Ukraine

[BKLFox]

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 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.

Exactly and Defence budgets will be up’d for every country already within NATO, he’s single-handedly strengthened the forces he thought are against him

[String fellow]

1 hour ago, ARTY_FOX said:

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

Steady on. Remember that we don't know anything and we don't even know how little we know, according to one of the above posts. Apparently, we're just hysterical, childish, embarrassing, clueless and shockingly out of touch. Guess folk in Russia must have superior knowledge and wisdom to us feeble-minded westerners. In fact, we are so dumb that our democratic systems enable us to remove our political leaders every few years if necessary, unlike in Russia, where Putin could stay on for another 14 years.

And when Russia has finally bullied, bombed and bulldozed its way to 'victory', maybe it should rename the empire Kievan Rus to reflect the new geo-political status quo and give a nod to the past at the same time.       

Edited 5 March 2022 by String fellow

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

? 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. 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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

 

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. 

 

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? 

 

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.  

Put it this way; I have access to the same sources you do, plus more that (forgive me if I'm wrong) I expect that you don't read. Living in Russia and speaking Russian gives me a more balanced view, not less. 50 years ago, when television and radio and newspapers were the only possible ways of getting information, you may have had a point. But these days, for anybody who wants it, the sources are out there. Your ideas of what Russia is and what it's like to live here are not based on facts. Perhaps you think the Russian population are all brainwashed/brain-dead zombies, or maybe you think it's something like a dystopian novel where there are cameras in every home and everybody blindly follows the dear leader, or that everyone is bloodthirsty and begging for war, I don't know what you think. But I can tell that you have no idea what it's like to live here. I watch and read the same UK news sources you do every day. Sometimes, I am embarrassed. It's often infantile, hysterical, alarmist, and sometimes just made up. However, there are lots of interesting and insightful bits too which other sources might not include. So I read a variety of sources and make up my own mind about what is going on. Is your argument that I should consider fewer viewpoints and read fewer sources?

 

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

 

I did not make this claim. I specifically brought this up as an example of how hundreds of civilian deaths still might not indicate "deliberate targeting of civilians". You are asking me to advance and defend a position I don't agree with. The reports I linked to gave, exactly as you requested, multiple examples of Ukrainian forces shelling civilian areas. I am not saying that there is sufficient evidence that Ukrainian forces want to deliberately kill civilians (however, there are some who make this case quite persuasively; some of the discussion in the country about "depopulation" of the Donbas is at the very least a bit worrying). That's what you asked for. My argument is not "Russia good, Ukraine bad", but rather "This is complicated". What you immediately did was try to find some kind of factual distinction between Ukrainian forces killing civilians and Russian forces killing civilians. This is an instinctive reaction which I fully understand, because learning that Ukrainian forces have also "targeted civilian areas" presents you with something of a dilemma given the type of argument you've tried to make. My argument is not that one side is right or wrong, but that the line between good and evil doesn't run neatly along the Russia-Ukraine border as you seem to believe it does. We have seen this exact same situation play out in Israel. Hamas and its supporters argue that Israel is indiscriminately bombing residential areas, while Israel claims that Hamas is firing from civilian areas and refusing to let civilians leave, in some cases specifically to increase the likelihood of civilian casualties which is, in a war, terrible for the reputation of the other side and in the court of public opinion can be a very significant factor.  I watch several videos each day of civilians explaining how the Ukrainian forces are firing from nearby gardens and streets in order to draw return fire into residential neighbourhoods. Now they could be paid actors, fakes, threatened or paid to say it etc, that's a different argument, but this is a known tactic, the use of which was documented in the reports I gave you. We haven't even got onto the fact that only a few days ago, many media outlets were celebrating the fact that tens of thousands of automatic guns were handed out to civilians, which I'm afraid is only going to lead to more civilian casualties and create a lot of confusion in a situation which is already extremely chaotic. 

 

When you start with your conclusion, it's harder to do anything useful with new information. Your conclusion is already "Russia are the bad guys, Ukraine are the good guys" and "Russia's goal is to kill innocent civilians". And your evidence is that they have done it before and you have seen the dead civilians, the destroyed buildings etc. And while there may be other explanations for those dead civilians and destroyed buildings, those explanations can't be true, because we know that Russia is bad and kills civilians on purpose. And that's clearly the case because we can see the buildings and the bodies etc, and we know what the explanation for that is because they have done it before and it's what they do etc. Do you see where I am going with this? You're stuck in this circular argument that is not able to change based on any new information. Your starting premise may not be entirely true; it might not fully explain the entirety of the situation. Have you considered that? If evidence comes out that Russian soldiers were under orders or chose themselves to kill civilians on purpose, I will be the first to say that is absolutely wrong. But the mere existence of civilian casualties and fatalities itself is not evidence of that. If it is, I'm afraid virtually every single war in the last century-and-a-bit is an example of the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians. 

 

Regarding which areas have strategic importance, how on earth do you know this? In order to know that, you have to know what the actual objective is and have detailed knowledge of the area itself. It may be an important step in achieving another objective, or there may be something there that we don't know about (imagine that). Perhaps in order to encircle a larger town or city, that one has to be secured first. I don't know, I'm not a military tactician. But neither are you, so why pretend that you know the relative importance of that location in the context of the overall plan? 

 

Edited 5 March 2022 by MarshallForEngland
edited: clarity, typos

[Sir Shep]

Think i will put this in laymans terms, Ukraine good, Russia bad. Hope this helps. 

[st albans fox]

Our govt are more than embarrassing- how anyone can vote for them at the next election is beyond me - they would actually sell their grandmothers ….

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Put it this way; I have access to the same sources you do, plus more that (forgive me if I'm wrong) I expect that you don't read. Living in Russia and speaking Russian gives me a more balanced view, not less.

 

Number 1

Are you sure that you will maintain the same sources of information 

 

number 2

I respect your pov but that's actually not a justified statement 

[chapero82]

 

[ARTY_FOX]

It's absolutley blown my mind people are on here on the side of Russia. How any sane person could rationalise what they're doing is beyond me. How you can say you have a balanced view because you're getting your news from state sponsored programs in Russia is also hilarious. 

[Jattdogg]

Would be great if putin was captured by a bunch of MMA fighting, pulp fiction type gimps with massive horse cocks.

 

Hope he visits the depths of hell very soon.

 

 

[Shane]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

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.

Brilliant post. Perfectly description of the ‘Demoralization’ warfare tactics being used. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

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.

When people bring up other wars or events in history, it might be to test the consistency of somebody's argument and encourage them to re-examine their ideas. It doesn't mean they're saying "In this instance killing civilians is ok because someone else did it before". We agree that is logically fallacious. But identifying what you call "hypocrisy" is not the end here but the means to advancing the discussion; if you notice that two positions you hold appear incongruent with each other, it should (if you're intellectually honest) cause you to try to figure out why. And that process may well lead you to change your mind, or perhaps develop better arguments for your own position. It's possible that there is no incongruence, because you may have identified an important factual distinction between the two events which justifies different responses. As I said before, it's somewhat analogous to judicial precedent in the British legal tradition. A defence lawyer cites previous cases not to exculpate his client, but rather to encourage consistent application of whatever standard is to be applied. If the cases are materially different, it may be the case that a different standard is applied, or that the same standard can produce two different results given certain facts. If the cases are factually similar, it might be unfair to convict one and not the other, or to confer a harsher sentence than in previous similar cases. It's perfectly legitimate to bring up previous western interventions in the middle east if your aim is to find out why those events are treated differently to this one. On the subject of civilian deaths, I am genuinely interested to know what distinguishes the 7500 civilian deaths in the first three weeks of the Iraq invasion and the civilian deaths in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It seems to me the situations are in some ways factually similar, and therefore asking yourself why (or if) you feel differently about the two might be a useful intellectual exercise. Of course, if the aim is to say "well someone else did it so it's ok this time" or "you have no moral authority because you're also bad", we agree that this is illogical.

[MPH]

22 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

It's absolutley blown my mind people are on here on the side of Russia. How any sane person could rationalise what they're doing is beyond me. How you can say you have a balanced view because you're getting your news from state sponsored programs in Russia is also hilarious. 

 

Don’t worry, apparently being in a country that controls your press,, blocks social media,  imprisons the opposition leaders and poisons those living abroad who have gone against you apparently gives you, blatantly lies about targeting civilians and lies constantly about not invading that country in the first place helps to give you a more balanced viewpoint

[whoareyaaa]

Three Russian commanders killed as Ukraine invasion force attempts to step up momentum (msn.com)

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

23 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

It's absolutley blown my mind people are on here on the side of Russia. How any sane person could rationalise what they're doing is beyond me. How you can say you have a balanced view because you're getting your news from state sponsored programs in Russia is also hilarious. 

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about and appear not to have read a single thing I have written. You are starting with the premise that everything that is not the sources you trust is inherently false, and that everybody who reads Russians newspapers or watches Russian news broadcasts is a braindead zombie who is unable to filter information and figure out what is likely to be true or not. I read exactly the same sources you do plus many more. The ability to consider many different arguments, including false ones, exaggerated ones, ones you don't agree with etc, and use your own brain to ascertain the likelihood of something being true should be universal, but it appears you cannot imagine how somebody could do that.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

5 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

Don’t worry, apparently being in a country that controls your press,, blocks social media,  imprisons the opposition leaders and poisons those living abroad who have gone against you apparently gives you, blatantly lies about targeting civilians and lies constantly about not invading that country in the first place helps to give you a more balanced viewpoint

See my response above to @ARTY_FOX.

 

Living in Russia and speaking Russian gives me more sources of information about Russia, its language, culture, and relationship with Ukraine, not fewer. I can then collate all the information I have, including what I learn from the sources at home, and come to a conclusion which takes into account more information than I otherwise would have if I didn't live here. How is that difficult to understand or accept? Because your starting premise is faulty, you must assume that anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed or threatened by a dictatorship or something. You have zero idea what you're talking about, you don't know anything about this place or what it's like to live here. Yet you speak with the certainty of someone who has spent their whole life here.

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

When people bring up other wars or events in history, it might be to test the consistency of somebody's argument and encourage them to re-examine their ideas. It doesn't mean they're saying "In this instance killing civilians is ok because someone else did it before". We agree that is logically fallacious. But identifying what you call "hypocrisy" is not the end here but the means to advancing the discussion; if you notice that two positions you hold appear incongruent with each other, it should (if you're intellectually honest) cause you to try to figure out why. And that process may well lead you to change your mind, or perhaps develop better arguments for your own position. It's possible that there is no incongruence, because you may have identified an important factual distinction between the two events which justifies different responses. As I said before, it's somewhat analogous to judicial precedent in the British legal tradition. A defence lawyer cites previous cases not to exculpate his client, but rather to encourage consistent application of whatever standard is to be applied. If the cases are materially different, it may be the case that a different standard is applied, or that the same standard can produce two different results given certain facts. If the cases are factually similar, it might be unfair to convict one and not the other, or to confer a harsher sentence than in previous similar cases. It's perfectly legitimate to bring up previous western interventions in the middle east if your aim is to find out why those events are treated differently to this one. On the subject of civilian deaths, I am genuinely interested to know what distinguishes the 7500 civilian deaths in the first three weeks of the Iraq invasion and the civilian deaths in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It seems to me the situations are in some ways factually similar, and therefore asking yourself why (or if) you feel differently about the two might be a useful intellectual exercise. Of course, if the aim is to say "well someone else did it so it's ok this time" or "you have no moral authority because you're also bad", we agree that this is illogical.

Because bringing it up is a deliberate attempt to create a false equivalence and a deliberate attempt to plant the seed of apathy because "they all lie". It's a tried and tested propaganda technique and one of the most powerful there is. The discussion of "why x is treated differently" is just a classic propoganda deflection tactic - it's entirely irrelevant and an attempt to dehumanise the suffering and change it to a discussion about abstract geopolitics rather than people being murdered by the thousands and people's homes being destroyed and millions having to flee for their lives in the kind of fear which none of us can even imagine.

It's exactly the same concept as that ridiculous All Lives Matter response to the Black Lives Matter movement. It's why Russian funded social media pages are sharing about "why aren't you caring about ALL wars" rather than outright denying the war, it's why Trump campaign pages were happy to admit the had issues "but the other side does too".

It shouldn't matter one bit what the difference is between this and Iraq right now, it's the least prescient time in history to bring it up. Just like it would be irrelevant to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when talking about the Iraq war. All you're doing if you do that is a very thinly veiled attempt to try and push forward a false equivilence of aparthy to the other side.

Cries of consistency and hypocrisy is absolutely irrelevant as well, it's lowest-common denominator whataboutery - obviously everyone is a hypocrite, yeah that's bleeding obvious, it shouldn't matter one bit though - again, the only purpose of doing this is deflection and to dehumanise the suffering.

People are dying by the thousands, people are distraught having to leave behind their homes partners, fathers, mothers, siblings, children and grandparents by the millions - that is what should matter. Reducing the suffering is what should matter, not what the other side did 20 years ago - discuss that in peace time in 30 years time, but any attempt to steer the discussion that way now is a clear and tried-and-tested propoganda tactic to steer away from the discussion of unimaginable human suffering currently being blatantly caused by the Russian leader (on his own people as well as on the Ukranian people) to try and muddy the waters by dehumanising the conversation into it being about abstract geopolitical concepts.

Edited 5 March 2022 by Sampson

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

See my response above to @ARTY_FOX.

 

Living in Russia and speaking Russian gives me more sources of information about Russia, its language, culture, and relationship with Ukraine, not fewer. I can then collate all the information I have, including what I learn from the sources at home, and come to a conclusion which takes into account more information than I otherwise would have if I didn't live here. How is that difficult to understand or accept? Because your starting premise is faulty, you must assume that anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed or threatened by a dictatorship or something. You have zero idea what you're talking about, you don't know anything about this place or what it's like to live here. Yet you speak with the certainty of someone who has spent their whole life here.

 

no it doesn’t. It puts you under the influence of a barbaric and dishonest dictator that is telling outright lies about what is happening in Ukraine. Do you realize that you are spouting off almost word for word some of the stuff that is coming off of the STATE CONTROLLED Russian media?

 

the fact you would even add one ounce of credibility to what the Russian Government is doing in the Ukraine is reprehensible and shameful. I’m sure you think you are doing a great service by trying to  ‘educate’ us but all you are doing is revealing the effectiveness of the brainwashing going on within Russian society.

[ARTY_FOX]

16 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about and appear not to have read a single thing I have written. You are starting with the premise that everything that is not the sources you trust is inherently false, and that everybody who reads Russians newspapers or watches Russian news broadcasts is a braindead zombie who is unable to filter information and figure out what is likely to be true or not. I read exactly the same sources you do plus many more. The ability to consider many different arguments, including false ones, exaggerated ones, ones you don't agree with etc, and use your own brain to ascertain the likelihood of something being true should be universal, but it appears you cannot imagine how somebody could do that.

I have unfortunately read alot of what you've said. Including the bizarre statement you tried to make about them accidentally shelling a block of flats. You also chose to ignore the factual information I gave you for why it absolutley couldn't have been an accident... funnily enough much like the Russian press. 

Edited 5 March 2022 by ARTY_FOX

[casablancas]

2 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

I have unfortunately read alot of what you've said. Including the bizarre statement you tried to make about them accidentally shelling a block of flats. You also chose to ignore the factual information I gave you for why it absolutley couldn't have been an accident. 

He cannot rationalise any of his arguments, despite the 16 paragraphs per reply. It’s clearly not accidental 

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about and appear not to have read a single thing I have written. You are starting with the premise that everything that is not the sources you trust is inherently false, and that everybody who reads Russians newspapers or watches Russian news broadcasts is a braindead zombie who is unable to filter information and figure out what is likely to be true or not. I read exactly the same sources you do plus many more. The ability to consider many different arguments, including false ones, exaggerated ones, ones you don't agree with etc, and use your own brain to ascertain the likelihood of something being true should be universal, but it appears you cannot imagine how somebody could do that.

Mate, back when we discussed the Jan 6 insurrection attempt in the USA you weren't even able to consider the possibility that people might use a word as it is described in the dictionary, choosing to believe that your narrower definition obtained through gut feeling is the only true one.  I wouldn't talk so disparagingly of people who are unable to filter information unless this is some kind of self-improvement through personal humiliation tactic.

[Sir Shep]

14 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

See my response above to @ARTY_FOX.

 

Living in Russia and speaking Russian gives me more sources of information about Russia, its language, culture, and relationship with Ukraine, not fewer. I can then collate all the information I have, including what I learn from the sources at home, and come to a conclusion which takes into account more information than I otherwise would have if I didn't live here. How is that difficult to understand or accept? Because your starting premise is faulty, you must assume that anyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed or threatened by a dictatorship or something. You have zero idea what you're talking about, you don't know anything about this place or what it's like to live here. Yet you speak with the certainty of someone who has spent their whole life here.

Just in one word please, was Russia right to invade another country? Yes or no. 

[Stivo]

Based on all

Just now, MarshallForEngland said:

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about and appear not to have read a single thing I have written. You are starting with the premise that everything that is not the sources you trust is inherently false, and that everybody who reads Russians newspapers or watches Russian news broadcasts is a braindead zombie who is unable to filter information and figure out what is likely to be true or not. I read exactly the same sources you do plus many more. The ability to consider many different arguments, including false ones, exaggerated ones, ones you don't agree with etc, and use your own brain to ascertain the likelihood of something being true should be universal, but it appears you cannot imagine how somebody could do that.

Based on these sources can you tell us 

 

a) did Russia launch an invasion of another country last week with an army of about 150000 men? 
b) did Russia use novichok in Salisbury,  killing a British citizen

c) did Russia (unintentionally and indirectly as it was the separatists)  shoot down a Dutch airliner.

 

yes/no answers only please.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

5 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

I have unfortunately read alot of what you've said. Including the bizarre statement you tried to make about them accidentally shelling a block of flats. You also chose to ignore the factual information I gave you for why it absolutley couldn't have been an accident. 

I'm sorry but this almost looks like a parody. Your argument was "I know about artillery and that's not an accident". I thought you were joking when you said that was your basis for determining whether or not the building was struck on purpose by a Russian missile. Please tell me exactly what about it tells you that it was a missile deliberately fired by Russian forces at the building? Is it something about the trajectory of the projectile? The blast pattern? Could you see the weapon which fired it in the video? Can you tell from the projectile (I couldn't even see one but I am willing to be shown) who it belonged to? Do you know who was in the building? Had anyone been evacuated? Were there any weapons or soldiers in there? Was anything launched from that site prior to the event filmed? Was anybody firing from the windows? Seriously, you have no idea about any of this. Why can't you just admit that? You do not know the answers to these questions and neither do I. War is chaos and hell and none of us have any idea what is happening in that video. To pretend you do is dishonest.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Put it this way; I have access to the same sources you do, plus more that (forgive me if I'm wrong)

 

What was that you said earlier - "do you understand the concept of admitting you don't know something?"

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I expect that you don't read. 

Really? Ok then.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Living in Russia and speaking Russian gives me a more balanced view, not less. 50 years ago, when television and radio and newspapers were the only possible ways of getting information, you may have had a point. But these days, for anybody who wants it, the sources are out there.

 

You can keep playing the "living in Russia" card, but your claim that living in Russia affords a more "balanced view" is laughable. And also, how would you know otherwise? You have already displayed a shocking level of ignorance about the media in the UK. You live in the bubble of an autocracy which is sadly fast descending into a dictatorship. 

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Your ideas of what Russia is and what it's like to live here are not based on facts. 

I can assure you that it is. My brother lived in Moscow for three years in the Presnensky District and a close friend of the family that has taught out there for a decade is now desperately attempting to leave the country. Unfortunately, we haven't heard from her for a week, but that may as much be due to the fact that she's atrocious at keeping in touch. Aside from Moscow, I myself have only visited elsewhere in the country twice - Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg and had a visit planned to Kamchatka, which was cancelled due to the covid outbreak. I am as fascinated by the geography of the country that you call your home, as I am the history of it. I have found Muscovites behind their ostensibly brusque, cold and aloof demeanor/exterior, to be warm, friendly and engaging. 

 

Actually, although you accuse others of such, you are the one making all the assumptions here.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 Perhaps you think the Russian population are all brainwashed/brain-dead zombies, or maybe you think it's something like a dystopian novel where there are cameras in every home and everybody blindly follows the dear leader, or that everyone is bloodthirsty and begging for war, I don't know what you think. 

No, you clearly do not. So why type that utter nonsense?

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

But I can tell that you have no idea what it's like to live here.

 

 And you would be wrong again.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I watch and read the same UK news sources you do every day.

 

Tell me, how's that going? That clearly isn't the case is it otherwise you would be cognisant of the current war against civilians in Ukraine. Meanwhile, you have a President that has claimed that Ukraine is "not a real country" and currently being liberated from neo-nazi rule by "military operation". Care to comment on that? Of course you won't, you have ignored 90% of the questions that I have directed at you and will continue to do so.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Sometimes, I am embarrassed. It's often infantile, hysterical, alarmist, and sometimes just made up.

 

Agree entirely - and this can afflict reporting and MSM outlets across the globe. However, in the UK, although the press may follow an editorial line, for the western journalist, the greatest acclaim comes from bucking this trend, eschewing the 'food chain' of so called lobby journalism and exposing government corruption. That cannot and does not happen in Russia any longer. Meduza and the Russian-language website Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Svoboda, have been all but shut down by Roskomnadzor in the last week alone. 

 

Can you imagine the Main Directorate of Internal Affairs of the City of Moscow, investigating Vladimir Putin and his cronies?

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

 

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

 

I did not make this claim. I specifically brought this up as an example of how hundreds of civilian deaths still might not indicate "deliberate targeting of civilians". You are asking me to advance and defend a position I don't agree with. 

Thank you for now clarifying that. This is what you originally said.

 

No I wouldn't accuse the Ukranian government of war crimes in those circumstances, but as I have pointed out, this is false equivalence. Again, to reiterate, we are not talking about skirmishes and fighting in the proximity of residential areas, rather a planned and coordinated strategy of expressly targeting civilians during the invasion of an independent nation through airstrikes, shelling and multiple rocket launchers. We also know, that Russia has deployed thermobaric weapons and will similarly be prepared to use them on civilians as they did in Syria. This is precisely why the ICC are currently on the ground in Ukraine gathering evidence of Russian war crimes. Are you in denial of that too? 

 

And why do you keep ignoring this?

 

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

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

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

When you start with your conclusion, it's harder to do anything useful with new information. Your conclusion is already "Russia are the bad guys, Ukraine are the good guys" 

At no stage whatsoever have I made any such claim. I have simply recounted events as they have unfolded. Like I said, your denial, cognitive dissonance, personal incredulity and national bias is irrelevant here - as am I. The atrocities being committed against civilians can only be covered up by your own despotic rulers. 

 

I can however inform you that the claim of the President of the country that you live in that Ukraine is "governed by a neo-nazi regime" is as deluded as it is comical. 

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

The reports I linked to gave, exactly as you requested, multiple examples of Ukrainian forces shelling civilian areas.

No they don't. They testify to skirmishes and engagements between Ukrainian soldiers and pro-Russian separatists (Russian proxies) within and adjacent to civilian areas. That is very different to this...

 

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

 

...and the current systematic bombardment of civilian tracts of housing by the invading Russian military from the ground and air.

 

Again, you completely sidestepped the question. What is your understanding of the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17?

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

And your evidence is that they have done it before and you have seen the dead civilians, the destroyed buildings etc. And while there may be other explanations for those dead civilians and destroyed buildings, those explanations can't be true, because we know that Russia is bad and kills civilians on purpose. And that's clearly the case because we can see the buildings and the bodies etc, and we know what the explanation for that is because they have done it before and it's what they do etc. 

It is not 'my evidence' - how many times, I am irrelevant. 

 

Russia has used heavy artillery, smart air bombardment and thermobaric weapons upon the civilian population of Syria. That is not even up for debate. 

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Do you see where I am going with this? 

No I really don't and given your aimless diatribe, prevarication and denial I'm not sure that you do either. 

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

You're stuck in this circular argument that is not able to change based on any new information. Your starting premise may not be entirely true; it might not fully explain the entirety of the situation. Have you considered that? If evidence comes out that Russian soldiers were under orders or chose themselves to kill civilians on purpose, I will be the first to say that is absolutely wrong. But the mere existence of civilian casualties and fatalities itself is not evidence of that. If it is, I'm afraid virtually every single war in the last century-and-a-bit is an example of the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians. 

I am trained in science and the scientific method. I am hard wired to abandon pre-conceptions and revise my understanding based upon new and emergent evidence. But to reiterate again, I am irrelevant. The war in Ukraine is being relayed across the world. Once again, we are not talking about the odd stray rocket or shell, the chilling strategy is inescapable. This is a planned and systematic war directed and targeted at the citizens of Ukraine in order to force the government to yield. It is unfolding in front of the eyes of the world. If you have access to global unbiased and objective sources as you claim, you would know that. 

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Regarding which areas have strategic importance, how on earth do you know this? In order to know that, you have to know what the actual objective is and have detailed knowledge of the area itself. It may be an important step in achieving another objective, or there may be something there that we don't know about (imagine that). Perhaps in order to encircle a larger town or city, that one has to be secured first. I don't know, I'm not a military tactician. But neither are you, so why pretend that you know the relative importance of that location in the context of the overall plan? 

Many of these cities do indeed have strategic significance, but what you seem to be unable to comprehend is that the residential areas are being expressly targeted in order to subdue them. That is unequivocal. 

 

The innocent people of Ukraine that are dying as a consequence did not ask for this war, nor did they invite this upon themselves. The International Red Cross are appealing to Vladimir Putin to cease targeting civilians who must be protected from these attacks in line with the rules of war.

 

This is the single biggest attack on a European state since World War II in compete violation of international law causing Europe's largest refugee crisis this century. Are you in support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? 

Edited 5 March 2022 by Line-X

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

4 minutes ago, Stivo said:

Based on all

Based on these sources can you tell us 

 

a) did Russia launch an invasion of another country last week with an army of about 150000 men? 
b) did Russia use novichok in Salisbury,  killing a British citizen

c) did Russia (unintentionally and indirectly as it was the separatists)  shoot down a Dutch airliner.

 

yes/no answers only please.

Firstly, as I have said before, you don't get to curtail my answers to the range of answers you deem are appropriate. Secondly, what have those things go to do with me or my arguments? You have confused my position "it's complicated, there's more to this situation than you might realise" with "Russia has never done anything ever". Ridiculous. How could I know any more about the number of personnel involved than anyone else? The other two things you mentioned are not even connected to what's happening or anything about this discussion, you can't just bring up random new topics and demand that I defend them.