Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
s0lar said:
You don’t get the bigger geopolitical picture do you? Let me guess Donbas was a myth.

Lest we forget the women and child who did due to WMD. But that’s cool, of course.
Click to expand...

you are pissing into the wind here, there is no sense or logical trend in the conversations around this topic.


watch what happens. ;)

en.wikipedia.org

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

About 14,000 people were killed in the war: 6,500 pro-Russian separatist and Russian forces, 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and 3,400 civilians on both sides of the frontline.[14] The vast majority of civilian casualties were in the first year.[14]
Click to expand...

that number [14] reference point. from the office of the united nations high commissioner for human rights, itself.




additionally, poroshenko, the previous president, stating on video that nato countries have been involved and provided weapons to bomb their own people.

speeches of poroshenko saying on video, stating, their children will cower in fear in the basement from the bombing. (nevermind the little kids saying so on video)

various presidents, ministers, prime minsters, military leaders and intelligence officers stating in interviews that the aim is to goad russia. the head of nato stating he is actively working to bring ukraine into it.


a study has shown. one of the largest bot campaigns, a bot army, was launched against russia at the start of this war, creating major public opinion influence against russia. generating random rubbish like the the ghost of kiev and calling actual heinous ukrainian acts, acts of russia.

nevermind the very large extreme right wing problem in the ukraine reported by multiple western media outlets over multiple years. entire football stands doing nazi salutes, recorded on video.


its all available online over many years if a person is willing to look and read.

then the go-to response is to dismiss a persons own curiosity or willingness to learn with phrases like "rabbit holes" or "unqualified".

as if a person needed to be qualified to go to a library and learn something for themselves and concentrate on a subject for longer than it takes to read a tweet... :ROFL:



as i said, no sense or logic around this topic (and others).

the soggy biscuit crew here has been on the illogical side of sense with influential world related topics, every. single. time.

therefor imo, when things dont make sense, something else is going on here.
 
access said:
you are pissing into the wind here, there is no sense or logical trend in the conversations around this topic.


watch what happens. ;)

en.wikipedia.org

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org



that number [14] reference point. from the office of the united nations high commissioner for human rights, itself.




additionally, poroshenko, the previous president, stating on video that nato countries have been involved and provided weapons to bomb their own people.

speeches of poroshenko saying on video, stating, their children will cower in fear in the basement from the bombing. (nevermind the little kids saying so on video)

various presidents, ministers, prime minsters, military leaders and intelligence officers stating in interviews that the aim is to goad russia. the head of nato stating he is actively working to bring ukraine into it.


a study has shown. one of the largest bot campaigns, a bot army, was launched against russia at the start of this war, creating major public opinion influence against russia. generating random rubbish like the the ghost of kiev and calling actual heinous ukrainian acts, acts of russia.

nevermind the very large extreme right wing problem in the ukraine reported by multiple western media outlets over multiple years. entire football stands doing nazi salutes, recorded on video.


its all available online over many years if a person is willing to look and read.

then the go-to response is to dismiss a persons own curiosity or willingness to learn with phrases like "rabbit holes" or "unqualified".

as if a person needed to be qualified to go to a library and learn something for themselves and concentrate on a subject for longer than it takes to read a tweet... :ROFL:



as i said, no sense or logic around this topic (and others).

the soggy biscuit crew here has been on the illogical side of sense with influential world related topics, every. single. time.

therefor imo, when things dont make sense, something else is going on here.
Click to expand...

Yes Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, instigated an insurrection as there were no pro-seperatist parties in Donbas of any significance and war ensued. As you can see yourself most casualties were in the first year or a little longer and most were combatants. The excuse to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians in Donbas is BS as by 2021 something like less that 20 people were dying there yearly, mostly from picking up unexploded bombs. We had the same thing after WW2 in my country of birth.
So all in all Russia invaded then, caused the death of all these people, and now is causing more deaths but Ukraine has a right wing problem, meanwhile pro-Russian supporters will ally with extreme right in America to support Russia. Right in Ukraine bad, Right in America good. Listen to yourself.

Also Ukraine did not have a right problem. Not more than Russia. And definitely not attacking their neighbours.
 
Cosmik Debris said:
404
Sorry, the page you’re looking for cannot be found.

But the link you posted is from this source. Please try to post credible links in the future:

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Al Arabiya - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com mediabiasfactcheck.com

Al Arabiya​


Al Arabiya - Questionable - Right Bias - Conservative - Islam - Propaganda - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
  • Overall, we rate Al Arabiya Questionable due to excessive government censorship that results in the publication of pro-state propaganda. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the omission of key facts in stories.

Detailed Report​

Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, State Propaganda
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Saudi Arabia
Press Freedom Rank: TOTAL OPPRESSION
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Analysis / Bias​

In 2020 Reporters Without Borders ranked Saudi Arabia 170/180 in their Press Freedom Index, stating that “Saudi Arabia permits no independent media. The authorities keep Saudi journalists under close surveillance, even when they are abroad, as Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in Istanbul in October 2018 illustrated.”

Overall, we rate Al Arabiya Questionable due to excessive government censorship that results in the publication of pro-state propaganda. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the omission of key facts in stories. (8/16/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 12/25/2021)
Click to expand...
Cute, a "fact-checker" "check". Peak boomer stupidity there.

hexagon said:
Name the Russian source that detailed a three day war.
Click to expand...
What started out as a non-serious joke is now being bandied around as official Russian doctrine. The people doing this are completely dishonest and propagandized tools. There is no surprise about the common theme among this cohort of "geniuses".
hexagon said:
The Grand Ukrainian counteroffensive is already underway... according to Ukrainians...
uawire.org

Kyiv: Ukrainian counteroffensive is already underway

Natalia Gumeniuk, a spokesperson of the Ukrainian Operational Command South, said that the counteroffensive of the Ukrainian Forces, which everyone is discussing, is already underway. According to her, this happens quietly and in "small steps". At this stage, the Ukrainian Forces are focused on...
uawire.org uawire.org

That's why you're reading so many tales of Russia being pushed back all over the front... oh wait:
Click to expand...
The underwhelming enthusiasm for this counter-offensive from the usual pro-Ukraine olg-age home is interesting. I suspect internet time is being limited due to health reasons.
 
CommonSense said:
I spend some time reflecting on your post and I have a few thoughts to share.

I, myself, have never been to Russia (or outside of R.S.A./S.W.A for that matter), and I have probably never knowingly met a Russian, so my thoughts are purely based on observation and 3rd party statements.

That said, I am of the opinion that Russia as a nation has some deep seated cultural issues which cannot be solved in a generation - if they are left alone. Their culture is of such a nature that "might is right" is seen as the only option. Whoever has the power gets to say what happens.

I am convinced that if you ask the average Russian - even most of those who fled mobilization - it is that the reasons for Putins actions were valid. Those that fled just didn't want to be cannon fodder, but they believe in the Russian system.

And one can blame propaganda only so much.
I have met very clever people, but sadly they still believe the unbelievable (mostly based on their Religious beliefs). These are not stupid people, hell, I think a couple of them has much better abilities than I could even hope for. That said, their critical thinking skills in some areas are totally absent.
Similarly, I think the Russian people have been conditioned so long to accept what their rulers say as fact.
They rationalize everything, even though it might "feel" wrong.

Thus, even if Putin and his gang is deposed, the situation will not materially change. There will be new names on the doors, but the mindset will still be the same. A new Warlord and his men in suits if you will.

My feeling is that they need to be utterly defeated and Russia must surrender unconditionally.
Unfortunately in the modern world there is very little chance of that happening.

I draw parallels to WWII. Germany and Japan was only defeated when all the other world powers stood together and were willing to spend a lot of human life to achieve that goal.
America would never have entered WWII if it wasn't for the direct attack on its own shores.

Take Japan. Even though they were comprehensively defeated, they were willing to die as a nation and fight to the last man to save their "honor". They even offered "terms", but fortunately the U.S.A. rejected those and wanted Unconditional Surrender.
Only then could they be demilitarized (offensively for a while) and put under "administration".

That administration then allowed society to reflect on what was done and to feel PROFOUND SHAME for the deeds done by the nation against others.
If Russia is not defeated totally up to unconditional surrender, they would not have any impetus to change.

But that is unlikely to happen, as in the modern era, human lives - from a Western perspective at least - does matter, and sending thousands of soliders to die on foreign soil would not be acceptable to any member of NATO. Nuclear weapons are not an option as that is a no-win scenario for everyone involved. Nuclear weapons are only useful as a deterrence, but its actual use in modern warfare is anathema, and rightly so.

Unfortunately, this wound will continue to fester, and eventually Russia will feel the need again to flex their musscles, and maybe the next warlord in charge will have no qualms about using nukes.

That is why I think the world is about to make a very mistake when looked at long term. Russia needs to be defeated. They need to be demilitarised as they have shown they are not yet in a position to be part of a peaceful world order.

In my personal opinion the best I think we can hope for is that Russia loses its permanent status on the security council. A reform of the UN Security council (yes I know I have been banging this drum since the start).
I don't think any of the other permanent members would be willing to relinquish their permanent member status, but maybe there is enough here to at least remove Russia.

The other objective I hope is the full restoration of the borders of Ukraine, and then followed by Ukraine formally joining NATO and even the E.U. And with that membership undergoes some much needed reforms as there surely are some needed there too. But they at least didn't start any wars and Zelensky seems to be a man of integrity. Hopefully he has enough support from similar minded countryman to take Ukraine as a nation towards more universally accepted standards too.
Click to expand...
I personally don't wish for anything that doesn't make sense while a world war is not ongoing. I mean... Such as Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and their attempts to annexe parts of Ukraine. It's an act more typical of such times. Of course if Russia pushes things (it really can't point fingers elsewhere) to the degree that a world war is deemed necessary, then of course the primary objectives for western allied nations will be as lasting a solution as possible. Before that an entire range of alternatives are almost infinitely preferable. I don't think those alternatives include forsaking Ukraine's sovereignty. Forsaking Ukraine's sovereignty in the face of aggression is forsaking all sovereignty. The world has been lax to an extent in this regard and cannot afford to move an iota more on the matter. The times have changed, there's no post Cold War euphoria anymore, and this is just too high profile. The Kremlin's ambitions too obvious. And, unless the Kremlin is truly insane, for such a World War will mostly be fought on Russian soil, then they know this is a reasonable line, but are bluffing to extract the most possible value from terror.

Even that can easily be argued to be insane, and if they truly are insane, then even then territorial sovereignty is still a principle worth defending with severe prejudice, and good luck to us all.
 
Blu82 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1651620902629507072
Click to expand...

It's a known tactic. Russians exploit weaknesses and conflicts of interest. The thing Europe should do would be to go through each NGO, see who's funding who, and those with known Russian backing should be vetted closely. Then maybe shut down, until the war ends and the situation is safer, if it's seen there is some dodgy stuff going on.

All NGOs should disclose Russian funding. All activists.
 
Mirai said:
It's a known tactic. Russians exploit weaknesses and conflicts of interest. The thing Europe should do would be to go through each NGO, see who's funding who, and those with known Russian backing should be vetted closely. Then maybe shut down, until the war ends and the situation is safer, if it's seen there is some dodgy stuff going on.

All NGOs should disclose Russian funding. All activists.
Click to expand...
It's worth pointing out that climate science, concern and action is also a thorn in the side of Russian ambitions. Fossil fuels are after all their primary golden goose.
If Russia seeks to run interference along such channels, then it would be as much to disrupt legitimate concern and action, as to gain some form of leverage from it. And they would of course wish to sow mistrust of actual serious climate science and vital action at the same time.
 
Grant said:
It's a shame their very own direct families are not subjected to the very same here - if they were, there would be the great endless singing of a different tune.
Click to expand...
You don't have to have first hand experience to call something like this out. It shouldn't even matter whether your relatives are from the country invading. Barbarism is exactly what it is. No other way around it.
 
Last edited:
The Trutherizer said:
It's worth pointing out that climate science, concern and action is also a thorn in the side of Russian ambitions. Fossil fuels are after all their primary golden goose.
If Russia seeks to run interference along such channels, then it would be as much to disrupt legitimate concern and action, as to gain some form of leverage from it. And they would of course wish to sow mistrust of actual serious climate science and vital action at the same time.
Click to expand...

It's nice to have climate science as one's top priority when the bombs are not falling on your head, when the risk is insignificant they may fall on your head or you're electrified for 364 days per year, give or take a day when you don't have power for several hours while the municipality runs maintenance.

Same as you. For you this is academic and just a time waste. You post your pro-Ukraine stuff here but you're from a different world, you're not at risk of facing a Russian tank and of course for you existential priorities are different than for the typical poor South African or the Eastern European/Central European. Some balance and nuance is key.

Russians use climate science too and sometimes climate science is abused and taken advantage of. Those are undeniable. So again, measure and nuance. Asking for checks and balances makes one not a climate science denier. Let's not have a religious outlook on this.

Part of this is because many Europeans switched to cheap Russian gas in lieu of their own coal. Was this good for the climate? Maybe. But it is killing people right now, of course not at home, but somewhere else, over there, in the east.
 
Mirai said:
It's nice to have climate science as one's top priority when the bombs are not falling on your head, when the risk is insignificant they may fall on your head or you're electrified for 364 days per year, give or take a day when you don't have power for several hours while the municipality runs maintenance.

Same as you. For you this is academic and just a time waste. You post your pro-Ukraine stuff here but you're from a different world, you're not at risk of facing a Russian tank and of course for you existential priorities are different than for the typical poor South African or the Eastern European/Central European. Some balance and nuance is key.

Russians use climate science too and sometimes climate science is abused and taken advantage of. Those are undeniable. So again, measure and nuance. Asking for checks and balances makes one not a climate science denier. Let's not have a religious outlook on this.

Part of this is because many Europeans switched to cheap Russian gas in lieu of their own coal. Was this good for the climate? Maybe. But it is killing people right now, of course not at home, but somewhere else, over there, in the east.
Click to expand...
Straight to belittling and scorn at the first sign that our sets of priorities might not 100% coincide? How unfortunate.

It is a very high policy priority for me. And I believe that is right and good. Ukraine is a very high policy priority too. And likewise I believe that is right and good as well.
As are many things to a lesser or even greater degree.
One might even ask... How good for Ukraine in this conflict, in your opinion, are European plans to switch to more and more renewables? In my humble opinion the answer is: It's fantastic for Ukraine.

If there were no alternatives then fossil fuel sanctions would not have been instituted against Russia. Russia's so-called "war chest" is entirely made up of fossil fuel money. It's diplomatic traction in the West entirely predicated by it. It has funded their weapons development and military activity for decades. In large part the most fertile ground for Russian interference in foreign politics have been among politicians with interests in fossil fuels, or who otherwise carry water for the fossil fuel industry. Take Trump. Can it be denied that he carried lakes for Russia? Can it be denied he was a gift to the Kremlin that kept on giving? Look at how he related to the fossil fuel industry.

If you didn't notice that, then that's fine. But I'm not going to pretend that there isn't major legitimate climate concerns, with major tertiary concerns stemming from it, just because it irritates you. That you cannot expect of anybody.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X