Russia v Ukraine

[SasaS]

Tom Copper updated again.

 

He is still worried about the Bilohorka situation and thinks Russians are trying to connect it to Popasna in the south and cut off a major grouping of UKR forces in the east. He doesn't believe they have pushed them back across the river at Bilohorka.

 

https://medium.com/@x_TomCooper_x/ukraine-war-10-may-2022-e7598e3d0f57

[SasaS]

6 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Your right about something, he is indeed an interesting guy and i'd suggest beside your best efforts to smear the journalist his veiws on Russia/Ukraine are as relevant and informed as an amature general on a football forum. 

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/02/exile-201002

I did have a look at what he is talking about, because he styles himself as an expert on Ukraine, that is how I've noticed what his prevalent themes are.

 

I find it hard to believe that the West is preventing Kiev from reaching a meaningful deal with Moscow, in the middle of a major aggression, that is why I try to understand the rationale behind such thinking. When I ask, what exactly is Moscow offering in this deal, people either go completely silent or offer pie in the sky explanations.

 

That view would make sense if Russians were already beaten and withdrawing and the West was egging UKR on, go on my son, finish the bastards, but at the moment, when they are fighting for survival, it sounds completely made up. Do people really believe that UKR is ready to say, OK, fuck it, take all of Donetsk and Luhansk, Kherson, all of our ports and we will reduce our army so it can never take them back and give up on our independent foreign policy, that the US (I think Johnson and the UK on their own are all but irrelevant in this) would be able to force them to keep fighting? How would they do that?

 

Oh, and you have not seen anything close to my best efforts.

[Gnasher]

Just now, SasaS said:

I did have a look at what he is talking about, because he styles himself as an expert on Ukraine, that is how I've noticed what his prevalent themes are.

 

I find it hard to believe that the West is preventing Kiev from reaching a meaningful deal with Moscow, in the middle of a major aggression, that is why I try to understand the rationale behind such thinking. When I ask, what exactly is Moscow offering in this deal, people either go completely quiet or offer pie in the sky explanations.

 

That view would make sense if Russians were already beaten and withdrawing and the West was egging UKR on, go on my son, finish the bastards, but at the moment, when they are fighting for survival, it sounds completely made up. Do people really believe that UKR is ready to say, OK, fuck it, take all of Donetsk and Luhansk, Kherson, all of our ports and we will reduce our army so it can never take them back and give up on our independent foreign policy, that the US (I think Johnson and the UK on their own are all but irrelevant in this) would be able to force them to keep fighting? How would they do that?

 

 

 

The general point is other voices deserve to be heard, the worlds heading towards economic catastrophe and eastern Ukraine will soon be in ruins.

 

Im not a diplomat and I obviously don't know what either side would except but considering the carnage and loss of lives/money both sides are experiencing a peace deal imo needs to be sought. Ive heard it suggested the vague outline would centre around a full Russian withdrawal of Ukraine and the Donbass as long as Ukraine commits to neutrality (which it basically was anyway). All sanctions lifted providing Russia must pay the bill for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Both sides can claim victory. 

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

The general point is other voices deserve to be heard, the worlds heading towards economic catastrophe and eastern Ukraine will soon be in ruins.

 

Im not a diplomat and I obviously don't know what either side would except but considering the carnage and loss of lives/money both sides are experiencing a peace deal imo needs to be sought. Ive heard it suggested the vague outline would centre around a full Russian withdrawal of Ukraine and the Donbass as long as Ukraine commits to neutrality (which it basically was anyway). All sanctions lifted providing Russia must pay the bill for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Both sides can claim victory. 

That is pie in the sky I was talking about. Do you believe Russia would accept that, after all they have done? Do we have any example from history of an invader accepting terms along those lines?

 

And how would they sell this as victory? In a society that has completely slid into the Russian ethno-nationalism of the worst kind, which either despises Ukrainians as an inferior race or thinks they don't exist as a nation and are being brainwashed by rabid Nazis intent on using them to somehow destroy Russia? I don't think you could sell this as a victory to the kids from that kindergarten parade.

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

That is pie in the sky I was talking about. Do you believe Russia would accept that, after all they have done? Do we have any example from history of an invader accepting terms along those lines?

Russia hasn't got much choice, their economy is on the brink of collapse and this war is going tits up. 

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

And how would they sell this as victory?

 

Putin would say he's guaranteed the Russian people's safety with the guarantee of neutrality etc plus he'd also claim brave Russian soldiers have trounced the Azov Nazis in Mariupol and the South  He controls the media, I'd imagine the Russian would welcome an end to this war so the conditions would be excepted.

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

In a society that has completely slid into the Russian ethno-nationalism of the worst kind, which either despises Ukrainians as an inferior race or thinks they don't exist as a nation and are being brainwashed by rabid Nazis intent on using them to somehow destroy Russia? I don't think you could sell this as a victory to the kids from that kindergarten parade.

The Russians have little choice, unless they welcome famine.

[SasaS]

There is absolutely no way Russia is either offering or accepting that at the moment.

This is what they would offer in late June, if they failed to inflict any major defeats on the UKR in the East by the end of May and UKR begins fully utilizing all the equipment they have received and if, after hopefully managing to suffer less from attrition in the next 30 to 45 days, starts pushing them back on most fronts.  

 

Only when Russian negotiators begin suggesting or offering local ceasefires will they be ready to talk seriously about anything other than the modalities of their victory.

[TheHowieLama]

Wait, so now the Russians have no choice but that is because of the West?

 

Gnash, have a lie down pal. All of your "exceptions" will never be "accepted".

[Gnasher]

34 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Wait, so now the Russians have no choice but that is because of the West?

 

Gnash, have a lie down pal. All of your "exceptions" will never be "accepted".

 

The main reason they have little choice is because of their own incompetence. Its not exactly a future of wine and roses for us in the west either. As for Ukraine, the economy is on its knees whilst the east of the country is flat on the floor. 

 

Won't be long before people starve to death,

 

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/10/zelensky-russian-blockade-ukrainian-ports-food-crisis

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-food-shortage-russia-60-minutes-2022-05-01/

[TheHowieLama]

Youv'e spent a few months saying Ukraine should cede parts of their country for "peace".

Also that the sanctions are not effective.

 

Now you are saying the sanctions are crippling Russia and because of that Russia has no choice but to go home.

Just doesn't seem like you have thought much of this through beyond the simplistic idea of "peace".

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Youv'e spent a few months saying Ukraine should cede parts of their country for "peace".

Also that the sanctions are not effective.

 

Now you are saying the sanctions are crippling Russia and because of that Russia has no choice but to go home.

Just doesn't seem like you have thought much of this through beyond the simplistic idea of "peace".

 

I don't want or believe Ukraine should concede anything. As for sanctions I'm all for targeted sanctions against Putin, Oligarchs, the bank accounts etc but I believe widespread economic sanctions often hurt the innocent and the poor and can fail by increasing the resolve of the people that suffer.

[Numero Veinticinco]

10 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Fucking hell another one for the banned list, an American journalist who's lived across Eastern Europe and who's publication was banned by Putin. It was the Pope, the former President of Brazil and Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail who's veiws were not welcomed the other day, a bit to leftfield for your sensitive stomach, odd considering you're all over the cancel culture thread screaming Woke when some right wing racist yank gets thrown off twitter. 

 

 

I think you misunderstand what objecting to cancel culture is about. Nobody is saying the Pope can’t share his views or Hitchens can’t tweet. Some just disagree with what they said. Free speech isn’t about freedom from negative response. You’re being silly. 

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I think you misunderstand what objecting to cancel culture is about. Nobody is saying the Pope can’t share his views or Hitchens can’t tweet. Some just disagree with what they said. Free speech isn’t about freedom from negative response. You’re being silly. 

If you say so. Explains why one of the first responses to the link regarding the Pope didn't touch on a word he said but on pedophilia within the church.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

If you say so. Explains why one of the first responses to the link regarding the Pope didn't touch on a word he said but on pedophilia within the church.

That’s free speech for you, people allowed to say things you don’t like and you being able to respond in the way you like. Nobody is stopping anybody from saying anything. They’re just responding how they want. I think the issue isn’t that people are trying to cancel anybody or put anybody on your imaginary ‘banned list’ that exists only in your mind, but that you don’t like the responses. 

[Gnasher]

14 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

That’s free speech for you, people allowed to say things you don’t like and you being able to respond in the way you like. Nobody is stopping anybody from saying anything. They’re just responding how they want. I think the issue isn’t that people are trying to cancel anybody or put anybody on your imaginary ‘banned list’ that exists only in your mind, but that you don’t like the responses. 

Or they disagree with the Popes veiw but instead of explaining why they throw a curveball that has nothing to do with the subject at the top of the thread, a roundabout way of trying to clog up or cancel the message. 

 

Anyway I'm not going to clog this thread talking about the Pope so I'll leave it there.

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Or they disagree with the Popes veiw but instead of explaining why they throw a curveball that has nothing to do with the subject at the top of the thread, a roundabout way of trying to clog up or cancel the message. 

 

Anyway I'm not going to clog this thread talking about the Pope so I'll leave it there.

You can’t cancel the message by responding to it. Cancelling is denying the ability to share that view. It’s as much cancelling it as singing the wrong words over a song on top of the pops. The response that you’re looking for isn’t  ‘stop cancelling’ it’s ‘stop using Argumentum ad hominem fallacies’ instead you chose the Argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy as a defence. All a bit boring, but still… the Pope was using post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to detract from the horrible shit Putin has done. I guess even the representative of Jesus has his flaws. In short, the Pope is talking shit and got called out for it. Nobody got cancelled or banned. 
 

[SasaS]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Gnasher]

Good to show them how much we care, because first impressions last.

 

Fucking beyond belief,

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/11/ukraine-refugees-who-enter-uk-via-ireland-may-be-sent-to-rwanda-mps-told

[Anubis]

Chinese News - a Russian tank exploding. You can fast forward to 2:25 - keep an eye on the turret.

 

 

[cochyn]

On 10/05/2022 at 13:15, SasaS said:

Tom Cooper updated again, because the situation is not so good.

 

He thinks there is a decisive battle going on and the Russians have a serious upper hand at the moment.

 

https://medium.com/@x_TomCooper_x/ukraine-war-9-may-2020-a1137caa3ed7

Looks like the Ukrainians baited them and than walloped them with that river crossing.. Tom was concerned about..

 

Tally ho!

[SasaS]

3 hours ago, cochyn said:

Looks like the Ukrainians baited them and than walloped them with that river crossing.. Tom was concerned about..

 

Tally ho!

Yes, he acknowledged. The other, map guy says he cannot find the other 2 possible bridges Russians may have used.

 

 

 

[Strontium]

Russian soldiers execute unarmed civilians, no doubt because of NATO or something. Current top story on BBC.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61425025

 

Quote

Ukraine conflict: Russian soldiers seen shooting dead unarmed civilians

When Leonid Pliats and his boss were shot in the back by Russian soldiers, the killing was captured on CCTV cameras in clear and terrible detail. The footage, which was obtained by the BBC, is now being investigated by Ukrainian prosecutors as a suspected war crime.

It was the height of the fighting around Kyiv and the main roads into the capital were a battlefield, including around the bicycle shop where Leonid worked as a security guard.

But this was no firefight: the video clearly shows five heavily armed Russian soldiers shooting the two unarmed Ukrainians and then looting the business.

We have pieced together the full sequence of events, matching what was recorded on multiple CCTV cameras around the site with the testimony of people Leonid phoned that day, as well as the Ukrainian volunteer fighters who tried to rescue him.

 

 

[SasaS]

How is this "obtained by the BBC" if it was already shown as an exclusive on CNN, who are saying it came from a Russian source (which is I guess, why we have not seen it before).  

[Gnasher]

Russia are fucked. She predicts 4 more weeks and then a possible deal along the lines of what I mentioned further up the thread, 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 hours ago, Strontium said:

Russian soldiers execute unarmed civilians, no doubt because of NATO or something. Current top story on BBC.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61425025

 

 

 

No doubt when shooting them in cold blood they were screaming how they’re just doing this to boost arms sales, and spewing slogans about NATO expansion and saying how the Pope was right. 

[Gnasher]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

No doubt when shooting them in cold blood they were screaming how they’re just doing this to boost arms sales, and spewing slogans about NATO expansion and saying how the Pope was right. 

Now it's you who's being silly.