Ukraine

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

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,

I've got to say I disagree with the bolded, my counterargument being based on evolutionary history. Species competes/fights among itself in times of stress, species either pushes things too far with the fighting or doesn't recognise an external threat, species becomes a fossil record. That's been the story of the vast majority of species that have inhabited this planet. The difference between them and us is that we are the first (that we know of) that is aware of the above, and perhaps, just perhaps, that allows us a little more control over the way things play out. Or perhaps it doesn't.

 

I think the rest of your post highlighting how warfare and terrorist incidents have gone down a fair bit indicates that we can indeed at least in part subvert this "human condition". But I might be wrong there.

[casablancas]

Ukrainians cease withdrawal from Mariupol following Russian shelling. We called it. We said this would happen meaning Russians can blame Ukrainians and wage more ridiculous ‘unbiased’ narrative of their views. 

[Lionator]

9 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.

A ridiculous thought of that. 

[Sampson]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I've got to say I disagree with the bolded, my counterargument being based on evolutionary history. Species competes/fights among itself in times of stress, species either pushes things too far with the fighting or doesn't recognise an external threat, species becomes a fossil record. That's been the story of the vast majority of species that have inhabited this planet. The difference between them and us is that we are the first (that we know of) that is aware of the above, and perhaps, just perhaps, that allows us a little more control over the way things play out. Or perhaps it doesn't.

 

I think the rest of your post highlighting how warfare and terrorist incidents have gone down a fair bit indicates that we can indeed at least in part subvert this "human condition". But I might be wrong there.

Plenty of species have survived for hundreds of millions of years though and plenty others have been wiped out because of environmental factors, like ice ages and asteroids hitting the earth. Alligators and crocodiles have barely changed for hundreds of millions of years because they found their niche and don't need to. There are also plenty of animal species who have survived non-violently living as herbivores and off grass and plants. So that evolutionary argument hasn't necessarily been the case for every species.

I think to a certain point, people have recognised the threat of WW3 and have tried to avoid it at all costs though, the world has generally become more peaceful over time. No one knows what the future holds, but I can easily see humanity existing for millions of years yet while still retaining weapons for defensive purposes and small scale conflicts popping up now and again. They may not, but I think saying that humans will always need defensive weapons and some small scale conflict will break out is not a tacit agreement of humanity inevitably wiping itself out through violence.

Edited 5 March 2022 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Plenty of species have survived for hundreds of millions of years though and plenty others have been wiped out because of environmental factors, like ice ages and asteroids hitting the earth. Alligators and crocodiles have barely changed for hundreds of millions of years because they found their niche and don't need to. There are also plenty of animal species who have survived non-violently living as herbivores and off grass and plants. So that evolutionary argument hasn't necessarily been the case for every species.

I think to a certain point, people have recognised the threat of WW3 and have tried to avoid it at all costs though, the world has generally become more peaceful over time. No one knows what the future holds, but I can easily see humanity existing for millions of years yet while still retaining weapons for defensive purposes and small scale conflicts popping up now and again.

That's a fair point tbh, though I would submit those particular niche species are a very, very small and fortunate minority by comparison to all the others that didn't make it and so it's still a big gamble with odds very much against one. (The "environmental factors" play into the whole thing; species too busy fighting among themselves they don't recognise and deal with an external threat. Same cause, same result, different executioner.)

 

WRT the second paragraph, I could possibly see that working, though I'm distinctly unsure of how humans with such competitive differences and weapons to boot would react should the Earth really decide to put the heat on and an issue require everyone work together to solve. Personally, it would be nice if there was a way - some way, any way - to further reduce the amount of suffering caused by the human desire to dominate and control others for their own self-interest.

 

 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

3 hours ago, gerblod said:

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.

I live in Russia. I have lived here for 7 years and I speak Russian. Some of the guys on here met me at the Spartak game. I have a family and a business here. I also have family and friends in Ukraine. I read dozens of sources from all around the world, including UK and US media, as well as Russian state media, Telegram channels etc. You have no idea what Russia is, who Russian people are, what the culture is like, what the history is, what the mood of the country is, what living here has been like or is like now, you have no idea. Like many others, you just talk incessantly without having any clue on the topics you're discussing. You don't know anything, and you know so little that you don't even know how little you know. The hysteria, the noise, the constant stream of nonsense from people like you and many others in the west is embarrassing, childish, and totally counter-productive. It won't help anybody, there will be no "rebellion", and soon there will be another viral craze for people to change their profile pictures to. Here, I don't know a single person who just laps up everything state media says. People are able to think for themselves, filter out the bluster, hyperbole, untruths and half-truths, and come to their own conclusions. The reaction of the Western news media, politicians, and large parts of those populations has been one of the most shockingly out-of-touch and ill-informed periods I have ever witnessed. You have allowed yourselves to be pushed and pulled, whipped up into a frenzy until you're foaming at the mouth and full of passionate disdain for a people, nation and culture you know nothing about. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

24 minutes ago, casablancas said:

Ukrainians cease withdrawal from Mariupol following Russian shelling. We called it. We said this would happen meaning Russians can blame Ukrainians and wage more ridiculous ‘unbiased’ narrative of their views. 

Some reports I have read say that the Azov fighters have been firing at both Ukrainian and Russian targets since Zelensky refused or was unable to send support to Mariupol to help the surrounded Azov battalion. I think it's best to wait for more evidence before pretending to know what happened there. 

Edited 5 March 2022 by MarshallForEngland

[Sampson]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's a fair point tbh, though I would submit those particular niche species are a very, very small and fortunate minority by comparison to all the others that didn't make it and so it's still a big gamble with odds very much against one. (The "environmental factors" play into the whole thing; species too busy fighting among themselves they don't recognise and deal with an external threat. Same cause, same result, different executioner.)

 

WRT the second paragraph, I could possibly see that working, though I'm distinctly unsure of how humans with such competitive differences and weapons to boot would react should the Earth really decide to put the heat on and an issue require everyone work together to solve. Personally, it would be nice if there was a way - some way, any way - to further reduce the amount of suffering caused by the human desire to dominate and control others for their own self-interest.

 

 

Well, I think multiculturalism and the ratcheting up of globalisation since the early 90s and the formation of the EU is absolutely a start. I think France and Germany have gone from cultural mortal enemies to conflict between the two being almost unthinkable within only 2-3 generations.

People living next door to people from other countries and having friends, work collogues or classmates from all around the world has absolutely helped with this I think and halped people empathise with different cultures a lot more. It's hard to think of India as some abstract place we brutalise when so many in the UK have now grown up around people of Indian origin and talk with people on a daily basis from Indian origin and now have a greater cultural understanding of Indian food, clothing, religions and festivals. I think if the UK tried to colonise India today, the opposition would be almost universal when it was widely supported only 3 or 4 generations ago.

Similarly, as much as I think leaving the EU was a tragedy, the voting was very decidedly split by age and Yougov questions show people's view of immigration is massively split by age too. Which absolutely shows people who do not have the Berlin wall coming down in living memory and people wo grew up after the deliberate shift towards multiculturalism in the early 90s clearly see it in a different way already. 

I think within only 1 generation we've already seen far more understanding of different cultures and ideals and a shift towards caring more about what happens to the world as a whole rather than just your individual nation state.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Well, I think multiculturalism and the ratcheting up of globalisation since the early 90s and the formation of the EU is absolutely a start. I think France and Germany have gone from cultural mortal enemies to conflict between the two being almost unthinkable within only 2-3 generations.

People living next door to people from other countries and having friends, work collogues or classmates from all around the world has absolutely helped with this I think and halped people empathise with different cultures a lot more. It's hard to think of India as some abstract place we brutalise when so many in the UK have now grown up around people of Indian origin and talk with people on a daily basis from Indian origin and now have a greater cultural understanding of Indian food, clothing, religions and festivals. I think if the UK tried to colonise India today, the opposition would be almost universal when it was widely supported only 3 or 4 generations ago.

Similarly, as much as I think leaving the EU was a tragedy, the voting was very decidedly split by age and Yougov questions show people's view of immigration is massively split by age too. Which absolutely shows people who do not have the Berlin wall coming down in living memory and people wo grew up after the deliberate shift towards multiculturalism in the early 90s clearly see it in a different way already. 

I think within only 1 generation we've already seen far more understanding of different cultures and ideals and a shift towards caring more about what happens to the world as a whole rather than just your individual nation state.

I like the optimism here, and I think and hope you're right that this trend continues.

[casablancas]

22 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Some reports I have read say that the Azov fighters have been firing at both Ukrainian and Russian targets since Zelensky refused or was unable to send support to Mariupol to help the surrounded Azov battalion. I think it's best to wait for more evidence before pretending to know what happened there. 

Whatever you want sweet Prince. Whatever you want… it’s not like there’s historical and recent evidence of the ruskies acting in this manner. Aren’t the Azov lot backed by the Russians?

[Finnaldo]

Where are folk signing up to be Russian assets these days? I could do with a few extra bob typing out contrarian shite on football forums

[MPH]

38 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I live in Russia. I have lived here for 7 years and I speak Russian. Some of the guys on here met me at the Spartak game. I have a family and a business here. I also have family and friends in Ukraine. I read dozens of sources from all around the world, including UK and US media, as well as Russian state media, Telegram channels etc. You have no idea what Russia is, who Russian people are, what the culture is like, what the history is, what the mood of the country is, what living here has been like or is like now, you have no idea. Like many others, you just talk incessantly without having any clue on the topics you're discussing. You don't know anything, and you know so little that you don't even know how little you know. The hysteria, the noise, the constant stream of nonsense from people like you and many others in the west is embarrassing, childish, and totally counter-productive. It won't help anybody, there will be no "rebellion", and soon there will be another viral craze for people to change their profile pictures to. Here, I don't know a single person who just laps up everything state media says. People are able to think for themselves, filter out the bluster, hyperbole, untruths and half-truths, and come to their own conclusions. The reaction of the Western news media, politicians, and large parts of those populations has been one of the most shockingly out-of-touch and ill-informed periods I have ever witnessed. You have allowed yourselves to be pushed and pulled, whipped up into a frenzy until you're foaming at the mouth and full of passionate disdain for a people, nation and culture you know nothing about. 

 

that explains a lot.

[Lionator]

35 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I live in Russia. I have lived here for 7 years and I speak Russian. Some of the guys on here met me at the Spartak game. I have a family and a business here. I also have family and friends in Ukraine. I read dozens of sources from all around the world, including UK and US media, as well as Russian state media, Telegram channels etc. You have no idea what Russia is, who Russian people are, what the culture is like, what the history is, what the mood of the country is, what living here has been like or is like now, you have no idea. Like many others, you just talk incessantly without having any clue on the topics you're discussing. You don't know anything, and you know so little that you don't even know how little you know. The hysteria, the noise, the constant stream of nonsense from people like you and many others in the west is embarrassing, childish, and totally counter-productive. It won't help anybody, there will be no "rebellion", and soon there will be another viral craze for people to change their profile pictures to. Here, I don't know a single person who just laps up everything state media says. People are able to think for themselves, filter out the bluster, hyperbole, untruths and half-truths, and come to their own conclusions. The reaction of the Western news media, politicians, and large parts of those populations has been one of the most shockingly out-of-touch and ill-informed periods I have ever witnessed. You have allowed yourselves to be pushed and pulled, whipped up into a frenzy until you're foaming at the mouth and full of passionate disdain for a people, nation and culture you know nothing about. 

One of the issues is that this is the first war where the gruesome realities are observable to all, due to social media. So it’ll tug on the emotional heart strings which will provoke a stronger reaction. Within my circle there are a lot of people pointing out the hypocrisy given our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan for example, even on our own doorstep for most of the 20th century 👀. The fact that Israel occupies Palestine and most people are okay with that. 
 

On the other hand surely it’s clear that this war is wrong in Russia? It’s not the solution, and I suspect the solution will come around the negotiating table. 
 

What’s important to remember is to critique everything, whether it’s from your own media or Russian media. The truth will likely lie somewhere in the middle in different areas. 

[foxy boxing]

3 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Where are folk signing up to be Russian assets these days? I could do with a few extra bob typing out contrarian shite on football forums

Oh god no!. We don't want a Russian invasion of Foxestalk!. 

[Countryfox]

26 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Oh god no!. We don't want a Russian invasion of Foxestalk!. 

Too late ..

[Guest BlueBrett]

2 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I live in Russia. I have lived here for 7 years and I speak Russian. Some of the guys on here met me at the Spartak game. I have a family and a business here. I also have family and friends in Ukraine. I read dozens of sources from all around the world, including UK and US media, as well as Russian state media, Telegram channels etc. You have no idea what Russia is, who Russian people are, what the culture is like, what the history is, what the mood of the country is, what living here has been like or is like now, you have no idea. Like many others, you just talk incessantly without having any clue on the topics you're discussing. You don't know anything, and you know so little that you don't even know how little you know. The hysteria, the noise, the constant stream of nonsense from people like you and many others in the west is embarrassing, childish, and totally counter-productive. It won't help anybody, there will be no "rebellion", and soon there will be another viral craze for people to change their profile pictures to. Here, I don't know a single person who just laps up everything state media says. People are able to think for themselves, filter out the bluster, hyperbole, untruths and half-truths, and come to their own conclusions. The reaction of the Western news media, politicians, and large parts of those populations has been one of the most shockingly out-of-touch and ill-informed periods I have ever witnessed. You have allowed yourselves to be pushed and pulled, whipped up into a frenzy until you're foaming at the mouth and full of passionate disdain for a people, nation and culture you know nothing about. 

It's the same with virtually every issue. Ignorance and hypocrisy reign supreme. 

[ARTY_FOX]

Like it or not. Multiple artillery rounds hitting a civilian building is NOT an accident. 

[MPH]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

One of the issues is that this is the first war where the gruesome realities are observable to all, due to social media. So it’ll tug on the emotional heart strings which will provoke a stronger reaction. Within my circle there are a lot of people pointing out the hypocrisy given our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan for example, even on our own doorstep for most of the 20th century 👀. The fact that Israel occupies Palestine and most people are okay with that. 
 

On the other hand surely it’s clear that this war is wrong in Russia? It’s not the solution, and I suspect the solution will come around the negotiating table. 
 

What’s important to remember is to critique everything, whether it’s from your own media or Russian media. The truth will likely lie somewhere in the middle in different areas. 

 

it’s interesting that you mention social media… hasn’t twitter, Facebook and YouTube been banned in Russia since the start of the war?

[MPH]

52 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

It's the same with virtually every issue. Ignorance and hypocrisy reign supreme. 

 

it’s much easier to be ‘ignorant’ in Russian though when they are banning the free movement on information 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

It's the same with virtually every issue. Ignorance and hypocrisy reign supreme. 

Dispassionately batting off "everyone is a hypocrite" and reciting "whataboutery" and "bothsides-ism" is being far more of a willy puller and far more dangerous than anyone taking a side in a conflict like this where it comes down to life and death though.

Edited 5 March 2022 by Sampson

[Guest BlueBrett]

7 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

it’s much easier to be ‘ignorant’ in Russian though when they are banning the free movement on information 

haha because we have that right

 

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Dispassionately batting off "everyone is a hypocrite" and playing "bothsides-ism" is being far more of a willy puller and far more dangerous than anyone taking a side in a conflict like this where it comes down to life and death though.

disagree but maybe I'm just jaded

[SpacedX]

44 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

You don't get to curtail my answers. You're not cross-examining me. 

But it's ok for you to do the same to others? Righto.

 

48 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I don't know the answer to that question. 

You live in Russia, yes? That would be why then.

 

49 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Do you understand the concept of admitting you don't know something?

Absolutely - Do you understand the concept of admitting that others stationed on the ground actually do?  As I said, I am irrelevant. I now understand why when I directed you to independent news sources across the globe, nationwide journalism and the free press you were unable to evaluate this for yourself.

 

54 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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? 

Because it isn't - why are you unable to comprehend that? It is beyond your knowledge, clearly, because of where you are. Currently, large tracts of residential housing completely removed from military installations have and are being targeted in cities such as Melitopol, Kherson, Cherniv and Mariupol. The word's press - not simply the west - are reporting on it, there are embedded journalists on the ground from across the globe, there is footage of this in progress and testimonies from survivors and refugees pouring across borders into European countries. The evidence will continue to grow, The ICC is on the ground as we speak gathering evidence of war crimes committed by Russia. 

 

The strategy in Syria was to bombard civilian housing. It was the same in Georgia and Chechnya and it is the same in Ukraine.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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? 

Indeed there is, however we know from recent history that this is what the Russian military does - targets civilians. These aren't stray missiles and random shells, there are smart weapons being fired into civilian communities - no different to Aleppo.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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. 

Cherniv, where there are no military targets is currently enduring precision bombing of purely residential areas. The tactic is, to break the will of the Ukrainian people.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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. 

? This is unfolding before the eyes of the entire world outside Russia. This isn't 'consensus; or 'opinion' - this is demonstrable and unequivocal hence the consistent reporting from across the globe and near unanimous condemnation of Russia. 

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

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. 

And a metric ton of unintentional irony later.

 

How on earth do you expect to find as much relevant evidence as possible when you live in a dictatorship and access to global media is restricted and curtailed? And if you do find it? - which is unlikely given your restricted view of the world and your cognitive dissonance. 

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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.

But we're not simply talking about the UK - this is the entire world news. To clarify, the state has complete control over TV in Russia yes? You're not even permitted to refer to it as a "war", correct? And if you do protest against it, you will be arrested, right? In the UK people are at liberty to demonstrate and speak our against the west, to freely demonstrate and to question their country's participation in war. 

 

Completely incorrect. There are many journalists and media outlets in the UK that lay much of the blame for the causes of this war with the West, from the tacit support for the unconstitutional overthrow of Yanukovych, the deception in parliament from William Hague, the lack of dialogue on behalf of the Ukrainian government and the separatists in the east, the influx of western advisers, arms and training to the failure of the failure of the UN security council to live up to its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security.

 

2 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

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? 

 

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. 

 

 

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).

I am in complete agreement, but there is a difference between informed sceptisim and outright denial. 

 

2 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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

It hasn't been "ignored" at all - see my earlier posts on this thread in which I refer to rise of the far right as one of the greatest current threats to humanity. Interesting though that the President of the country you live in, who forensically dissects world news and current affairs should seek to exploit this with the narrative that Ukraine is being liberated from the tyranny of "neo-nazis" despite Volodymyr Zelenskyy being a Jewish democrat. 

 

3 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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

 

 

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."

You said this:

 

"It is undoubtedly true that some civilians have died as a result of Ukrainian shelling."

 

I asked you to provide evidence that this has involved the deliberate targeting of civilians.  

 

What you have provided details precisely what you have been describing - both sides fighting and skirmishes within or adjacent to residential areas. That is completely different to the current phased and coordinated external ground and air bombardment expressly targeting civilian and residential areas of Ukrainian cities. I have methodically addressed each and every one of your points here and yet you continue to flagrantly disregard this:

 

https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/15/targeting-life-idlib/syrian-and-russian-strikes-civilian-infrastructure#

 

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

 

I highly recommend that you continue to monitor the OSCE during this current war declared by Russia because I will be. You can't have it both ways. 

 

Vladimir Putin repeatedly lied in the buildup to an invasion that he denied was going to happen, hoodwinking, duping and disingenuously hosting Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz and the other leaders who were received at the Kremlin while the Russian military made their final preparations for invasion. Yet we can also say that Putin has made no secret about his ambition to redraw Europe’s borders through violence. He has written and made speeches about his loathing for the west and his desire to reforge a Russian imperium - and now he has acted on it. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, the 2008 war that devoured Georgia, the barbaric intervention in support of the Assad dictatorship in Syria, the cyber-attacks and information warfare - all of this portended what he was capable of and how little disregard he has for western condemnation. Then there are the assassinations, including the weapons grade polonium-210 used against Litvinenko and the Salisbury nerve agent attack, which was technically an act of war on British soil. 

 

What is your understanding of the downing of Malaysia Airways flight MH17? - or conveniently, is that more "cross-examination" designed to curtail your answers? 

 

3 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

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.

Yes, I agree with you entirely, although the majority of Ukraine nationals are bilingual. The above is not in contention though - neither is the fact that Russia is once again purposefully waging war against a civilian population as it did in Cechnya, Georgia and Syria. This is not Western spin, it is unfolding in front of the eyes of the world. That is the point which I am attempting to get across to you. Your denial and personal incredulity is irrelevant here.  

[Sampson]

25 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

disagree but maybe I'm just jaded

Which is the point. You become an appeaser through becoming jaded and saying "well, they're both as bad as each other" when it's pretty obvious that isn't the case.

That's exactly how the recent populism has tried to win itself in society, it's what Putin has always done, it's what Hitler did - make people jaded about politics to the point they say "they're all shit" or "they're all as bad as each other" stay home. One of Trump's biggest advertising campaigns was not trying to win votes, but trying to get voters to stay home by actively showing that his side was bad, but trying to create false equivalencies with the other side.

There was widely shared social media posts about "care about ALL wars not just Ukraine" with pictures of wars in Yemen and Saudi Arabia which has now been exposed as Russian funded propaganda.

Trying to create false equivalencies and say "all politics is crap" "the West does xyz too so they're hypocrites" is just as much political statement and deliberately political propaganda as anything else.

Russia is clearly the aggressor in this war, Russia is clearly commiting war crimes and shelling civilians, it's not even subtle. Saying "oh but NATO are on their borders" or "but the US invaded Iraq 20 years ago" or "but we ignore Saudi Arabia" is deliberate attempts to create false equivalencies with you know, invading a country for no reason which is anywhere close to justifying a war, killing thousands of innocent people and forcing millions and millions of people to flee their homes, split up families and loved ones with a single bag on their back.

The levels of magnitude between any of those things being true and the actual human suffering caused by what is clearly an unjustified and aggressive war by Russia are mindboggling apart, but the "both sides are as bad" "but Iraq" "but NATO" "where is the coverage about Syria or Yemen?" comments are deliberately trying to create a false equivalence and dehumanise human suffering. They're statements which have an element of truth to them, but are obviously nowhere near good excuses or worthwhile equivalents to the human sufferings the Russian invasion of Ukraine is causing them by massive, massive magnitudes of equivalency.

The benefit of social media being around is that political leaders always try and dehumanise these conflicts by talking about abstract geopolitics or what someone else did 20 years ago rather than concentrate on the actual human suffering going on in the invaded country - which social media has allowed to see more than ever in this war, meaning people are empathising a lot more with the people having to say goodbye to their loved ones in tears and flee the country rather than listen to the usual geopolitics which doesn't justify anything. This is why Putin has had to ban Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, because he's trying to dehumanise the suffering.

Edited 5 March 2022 by Sampson

[MPH]

18 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

haha because we have that right

 

 Well what we haven’t done, unlike Russia, is the banning of Facebook, twitter and YouTube. Neither are we arresting people simply  for protesting the war.

 

ANYTHING we want to find out about the war is right there at our fingertips. The same can NOT be said for Russians.

Edited 5 March 2022 by MPH

[MPH]

 The irony in all this is that Putin felt like he was, in some ways,  taking a stance against the influence of NATO. But all he’s managed to do is get some countries  in the area more interested in joining NATO.