Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 359. (Read 76553 times)

I did not say any of the things that you're ascribing to me. Still waiting for your proof that the evacuation route was safe and clear and that the Ukrainians were trying to hold the people hostage. So far there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

That's not how it works, you can't say you trust Red Cross's guarantee just to turn around and claim not to trust their judgement on safety. Red Cross is capable of calling off any operation themselves. Once people are allowed to leave they come under additional protection of the red cross, any attack on a red cross convoy is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. You seriously trying to say that innocent civilians are safer in the city which is about to be attacked than under the protection of the Red Cross?

Yes, they should be allowed to leave. However Red Cross can't guarantee protection against shelling. It relies on Russian compliance, which did not happen.

And people did try to leave:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60629851

Jesus man!! Should innocent civilians (children, women, elderly etc) be allowed to leave an actively besieged city which is currently without power and water, with the guarantee from the Red Cross? Yes or No? If not, whos else guarantee do you want before letting those people go? Or are you saying no guarantee would be good enough for you and those people shouldn't be allowed to leave at all, as long as one side can claim that theres shelling going around?

Bombarding LOL, nice choice of words here comrade. I'm getting back at your original post about the evacuations and trying to understand what you were trying to say there. It didn't have any questions (unless you count WTF as a question). It sounded like you were blaming solely the Ukrainian side. Now you've confirmed that that's indeed what you are doing. Still unclear what you wanted to happen if there was indeed shelling going on, or any proof that there wasn't any shelling, but I don't expect a direct answer given your fallacious "both sides" argument. Have fun playing with your straw people.

Same dude in this RT report:

  https://www.bitchute.com/video/Rc42GWAySk9G/

I personally found the guy pretty credible and his narration aligns with what I have come to understand of the Donbas stuff over the years, and as I understand things, a lot of the other parts of the country are Donbas lite but just don't get the same kind of attention for whatever reason.  At the end of the day, the 2014 coup was pretty ugly on a lot of levels, and the following 8 years didn't put much lipstick on the pig.  It's pretty easy to understand how people from around the world could side with the non-Western-Favored element of the Ukrainian population without being particularly 'communist' or 'antifa' or whatever.  That said, a lot of them probably are and are shrewd enough to recognize Putin as a crypto-continuation of many of the Soviet project(s).

At the risk of seeming 'pro-Putin' (to idiots), I will say, again, that over the years I've found him much more credible than 'the West' which includes the ludicrous mainstream media.  Again, it's mostly a matter of there being some space in the 'basically say it like it is' zone of the psychological battlefield whereas the Western politicians and media seems to have a compulsion to lie even when it _doesn't_ help them in any tangible way.  It's weird, but there it is.  I can absolutely understand Russian national security needs and see the West as very much the aggressors who bend over backward to push the envelope seemingly with the fondest hopes of getting bad shit to happen.

My best guess is that Putin is smart and plans to simply pacify Ukraine to be a puppet state, buffer zone, and energy corridor.  Or parts of it at least.  Maybe some other minor targets of opportunity as well.  After that, just wait until Europe and the U.S. collapse, and it won't probably be a long wait.  I see a lot of people being sure that Putin is on the move to conquer the rest of Europe and the world.  What I don't see is any reasonable evidence for this, reasonable rationale for him to try it, or any reasonable hope of being able to do it.  Just a lot of hyperventilating.

The unfortunate element of this whole thing is that when all is said and done, Russia and it's leadership will be relatively stable and fairly well poised to capitalize on the implosion of the West, and the life he's made for the Russian people isn't a particularly great one.  I suspect that if Putin's real controllers let their true colors be shown, it will be even worse.

Maybe, but i just don't have a more reliable source to use. One side will always exaggerate and the other will always minimize their losses. Also, logically thinking the country has been flooded with weapons, 18yr olds are given out weapons after 3day training. They released some prisoners to fight and there are reports of saboteurs, marauders as expected in any conflict. In fact Security Service of Ukraine killed Denis Kireev, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating group, during his detention. He was suspected of treason. Ukraine even takes out its own negotiator for treason. So its safe to assume that some of the civilian casualties can be attributed to Ukrainian side too. Sure there are a ton of reports of friendly fires etc

Edit: No its not weak at all, and frankly absolutes don't matter as long as we compare apples to apples. Think its safe to assume that in all other conflicts Afghanistan, Kosovo, Syria, Iraq etc.. OHCHR had the same problems. And I cant imagine how this conflict is any different. If numbers are lower then they would be lower for all the other conflicts as well.

I have enough critical thinking skills to not trust any side to the conflict, that's why i find Tashs and Etranger sources silly. But UN report showing that objectively so far civilian casualties are relatively low when comparing them to any other similar conflict. (But we really haven't entered urban warfare yet.) And now we just saw how one side refused to let civilians leave besieged city which is under shelling because it didn't trust Red Cross's guarantees. I don't know how anyone can spin that positively

And speaks of above 1000 civilian casualties confirmed including wounded. This seems like a low figure, but the report in full clearly states that:


on top of that, there is no way to effective account for the total number and the verification of the numbers is at least, weak:


Some of the wide area pictures show a large number of civilian buildings destroyed. It is impossible that has happened without significant casualties.

Notice how you're at that stage of the argument where you're just bombarding me with your questions without even attempting to address any of mine.

Yes. Red Cross didn't call off the evacuation due to safety concerns. And that's their responsibility because they're the once providing the guarantees.

Its a fact that both sides agreed on evacuation. Its also a fact that Red Cross decided that both sides were credible enough to warrant putting itself forward as a guarantor for said evacuation. How about just letting innocent people stuck in this war decide whether they wanted to go with Red Cross or take their chances by staying in the besieged city? If anything, pulling shit like this with Red Cross plays right into Putins hand and his propaganda machine.

If you want to to get acquainted with reports from the front line, read the daily summary from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

Do you really believe Putin wants to get "good guy" points? Don't be so naive. If he was really worried about civilian casualties, he wouldn't be targeting them in the first place. Unless you imply that Ukrainians are killing their own people?

LOL will you fucking stop with the "twist the logic" nonsense. Are you trying to blame Ukrainians for not allowing civilians to leave, yes or no? What were they supposed to do if there is shelling going on?

Sad attempt to twist the logic, both sides should let Red Cross do their job. You're not going to get good guy points by interfering with Red Cross. Are you seriously trying to claim that there will be less casualties if hundreds of thousands of people are not allowed to leave with Red Cross and instead are forced to stay in the besieged city? Then care to give an example or your definition of a human shield during a war?

So what did you expect to happen? Tell civilians to leave bomb shelters / basements / etc despite ongoing shelling? I get that you dislike the number of casualties and prefer it to be much larger.

Special Report From the Front Line in Ukraine
https://youtu.be/8dQQgv-nVUY
https://web.archive.org/web/20220305202437/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dQQgv-nVUY


The Thinking Man

https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/75602/

Cool seems like an agreement by both sides to evacuate civilians with Red Cross as a guarantor.


https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-05-22/h_13a7c76619d2babd355c5cc72781c23b

WTF? As of March 5 UN estimates 351 civilians killed. Don't take pictures of people and then tell them that they cant leave with Red Cross! Trying to claim that its better for hundreds of thousands of civilians to stay in the besieged city without water or power is madness, or correct term would be hostages! The fuckery with Red Cross needs to be condemned as strongly as possible, and i don't care what side you're on.

It`s ЗCУ. From the word "збpoйнi". Learn Ukrainian, you need to know the language to find out about our victory. Nobody will announce that on Russian television.

Despite a lot of good news (good for Ukraine), this photo darkened my day more than the sirens that I currently hear.

The Kremlin has long been known to use propaganda and disinformation as a powerful weapon. In order to curb the spread of disinformation, many Canadian and European telecom providers are banning major Russian propaganda outlets. The majority here is undoubtedly against any form of censorship. But, in order to do their jobs, government agencies must ensure that they are effectively countering Russian propaganda while giving a platform to alternative viewpoints and truth.