Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 351. (Read 76646 times)

No, I don't think that's a good thing and you shouldn't cherry pick information from whichever side you like so that it fits your narrative:


I don't particularly care since your whole civilian-to-military ratio is meaningless. Just pointing out your hypocrisy re "independent information".


Their numbers are likely accurate but also likely late. The full picture is not known in real time and the UN report itself says that the real number is probably much higher.


This was a direct response to your expectation that everyone should be evacuated at once. You must know something no one else does if you think that's possible.


I never said or implied that. Your inability to provide proof is what raises doubts about "nazis" killing civilians in Mariupol (if we're still talking about that; kinda hard to follow your maneuvers). Plenty of proof exists of Russian forces attacking civilian targets. "Can do" and "do" is not the same.

I think you may have outdone yourself with the number if straw people in one post, good job.

media outlets take reasonable steps? Are we talking about the same conflict in this fog of war? surely not Russian media and the other side is not much better. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe you shouldn't believe everything mass media tells you? Especially from countries with direct interest in the conflict, those that are sending weapons to this war? There's a good reason why UN doesn't blindly follow mass media like keyboard warriors, otherwise we'd have these 13 snake island posthumous "Hero of Ukraine" awarded daily to soldiers who surrendered and are in good health. As far as UN's ability to count civilian casualties, don't fool yourself, they have much better access to accurate numbers in Ukraine now than their numbers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Kosovo...

Sure, lets ignore independent information, fact that people are still choosing to evacuate to Russia from UA when given a choice, and long standing standards to quantify aggression of the attacker towards the civilian population. Now care to educate us on which criteria you're using to determine that theres a targeted attack on civilian population of UA, instead of collateral damage? Using that same criteria of yours can you provide an example of other conflicts where civilians were outright targeted and another example following your logic that shows that they weren't? (I fully expect you to just ask another rhetorical question, instead of attempting to address these)

Ahh I see, so at first the reason for keeping the civilians in the city for the siege was their own safety, and now the new reason is that there are just not enough roads to handle over 800 cars (even though 2000 cars managed to leave day prior)?

Your mental gymnastics and reluctance to even allow the possibility of a thought that a neo-nazi battalion can do bad things is truly astonishing.



Edit:

Pretty sure that would be impossible, unless we dissolve UN altogether. It would also defeat the purpose, UN pretty much functions to allow permanent members to pretty much do anything they want to non permanent members, do these proxy wars just so theres no direct confrontation between permanent members themselves, so us humans can continue to survive on this planet. Plus at this point US/Biden is pretty much outright threatening China with consequences, not a good indicator of how they would vote, don't believe its a good idea to push Russia and China together. Frankly with China seeing how financial system can be weaponized, i have no idea how anyone can expects China to continue to buy up US debt after this. Pandora's box might've been opened, so its better for everyone to keep UN during these times, and of course...Bitcoin

There are some indications that the UN security council is seriously considering removing Putin's Russia for the permanent membership. The fact that he is using the nuclear deterrent as a cover for an aggression on a non-nuclear power and has gone as far as "putting the nuclear forces on alert" (mostly for show, as they were not taking the day off anyway) and all the rhetoric about "serious consequences" on interventions is on the verge of getting him kick-off the most influential international forum.

For my part, I would not have any trouble believing that 'the Russians' could and would inflict excess civilian casualties if it were in their interest to do so.  It just seems that in this case, having the upper hand militarily. and the need to maintain some degree of morale among their own population and forces, it just isn't really a logical strategy.  (Most ordinary peeps in the military or not have enough morality such that wanton murder takes a toll on morale.)  The more coherent body of evidence that I can see indicates that they are, if anything, seeking to avoid excess civilian damage.  This is what I would do if I intended to make the region a client-state and buffer zone in the longer term.

It seems to me that the people who have overall control are the Neocon faction of which Victoria Nudelman is a poster-child.  They pretty much completely control the 'Ukrainians' and very likely exert influence over the 'Russians' through Putin and certain of his advisors as well.  Honestly, these people seem to be complete psychopaths to the degree that even absent and advantage to themselves, they would prefer to see destruction, suffering, and general mayhem.  It's almost a religious thing so it seems, but there is also the operational concept that in order to bring 'order out of chaos', one first needs maximum chaos.

Fortunately for the Neocons, the Nazis are stupid enough to be lead by the nose straight to their deaths.

You seem to be confused. UN doesn't base their info on instagram posts so their counts will be trailing until they get it confirmed according to their standards. Media outlets report as they get the info but they take reasonable steps to verify it, at least the ones I'm reading do. They're unlikely to be off by 80 percent or whatever you're suggesting, just reporting earlier than officially confirmed numbers, as can be seen looking at e.g. numbers from the first week of the war.


As if this "ratio" that you're clinging to means anything. Both can be happening at once - Russian soldiers are killing civilians, AND are getting killed themselves.


I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. Can you pop down to Mariupol and let us know if there is a nice empty unobstructed 12-lane freeway that fits 300 thousand people all at once and if the nazis or zombies or Klingons are messing with it somehow. Maybe you'll find the elusive Mariupol subway too - to debunk the theater bomb shelter conspiracy. Check out Berdyansk on the way and let us know why the humanitarian aid trucks and evacuation buses can't make it to Mariupol.

And that's what it pretty much comes down to. Despite common sense, you have to make yourself believe that Putin, his generals, officers and soldiers all like killing innocent people just so much, to the point where they prefer taking cities with maximum amount of civilians still inside (despite troop morale, contrary to all independent indicators from Red Cross/UN, and lack of any military sense) because alternative would lead to accepting that a neo-nazi battalion is leveraging civilians to stall their own ultimate demise. Apparently some minds are just so set that they're just unable to accept that there are some bad actors in Ukraine.

Factions of the Ukrainian side have been, since very nearly the start of this thing, using civilians as human shields as a strategy.  By most of the interviews I've heard, civilians are reporting that the Russians have been fairly helpful in trying to allow them to leave the combat zones when they can.  This makes logical sense, and most of the actual evidence that I can see backs that up.  This is a good case-in-point where as the Russian gain control, freedom of movement seems to be restored.

Facts are facts, hard to argue against them, can't expect anyone to believe mass media over UN. There's a much higher online presence and cell phone penetration in 2022 Ukraine than in any previous conflicts, so if anything UN numbers would be the most accurate for this war in comparison to any other conflict. Comparing apples to apples, (so far) the numbers just don't support the narrative of trigger happy blood thirsty Russian army going out of their way to kill civilians over their primary objective. Numbers indicate that they're Just getting smoked from every window of every building. With that said any civilian death is a tragedy, as af_newbie pointed out, people loose humanity the longer the war drags on, and the more desperate situation becomes, that's why Red Cross needs to be allowed to continue to do what it does, without any shenanigans.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-17-22/h_50c6d854024131e7fcb716d51fa4b8e2

This is from UA spokesperson. Was really hoping to see over 2000+ cars today, I guess logic being Russia didn't shoot at 2000 cars yesterday, doesn't shoot at 800 cars today but would totally shoot if all civilians were allowed to evacuate at once? How many do you think they'll allow to leave besieged city without food tomorrow, and how many they'll decide to keep in the city out of concern for their safety so people wont get shelled by the Russian side?

Wish Red Cross would provide some data, but nevertheless that's very interesting way of reporting, 800 cars left Mariupol, 2000 people made it through Russian-occupied territory to UA side.  That's 2.5person/car. Either cars leaving besieged city half empty, cars are grabbing coffee taking their time and still driving through Russian side or ...

Tone complaint, really? You asked for reasons, I gave you reasons, not really my problem that it doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria that you made up or wasn't presented "correctly". You didn't substantiate your own position in any way, other than"nazis could've done it".


All territory around Mariupol is controlled by Russians. That's the main issue. Cities that have Ukrainian-controlled access are being evacuated much more successfully. So whatever straw man you're cooking with that, just save your time and drop it.


Plus 2400 dead in Mariupol and more yet uncounted under rubble. Doesn't fit your narrative though, does it. Even though the UN itself says the number could be "considerably higher".


No one who's seeing destroyed houses, hospitals, schools, etc could imagine Putin having restraint about civilian casualties but here you are. The relatively low numbers (outside of Mariupol) are more likely related to civilians sheltering and evacuating rather than Russian army having any qualms about killing them.

Another "article" that you'll claim proves Putin is the greatest humanitarian: https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troops-open-fire-bread-line-killing-10-reports-2022-3

Or a nuclear attack. Putin is desperate and people expect him to either blow up a nuclear power plant or use chemical weapons first and then eventually escalate to a small, intimidating nuclear strike, Hiroshima style.


What are you talking about? they aren't really bombing anyone it's just lies by NATO

Spokeswoman of Russian ministry of foreign affairs Maria Zakharova says Russia is not bombing any Ukrainian cities and despite all the fake videos by NATO, everyone will know the truth.
https://twitter.com/iameurmishvili/status/1504416003396194308

That's it and there are at least 2 reasons for that.
1. The West hit Russian citizens by banning certain goods and services so that these citizens put pressure on Putin, so he decided to do the same thing and put pressure on Zelensky by killing his people.
He thinks that civilian casualties may break the fighting spirit of the defenders.
2. Ukrainian soldiers are hiding in basements, they need to house wounded, store ammunition, missile launchers. More people killed in night bombings means less equipment lost the next day.

It becomes easier to pool resources in times of war by huddling together in safe houses or congregating in public buildings, like a church or a library. This is also within the context of probably having no power, plumbing, or clean water. It isn't clear to me whether that might already be the case in the particular area where the theatre bombing occurred, but nonetheless it isn't uncommon. Imagine you are in fear for your life with explosions overhead in an active war zone. People will stay together.

Also, Putin has a history of targeting civilians so none of these bombings should come as a surprise. Expect more as he gets more desperate.

Once again you're just throwing articles instead of clearly stating your position. ICRC confirms that they have team in Mariupol, and that they lead the convoy out of the city Is there any proof from the Red Cross where they record violations or any shelling/attacks on said convoy, and in your typical fashion instead of addressing the question, you just pose another rhetorical question if Red Cross can fight off Russia and enforce corridors?

I can see you clearly evading, so now on to the next part, care to estimate how many of those leaving Mariupol decided to evacuate to Russian controlled territory?



Sure terror tactics is another valid option. Just as sabotage from both sides.

But the reality is, UA side claims 14.000 killed RU troops and UN puts civilian casualties at 726. This number should also include civilian casualties from the other side, like this report where allegedly 20 people died from missile attack on Donetsk With civilian-combatant ratio at 0:19 indicating an extremely conservative trigger control, no one who's even partially objective can seriously entertain the idea of Russians trying to harm as many civilians as they can.

It is widely known that anyone trying to run through a checkpoint during Martial Law would be fired upon, i also expect UA check points to be mined as well due to inevitable attack by RU . No way civilians can leave if Mariupol calls off evacuation out of concern for safety of their citizens due to Russian shelling. I am not aware of Russia calling off any evacuations.

I'm not going to entertain speculations of massacres. Fact of the matter is, objective numbers, UN/Red Cross just don't support it. Either you know something they don't or you got caught up in an echo chamber where this opinion was formed.

I'm very concerned of your outright dismissal of a neo-nazis doing something that has been done in almost every war. I'd be more skeptical if it was regular UA army in Lviv, but even then would understand how people faced with death can do anything to save themselves.

There is no if, Russia is in economic recession at best, most likely depression. I give Putins regime a year tops, they have enough food production/heat to survive the winter, the big question is if EU can survive the winter without gas? And then of course China challenging a world order would completely change everything https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8 Outcome for Ukraine was known the first day the war started, the interesting question now is what happens next. There's no threat from NATO attacking due to guaranteed MAD.

Or another answer: terror tactics or just destroying anything big enough to group people, which, in my view, is the most likely possibility. It has been confirmed that there are a large number of schools across the country that have been destroyed, the "mistake" or the "false flag" options are just not realistic.


A number of Putin's generals have been demoted due to lack of progress, the ones that take over have seen how Ukrainians do not seem to be going anywhere on their own volition, so terror and mass destruction are now on the table.

Re Mariupol, the problem is that Putin's army does not seem to be abided by their own words. From refugees that made it out of Mariupol, the "green paths" are kind of green-grey, meaning that some of the people seeking safe passage have been massacred. And that is civilians fleeing. Killing them is an act of hate, madness and desperation that does not look like the typical coldly calculated and propaganda-covered action by Putin.

There is no comment of any refugee being forcibly retained in Mariupol. As you say, there is a balance between fear of getting killed on the road and fear of dying of the bombs and people make their choices. Some, the elder, the sick,... they do not have a real choice.

The hypothesis of the Ukrainian army or any of it groups threatening civilians is not realistic. They are fighting Putin's army and cannot afford to divert efforts nor have a hostile population under their feet. Also, Putin's army has shown little regard distinguishing between civil or military targets - any tall building is considered a risk and blown.

On Putin's army suffering an significant number of losses, it clearly matches the strategic outlook regardless of destruction tweets and Ukraine's own information war. The war is no longer a blitzkrieg. Putin is facing determined resistance and, while there are undeniable gains and advances from his troops, the price being paid may be just unaffordable politically and economically.

Seems like Putin is winning in territory at the cost of loosing very valuable equipment and even veteran soldiers he may not be able to replace - even less if the country is sent into an economic recession. He cannot risk loosing too many planes, as, in his imaginary world, the NATO can easily use that weakness to attack and gain full air superiority. He cannot afford withdrawing troops from other borders without risking inferiority. The so called reservists that artificially rise the number of Putin's military are not trained, lack leadership and cannot be supplied (they are the definition of cannon fodder).

Despite all this Putin will not (cannot stop). He may "win" in some form the war (territorial concessions), but all indicates that he will loose the peace, and, unfortunately, it will be the Russian people, whose only fault is not being able or not wanting to risk getting rid of this government, the ones that will pay with poverty and ostracism.

Here are many reasons: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60736845
And here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/frightening-evacuees-describe-harrowing-escape-from-mariupol

How is that not enough for you? You still believe that UN, Red Cross, etc can fight Russians off and enforce the corridor? The city is surrounded. Your problem was that Ukrainians allegedly didn't let people out. Now some people are getting out but you're still blaming them that they can't get everyone out at once.


No need to guess, there are sufficient confirmed reports of Russian forces bombing and shooting civilian targets, including evacuation vehicles. This also makes the "human shield" nonsense invalid, because it wouldn't shield anything.

As of 15 March UN recorded 726 civilians killed. Today More than 3,000 cars from besieged Mariupol arrive in Zaporizhzhia can you point me to a statement from Red Cross where they say that the passage was not safe and one side didn't keep promises it agreed to? (Lets restrain ourselves from siting biased sources)

Why are you just alluding to things, but can't clearly state your position on why UA keeps calling off evacuations or only allowing few thousand cars per day out of Mariupol? You truly believe that its out of concern for those civilians safety, and that they're are better off without food in the city about to be attacked? Hope no one here is in this position, but if your relatives were there, what would you recommend to them? Stay in without food/water for the attack or try to leave under the red cross?

Edit: Like you I don't KNOW the answer and can only guess, but outright dismissing the idea that a neo-nazi group is capable of doing things that have been done for as long as there have been wars, and calling it absurd, seems dishonest at best.

Still seeing ghosts even after overwhelming evidence of Putinists just bombing shit indiscriminately... or shooting civilians in cold blood. You're a true believer.


Again you have to ignore everything that's happened so far, the siege of Mariupol itself, the attacks of Russian forces on civilians and civilian objects (including those same cars leaving Mariupol), the humanitarian convoy held by Russian forces in Berdyansk, anything that doesn't fit your narrative, so that you could still claim that there is something else going on other than Putin exterminating the civilian population of Ukraine.

The whole "azov keeping people hostage" thing is absurd seeing how any other city that's not completely encircled by Russians is being evacuated, why are you still clinging to it.

I see four possible answers
-It was Azov that blew it up (seems to be Russian argument)
-It was used by UA side to attack from, so its a fair target for RU.
-It was a RU mistake
-RU side just decided to risk its plane and use a bomb on civilians instead of targeting nazi Azov (because Putin craves more innocent blood)

The scenarios can be debated by the keyboard warriors.

What concerns me is why 350.000 people are still not allowed to leave Mariupol!! Why people who seem to care so much about human casualties, are not outraged that 350.000 civilians are forced to stay in a besieged city with a humanitarian crisis? Is the concern for their safety still the official reason for calling off evacuations? But then how come 20,000 residents have left Mariupol in private cars so far? Why only letting few thousand go per day is fine but not all 350.000 in buses? Who benefits from keeping civilians in the city?

Shouldn't everyone concerned for innocent civilian lives be talking about this, and putting more pressure on Red Cross/UN to make sure people can evacuate so things like this won't happen again?

For China it's better if Russia is weak. With the way China operates they want weak everyone, but they are also facing their own problems like tensions with Japan, Taiwan and the US. They also don't have enough natural resources to run their industry. They need a lot of oil and are trying to strike deals with various countries to get it. Recently they've been talking with the UAE.
Belarus doesn't want to help Russia anymore. There were articles that they are closing their airports to Russian military aircraft. I guess nobody likes the fact that Russians are bombing civilian targets and lying that they aren't. Even Lukashenko, who is an expert liar himself, had enough.

Russia lost this war because no outcome can be a win for them. Even if the government would gave them unconditional surrender the people wouldn't accept occupants who murder women and children and Russia doesn't have the manpower to hold Ukraine under a boot. Also, the world doesn't recognize Donbas as an independent country. Even if they manage to take it away from Ukraine somehow, this wasn't worth the lives of so many people and so much lost equipment. If they seize properties of companies, it's game over for them. They'll show the world that it's too risky to invest in Russia.

In 2-3 weeks, Ukrainians will proceed to the offensive, unless Putin brings another 300K army (Chinese or general draft) to Ukraine.

The pro-Russian gangs will be destroyed in Donbas, Luhansk, and Crimea areas.  

The offensive to recapture temporarily occupied territories will probably take a couple of months, maybe more,
depending on the desire of Putin to sink Russia into economic depression.

With this barbaric aggression, Putin completely destroyed any support that he had from ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

Pro Russian Gangs?

are you insane?

those people wanted not to live under a couped in Government,

Ukraine Comitted a Genocide and it must pay for it.

Ukranian Nazis' Cant Win, they will end up being the Nazis and Genociders one Way or the Other.

at the same time those that are now backing them will abandon them, as they can't be seen supporting a Neonazi Ideology.