that a downtrodden mass could never rebel against the state. And Russia is still a downtrodden state controlled by a repressive totalitarian autocracy.

I hope I'm wrong - that in the next few weeks there'll be a rebellion against Putin. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Happy Fox]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia
 

This is the mindset that Putin has he published  a “manifesto” back in July 2021 but obviously we in the West were oblivious of it.

 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has outlined the historical basis for his claims against Ukraine in a controversial new essay that has been likened in some quarters to a declaration of war. The 5,000-word article, entitled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” was published on July 12 and features many of talking points favored by Putin throughout the past seven years of undeclared war between Russia and Ukraine.

The Russian leader uses the essay to reiterate his frequently voiced conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” while blaming the current collapse in bilateral ties on foreign plots and anti-Russian conspiracies.

[gerblod]

19 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Jesus Christ what a load of shit.  

Which bit didn't you like?

[The Year Of The Fox]

https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/05/russia-announces-temporary-ceasefire-in-two-besieged-ukrainian-cities-16221159/?ito=facebook|social|metroukfacebook&fbclid=IwAR11Z0sWOo9RJFjmoS9I8KRfZR--Waa-55WNZk3e6yYWy_HUp1L8VjePcdI

[yorkie1999]

12 hours ago, Line-X said:

Install an ad blocker then. 

On YouTube?

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

Alternative strategy.  

 

As Russia has attacked our ally Ukraine.  What if NATO decides to take out Russia's ally Belarus?  Just a thought.

I assume Belarus and Russia have a mutual defence pact 

 

this awful episode is proof that if you have nuclear weapons and seem irrational enough (let’s face it, putin seeming to have lost his mind somewhat is crucial in the west’s  assessments), then you can do what you want and face economic sanctions only. And in a big wide world, that’s not as painful as it might be because everything can be redirected and repackaged to hide its origins. 

 

I would think China is in constant dialogue with Taiwan and will now be ratcheting up the pressure based on NATO’s response. 

[gerblod]

18 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Mate, if you believe half the shite you've spouted here, youre the only one who is naive. 

 

In fact, the term naive is actually quite polite. 

The third similar response to my allegory. Had any of you explained to me why you considered I was talking 'shite' or being naive, then I could have responded to your reasons - rather than these knee jerk 'replies'.

All three of you have shown that you're extremely impolite and incapable of discussing what I consider to be a reasonable opinion.

It's easy to come up with glib insults on FT - perhaps you should confine yourselves to the Leicester City side of the Forum.

[ARTY_FOX]

29 minutes ago, gerblod said:

The context was in response to MPH's reply to me that artillery could destroy the power conduit outside the plant itself. 

No doubt, with the advent of GPS artillery sighting has become more accurate. Yet I think you're confusing real war with some platform game - some kind of pushbutton, clean and clinical operation.

Right through this conflict the Russian army has demonstrated its usual inept field tactics. Attacking a nuclear power station with artillery is, in itself, wildly dangerous - in terms of potential outcomes. 

I can sense here the cold hand of Putin around the commander's neck - "get it done, or else".

The reassuring fact is that the NPS is designed to withstand the impact of a crashing aircraft. But, after Chernobyl, would you trust to their construction expertise?

This was an exercise in isolating power from Kiev/Kyiv and hurting Kyevan morale. I think it will fail. Ukrainians are tough and have a long history of surviving this kind of aggression. 

For now the Kremlin is controlled by an unstable, egomaniac fantasist (bit like the UK - sozz Bojo, couldn't resist that  ). I hope some brave souls around him decide to get the straitjacket out and whisk him away to a secure establishment somewhere in Siberia.

 

No. I'm stating a fact that artillery fire is extremely accurate. Stating a fact I know from the time I spent in the Royal Artillery. 

[when_you're_smiling]

8 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

I wonder how Trump would’ve handled this. 

‘A lot of good people on both sides’ at best.

 

He’d already been accused of hindering Ukraine after threatening to remove hundreds of millions of weapons in 2019.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Ukraine_scandal

[SpacedX]

24 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

On YouTube?

On your device. 

[coolhandfox]

Demonstrations of support for Russia in Serbia, good job they are land locked by other nations or Russia would be using this as an excuse to invade another country.

[foxy boxing]

6 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Demonstrations of support for Russia in Serbia, good job they are land locked by other nations or Russia would be using this as an excuse to invade another country.

Russians and Serbs have always been close. Let's not forget the atrocities carried out by Serbs during the breakup of Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. 

[urban.spaceman]

2022.

When you can watch a live stream of a battle at a nuclear power plant that could cause nuclear destruction for us all but you still have to watch this unskippable advert for crisps.

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, gerblod said:

The third similar response to my allegory. Had any of you explained to me why you considered I was talking 'shite' or being naive, then I could have responded to your reasons - rather than these knee jerk 'replies'.

All three of you have shown that you're extremely impolite and incapable of discussing what I consider to be a reasonable opinion.

It's easy to come up with glib insults on FT - perhaps you should confine yourselves to the Leicester City side of the Forum.

I didn’t insult you. I called you naive. It’s ridiculous you sat there on your armchair watching gogglebox and throwing out sweeping generalisation of 140m people. It’s not reasonable, it’s naive. 
 

[casablancas]

Whispers around that the ruskies have fired upon the agreed corridors for the evacuation. Source is apparently released from the Ukrainian side. Christ I am starting to despise the Russian forces. This is going to be quite the paradigm shift. 

[Rob1742]

My take in this conflict is that is has made me realise how utterly flawed we are as human beings.

 

Politicians are in the main dreadful people who create sides, they create conflict as they never understand other peoples views and don’t accommodate needs. Often fuelled by individuals who don’t understand other peoples views and don’t accommodate needs. 
 

So here we are governments preferring to spend tax payers money on bombing, which destroy things, which need tax payers money to put them right again.

 

All along these utterly flawed animals ( humans) justify what they are doing and only tell their side of the story to their friends to get them to back them.

 

I tell you what, I’d never go to war or fight for our country. The human beings in my country are just as flawed as the human beings in another country and so I wouldn’t be prepared to die for what our politicians are telling me.

 

You imagine the utter devastation one single family is suffering, just one family. Losing loved ones, security, possessions, comfort, yet people are comfortable in creating that devastation and also getting someone else to create that devastation for them.

 

We are utterly flawed, we don’t understand other people and we take in what we are told by governments and take sides.

 

I always remember Iraq and the killings, the families destroyed because some people thought they had weapons of mass destruction. We in the west are just the same as everybody else.

 

How Putin could order people to devastate peoples lives is beyond me, but how Tony Blair could inflict that on others too is also beyond me. 
 

We have wonderful people that create medicines, doctors and nurses that cure people, nice people, then we have an equal amount driven by greed and who are happy to create misery across the globe.

 

All that is happening now is we are being brainwashed to show how good one side is and how evil another side is. And you know what, we just absorb it all and do what they want us too. We either wave a Ukraine flag or a Russian one and each side think the other side is wrong because of what information we have been fed.

 

I ain’t joining in this, I am not waving any flag, and I am not getting sucked in. Like Brexit, that was just the same but without the bombs.

 

It is about time we started to realise how governments treat us.

 

Edited 5 March 2022 by Rob1742

[SpacedX]

17 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

So here we are governments preferring to spend tax payers money on bombing, which destroy things, which need tax payers money to put them right again.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, military expenditure in Europe has pretty much been on a thirty year holiday. In Russia it is believed to be 20% of the federal budget. As we enter this new era of conflict and containment, defence spending will soar across the planet - money that should be diverted into saving it. We are paying and paving the way to our own destruction instead of investing in ways to avert it. Every day, the cost of our inaction keeps mounting. As a 'threat multiplier', climate change will continue to exacerbate societal tension, fears over transnational security and global conflict. It's a vicious circle. 

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

My take in this conflict is that is has made me realise how utterly flawed we are as human beings.

 

Politicians are in the main dreadful people who create sides, they create conflict as they never understand other peoples views and don’t accommodate needs. Often fuelled by individuals who don’t understand other peoples views and don’t accommodate needs. 
 

So here we are governments preferring to spend tax payers money on bombing, which destroy things, which need tax payers money to put them right again.

 

All along these utterly flawed animals ( humans) justify what they are doing and only tell their side of the story to their friends to get them to back them.

 

I tell you what, I’d never go to war or fight for our country. The human beings in my country are just as flawed as the human beings in another country and so I wouldn’t be prepared to die for what our politicians are telling me.

 

You imagine the utter devastation one single family is suffering, just one family. Losing loved ones, security, possessions, comfort, yet people are comfortable in creating that devastation and also getting someone else to create that devastation for them.

 

We are utterly flawed, we don’t understand other people and we take in what we are told by governments and take sides.

 

I always remember Iraq and the killings, the families destroyed because some people thought they had weapons of mass destruction. We in the west are just the same as everybody else.

 

How Putin could order people to devastate peoples lives is beyond me, but how Tony Blair could inflict that on others too is also beyond me. 
 

We have wonderful people that create medicines, doctors and nurses that cure people, nice people, then we have an equal amount driven by greed and who are happy to create misery across the globe.

 

All that is happening now is we are being brainwashed to show how good one side is and how evil another side is. And you know what, we just absorb it all and do what they want us too. We either wave a Ukraine flag or a Russian one and each side think the other side is wrong because of what information we have been fed.

 

I ain’t joining in this, I am not waving any flag, and I am not getting sucked in. Like Brexit, that was just the same but without the bombs.

 

It is about time we started to realise how governments treat us.

 

An accurate summary of what might be called the human condition...

 

Just now, Line-X said:

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, military expenditure in Europe has pretty much been on a thirty year holiday. In Russia it is believed to be 20% of the federal budget. As we enter this new era of conflict and containment, defence spending will soar across the planet - money that should be diverted into saving it. We are paying and paving the way to our own destruction instead of investing in ways to avert it. Every day, the cost of our inaction keeps mounting. As a 'threat multiplier', climate change will continue to exacerbate societal tension, fears over transnational security and global conflict. It's a vicious circle. 

... and this is salient too.

 

Question is, what is the solution? It would seemingly mean changing how a great deal of humanity thinks at a fundamental level.

[Salisbury Fox]

2 hours ago, Happy Fox said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia
 

This is the mindset that Putin has he published  a “manifesto” back in July 2021 but obviously we in the West were oblivious of it.

 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has outlined the historical basis for his claims against Ukraine in a controversial new essay that has been likened in some quarters to a declaration of war. The 5,000-word article, entitled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” was published on July 12 and features many of talking points favored by Putin throughout the past seven years of undeclared war between Russia and Ukraine.

The Russian leader uses the essay to reiterate his frequently voiced conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” while blaming the current collapse in bilateral ties on foreign plots and anti-Russian conspiracies.

The UK has been training the Ukrainian armed forces since 2015 and so they were aware of the possibilities before that paper was written. Search for Op Orbital if you want more info.

[Rob1742]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

An accurate summary of what might be called the human condition...

 

... and this is salient too.

 

Question is, what is the solution? It would seemingly mean changing how a great deal of humanity thinks at a fundamental level.

There isn’t a solution, it’s a flawed human condition. We have to beat others, we have to challenge those that don’t agree with us.

 

Like climate change, plastic is a huge issue, but Walkers won’t stop putting crisps in plastic bags until they are stopped. People driven by competition and greed, we never take a step back and think outside of money. They only changed to better oils for the products when they had too.

 

We will never change, but it took me decades to realise how flawed we are.

 

Ukraine wont be the last. China want Taiwan in their mix. 65% of computer chips come from there, so that is a nice win for them. They will justify it through historical reference and families will be devastated by events. Millions of families it will affect.

 

I look at these leaders and have no time for them. They play games with normal peoples lives. It ain’t for me to join in with them. 

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

An accurate summary of what might be called the human condition...

 

... and this is salient too.

 

Question is, what is the solution? It would seemingly mean changing how a great deal of humanity thinks at a fundamental level.

There isn't a solution, as soon as one person has a bomb or a gun they rule the world if the rest of the world has no bombs or no guns. That will always be the case.

Many were fooled by "the end of history" rhetoric at the beginning of the 1990s where we thought liberal democracy with a Centrist mixed economy (that was more privatised than collectives) in the Blair/Clinton/Scholtz style (or "The Third Way" as it used to get called in the news back then) was the beginning of a peaceful compromise  end game of conflict. Of course, here in the British Isles we still had The Troubles, but that also seemed to wind down in the 90s eventually leading to the GFA.

The European Union had also just formed at that time and felt like a really optimistic attempt to bring sustained peace in Europe and to try and to try and ultimately get rid of borders and create a society of multiculturalism (and I still think the EU is a great project, which obviously it turned out a large proportion in the UK don't).

I guess humanity still found new ways to tare itself apart though. 

Edited 5 March 2022 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

There isn’t a solution, it’s a flawed human condition. We have to beat others, we have to challenge those that don’t agree with us.

 

Like climate change, plastic is a huge issue, but Walkers won’t stop putting crisps in plastic bags until they are stopped. People driven by competition and greed, we never take a step back and think outside of money. They only changed to better oils for the products when they had too.

 

We will never change, but it took me decades to realise how flawed we are.

 

Ukraine wont be the last. China want Taiwan in their mix. 65% of computer chips come from there, so that is a nice win for them. They will justify it through historical reference and families will be devastated by events. Millions of families it will affect.

 

I look at these leaders and have no time for them. They play games with normal peoples lives. It ain’t for me to join in with them. 

 

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

There isn't a solution, as soon as one person has a bomb or a gun they rule the world if the rest of the world has no bombs or no guns. That will always be the case.

Many were fooled by "the end of history" rhetoric at the beginning of the 1990s where we thought liberal democracy with a Centrist mixed economy (that was more privatised than collectives) in the Blair/Clinton/Scholtz style (or "The Third Way" as it used to get called in the news back then) was the beginning of a peaceful compromise  end game of conflict. Of course, here in the British Isles we still had The Troubles, but that also seemed to wind down in the 90s eventually leading to the GFA.

The European Union had also just formed at that time and felt like a really optimistic attempt to bring sustained peace in Europe and to try and to try and ultimately get rid of borders and create a society of multiculturalism (and I still think the EU is a great project, which obviously a depressing amount in the UK don't).

I guess humanity still found new ways to tare itself apart though. 

 

You could both be right. Current evidence certainly suggests so.

 

However accepting that is a tacit acceptance that humanity will destroy itself because of it, and the idealist in me thinks that isn't over until it's over. Not into folding my hands and letting it all go just because we proved the same as the other primates, would make life rather pointless. But of course, ones mileage may vary on that last part.

[Sampson]

 

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

You could both be right. Current evidence certainly suggests so.

 

However accepting that is a tacit acceptance that humanity will destroy itself because of it, and the idealist in me thinks that isn't over until it's over. Not into folding my hands and letting it all go just because we proved the same as the other primates, would make life rather pointless. But of course, ones mileage may vary on that last part.

I don't think that should be a tacit acceptance that humanity will destroy itself because of it though. Although it's been dicey a couple of times, MAD has worked thus far and there are objectively less deaths in conflict than there was at the majority of times in history.

As much as terrorist attacks always get big news, they are actually way down from most of the 20th century as well, especially in Europe, given the end of The Troubles and the fascist dictatorships in Spain and Portugal. And you won't find many times in history with so few terrorist attacks as today.

Even though Iraq was less than 20 years ago, I think the West would struggle to justify such a war now as well, partly because of how much people remember Iraq and how deeply unpopular it was and partly because as we've seen in this Ukraine war, social media has led to far more video and image sharing of the actual people caught up in the conflict and the actual damage being done - so much so that Russia is having to shut down all the social media sites, which is not something which I think many in the West would accept.

Mind you, with someone as hard-line and as populist as Pritti Patel as home secretary any nationalist, authoritarian nonsense is possible.

The worry is that there only has to be one rogue dickhead to take out half the world these days,

Edited 5 March 2022 by Sampson

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

15 hours ago, Line-X said:

Firstly, do you accept that this has been a previous tactic employed by the Russian military? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

Secondly, to reiterate, the entire global news sector outside of Russia are reporting that the citizens of Ukraine are under assault from Russian military. This includes national news stations, independent outlets, and embedded journalists on the ground and multiple footage to support this in addition to the mass testimonies of the citizens of Ukraine and refugees into Europe. I don't need to show you anything - it's there for any rational person to process - go and digest this for yourself. I absolutely understand your scepticism in respect of isolated twitter feeds which need to be substantiated and independently verified, but the world's free press and even state sponsored television in China is reporting simultaneous coordinated attacks on Ukrainian citizens. It's not what "I say is happening", it's what the world says is happening. I am irrelevant. 

 

Collateral damage yes, destruction of large tracts of civilian housing and residential areas though precision bombing and targeted barrages no. In the coming days when Kyiv is under siege and enduring air assault and artillery barrage, will you still have the same level of cognitive dissonance? Because this really does not come across as healthy scepticism.

 

The entire field of independent global journalistic coverage not enough for you? Pick your source. RT, you'll find, may not choose to mention it. 

 

Fighting? We are talking about preemptive attacks for God's sake. This is a war declared by an military power and a resultant invasion on the territory of another country. To emphasise again, These aren't stray shells or randomly fired rockets, these are co ordinated, planned preemptive strikes on suburban residential areas that contain amenities, civic infrastructure and innocent civilians - women and children. This is the way that Russia wages war. Areas that have offered no resistance and of no military significance have been targeted purely because of their civilian populations.

 

Yet we do know that Russia has and does deliberately target innocent civilians. Moreover, they have already as predicted accused the Ukrainian government of using 'human shields' to exonerate this.

 

Yet again, you have completely chosen to ignore this:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/03/russia/syria-flurry-prohibited-weapons-attacks

 

Yeah, and they claimed that they had no intention of invading Ukraine and that the west was creating panic over a military exercise. They also claim that Ukraine is populated and run by "neo nazis" and Putin justifies his 'military operation' as a peace keeping mission. 

 

There is zero in the way of independently verifiable evidence of any intentional shelling of Ukrainian civilians in the Donbas region. A member on here made a similar claim - I asked a dozen times for him to substantiate it. If he shows up again, I will do so once more - unless of course you can produce this? Then I won't need to.

 

If there was objective evidence that innocent people had been intentionally targeted such as firing upon a residential area away from any military engagement or the Russian proxies that have been inflaming the situation in the east of the country, then yes. Again, do you have that?

 

Do you think that the shelling the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia was accidental? Do you think that it is warranted or justifiable?

 

Unfortunately, and tragically, that is not what is currently happening in many of the towns and cities under attack by the Russian military as this invasion unfolds. These are assaults directed at the citizens of Ukraine and history will attest to these war crimes as it has in Aleppo, Grozny, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

 

I have another question for you - again, a simple yes or no will do. Are you in support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Quote

Firstly, do you accept that this has been a previous tactic employed by the Russian military? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

You don't get to curtail my answers. You're not cross-examining me. I don't know the answer to that question. Do you understand the concept of admitting you don't know something? I have no special inside knowledge of Russian military tactics. I know that civilians have died during wars which Russia has taken part in. I am absolutely sure that Russian forces have killed civilians. But I don't know that killing civilians has been the actual goal of the Russian forces. I don't know that, and neither do you. Why can't you accept that this is beyond our knowledge? 

 

Quote

Collateral damage yes, destruction of large tracts of civilian housing and residential areas though precision bombing and targeted barrages no. In the coming days when Kyiv is under siege and enduring air assault and artillery barrage, will you still have the same level of cognitive dissonance? Because this really does not come across as healthy scepticism.

What you're talking about, I believe, is akin to the legal concept of recklessness, in this case not deliberately killing civilians but using weapons in heavily populated areas in which it's likely that civilians will die. Can you accept first that there is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians, and fighting in areas where civilians live, where the likelihood of civilian casualties is higher than usual? Can we agree on that? The argument then becomes how one justifies (or not) the use of force in civilian areas. The same debate has been played out in many conflicts around the world; Israel face the same dilemma when Hamas fire rockets from residential buildings, for example. If we can't agree that there is some difference between the outright desire to kill civilians on the one hand, and on the other fighting in civilian areas (with the degree of necessity and desire/reluctance to engage in such fighting clearly up for debate), I don't see how our positions are reconcilable. Again, when I bring up other wars, it's not to say "what about", but to encourage to consider whether your position is consistent with your view on other conflicts. If it's not, it might at least nudge you towards at least reducing your level of certainty in your conclusion (this certainty is the most baffling part of this; everyone seems to know the right and wrong answers in this situation and I cannot relate to it at all given how complex and multi-faceted this whole situation is). Again, this is a war. Wars are not always fought on open plains far away from civilian populations. It's a very sad and unfortunate fact about the nature of warfare. It doesn't necessarily mean everybody involved is a monstrous, blood-thirsty baby killer intent on crushing every civilian who happens to be in the area. 

 

Quote

 

The entire field of independent global journalistic coverage not enough for you? Pick your source. RT, you'll find, may not choose to mention it. 

 

 

 

The fact that all media seems to be in lockstep on a particular issue is cause for more skepticism. When you are told that there is a consensus about something and therefore must believe it, do you not have the sense that you are being led in a direction that you might not choose to go down if you had more information? The fact that "everyone says it" does not mean it is inherently true or false. But when "everyone says it" is used as the basis for determining whether something is true or not, my instinct is to stand back and ask if I have done all I can to find as much relevant evidence as possible. This is particularly true in an age where there is incredible social and financial pressure on institutions, including news organisations, to report on particular events in a particular way. In the current climate, it would simply be impossible for a UK news outlet to report on anything that was not overtly in line with the consensus - Russia big, bad, evil; Ukraine small, good, virtuous. That is the narrative, and anything that even remotely questions that is unacceptable. Christopher Hitchens said that the reason he got into journalism was so that he could stop relying on journalists. That's generally a good rule of thumb; some of the stories about what is happening (and has been happening) in that region are so insanely off-the-mark that it's hard to comprehend. It doesn't mean every story that is critical of Russia is false, of course not. But now more than ever is a time to exercise restraint and skepticism about what you are reading, and try your absolute best to find as many sources as you can (yes, including RT - you will find the same mixture of truth, falsehood, and hyperbole there too).

 

Quote

Yeah, and they claimed that they had no intention of invading Ukraine and that the west was creating panic over a military exercise. They also claim that Ukraine is populated and run by "neo nazis" and Putin justifies his 'military operation' as a peace keeping mission. 

 

 

Have you read about the Azov Battalion? Seriously, just go on YouTube and type "Azov Documentary". Time and Vice and various other documentary-makers have put plenty of material about them online. Several thousand soldiers covered in SS tattoos speaking about restoring the white race to its rightful position of racial superiority. They are well organised, well-trained and their rallies are very well-attended. Neo-nazis from around the world have come to join them; Germany has had to put a ban on people going to fight for them. Just read about it, watch something about it. Given the current hysteria in the UK, US and Canada about the alleged rise of Nazism (usually for things like micro-aggressions or holding the wrong flag or supporting Donald Trump), I find it rather bizarre that a large battalion of actual neo-nazis has been largely ignored. You might think it's made up, exaggerated, only a small proportion of soldiers etc, all those are fair arguments to make, but it's not nothing. I believe they have been cornered somewhere in Mariupol. Stories emerged on telegram this morning that in their desperate bid to escape they have been...indiscriminately attacking civilians. I shall wait for more evidence

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Continued from previous reply because I really believe this needs its own post...

 

Quote

There is zero in the way of independently verifiable evidence of any intentional shelling of Ukrainian civilians in the Donbas region. A member on here made a similar claim - I asked a dozen times for him to substantiate it. If he shows up again, I will do so once more - unless of course you can produce this? Then I won't need to.

 

Well, let's first decide on what sources we can agree meet the evidentiary standard that would support such a claim. I am with you that finding independent sources is extremely hard. In these situations, both sides tend to exaggerate the severity and heinousness of the other side's actions while downplaying their own. However, I think you might find this rather interesting. It's about as independent as you can get, from the UN-recognised "Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe" (OSCE). I shall quote some passages here, but here here's the link to the full document for you to read yourself. Note that it does not say that one side or the other is more to blame. It is very balanced in its assessment of the situation.

 

• "The Mission confirmed 442 (88 killed, 354 injured) civilian casualties occurring in Donetsk and Luhansk regions in 2016. Cases occurred predominantly in Donetsk region. Weapons proscribed by the Minsk agreements2 have been extensively used, most often tanks, mortars and artillery. Shelling, mostly occurring during the night, from various artillery systems with large calibre, represents the major cause of civilian casualties"
• "The SMM established that during the reporting period, the Ukrainian Armed Forces, “LPR” and “DPR” armed formations continued to often fire out of and into residential areas, as they located armed positions in and near civilian objects. With sides positioning themselves as close as 200m from each other in some instances, civilians living near the approximately 500km-long contact line were and continue to be particularly vulnerable to the indiscriminate use of weapons. In many settlements close to the contact line there was no distinction between armed positions and civilian dwellings as armed units were embedded in villages, including through occupation of private properties. The SMM findings reveal the situation of elderly people as of particular concern, notably in areas that were not fully controlled by any of the sides, where they represented about 40 per cent of casualties. All sides are responsible to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of civilians from ongoing violence and to take precautionary measures to limit effects of attacks."
• "The vast majority of casualties were attributed to shelling, including from artillery and mortars with large calibre: 263 civilians – 32 killed and 231 injured – were victims of fighting involving weapons proscribed by the Minsk agreements."
• "The majority of casualties – 281 out of 442 – occurred in non-government-controlled areas, with 57 civilians killed and 224 injured while 148 casualties (28 killed and 120 injured) were reported in government-controlled areas."
• "Incidents leading to civilian casualties mostly occurred in Donetsk region where the Mission confirmed 355 cases: 68 killed and 287 injured. Of these, 242 (45 killed, 197 injured) were recorded in “DPR”-controlled areas, 108 (21 killed, 87 injured) in government-controlled areas and five (two killed and three injured) in areas along the contact line between armed positions."
• "With sides positioning themselves close to each other and to residential areas, including next to private houses, the intensity of violence caused extensive damage to residential buildings in those places and in some cases resulted in the destruction"

Here is an extremely important quote:

 

• "In the majority of residential areas where the SMM conducted impact site assessments, the local population said they often saw mobile firing positions in their neighbourhoods: “they bring troops and weapons, they fire and then quickly leave” , exposing civilians to retaliatory fire."

Can you accept that this is a very tricky and unpleasant situation that does not necessarily have an easy answer? You can read more of the reports from the OSCE, they are fascinating as well as heart-breaking. Here's another entitled "Hardship for conflict-affected civilians in Eastern Ukraine":

 

It does not cheerlead for one side or the other. It clearly outlines the various behaviours of both sides. It is not as simple as you or many others appear to believe. It's an extremely complicated situation with many geopolitical, cultural, and linguistic variables involved.