Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 5

[Cosmik Debris]

Wars have been started over lesser events.

The Russian started the war already in February by invading Ukraine.

 

[hexagon]

Do

Since when is claiming you can do something mean you did it when it happened? Russia, the USA, UK, France, Germany and some others all have the capability of blowing up that pipeline.

Heck, The SADF had that capability in the 80's and blew up plenty of Soviet and Soviet proxy vessels using underwater explosives in Mozambique and Angola.

Don't moonlight as a detective. You're not good at it.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Do

Don't moonlight as a detective. You're not good at it.

I know the capabilities. Do you?

 

[Dave]

Russia's former president said nuclear threats are a bluff, NATO won't step in if Russia nukes Ukraine​

Russia's former president said nuclear threats are a bluff, NATO won't step in if Russia nukes Ukraine | Business Insider

Dmitry Medvedev repeated Russia's nuclear threats to Ukraine, saying it's "not a bluff." One expert told Insider it's because Putin is "in a corner."

www.businessinsider.co.za

I think he is right. Nato is weak and split. Russia should make use of this in order to establish themselves as new world leaders.

Oh god... not another one.

 

[nivek]

Russia's former president said nuclear threats are a bluff, NATO won't step in if Russia nukes Ukraine​

Russia's former president said nuclear threats are a bluff, NATO won't step in if Russia nukes Ukraine | Business Insider

Dmitry Medvedev repeated Russia's nuclear threats to Ukraine, saying it's "not a bluff." One expert told Insider it's because Putin is "in a corner."

www.businessinsider.co.za

I think he is right. Nato is weak and split. Russia should make use of this in order to establish themselves as new world leaders.

When did you join the ANCYL?

 

[hexagon]

The Russian started the war already in February by invading Ukraine.

Sure. If we neglect a 2014 coup, 8 years of civilian decimation and all other relevant history.

 

[The Trutherizer]

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Sure. If we neglect a 2014 coup, 8 years of civilian decimation and all other relevant history.

Would you like me to post the true facts for the 27th time on this forum? I have noticed that whenever I post them, this argument goes away for a while and then returns...

 

[tetrasect]

Yes. Despite showing every intention of waiting for Germany to come to its senses, they blew up the pipeline. As opposed to turning off the tap, which they have shown willingness to do. And they're shelling a nuclear power plant in the region they control and in which they're conducting referendums.
Excluding logic from the funny farm, the most likely explanation has already been explicitly stated...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1490792461979078662

 

[The Trutherizer]

I see you found Wally!

Nemo?

 

[Solarion]

both pipelines, including Nord Stream 1 which was in active use this entire time, magically got sabotaged

but hey it's ok when the USA commits terrorism to hold the entire EU to ransom, as long as it is not Russia holding the EU to ransom

The longer Russia prolongs this war the more pipeline they lose. The US are protecting the pipeline from Russian attacks. North Korean and Iran are causing more pipeline to be lost by supplying weapons to Russia. Should have negotiated.

 

[Dave]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1575075356062646273

 

[hexagon]

Would you like me to post the true facts for the 27th time on this forum? I have noticed that whenever I post them, this argument goes away for a while and then returns...

The true facts are recorded by video and eyewitness testimony. You are welcome to repost whatever you like but it won't change history.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The true facts are recorded by video and eyewitness testimony. You are welcome to repost whatever you like but it won't change history.

This is the true history you refuse to acknowledge. By the UN. So, seeing you asked, here they are for the 27th time. Read them this time and open the links:

https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2030%20September%202021%20%28rev%208%20Oct%202021%29%20EN.pdf

https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2031%20December%202021%20%28rev%2027%20January%202022%29%20corr%20EN_0.pdf

Civilian deaths per year:

25 in 2021
26 in 2020
27 in 2019
55 in 2018
117 in 2017
112 in 2016
954 in 2015
2084 in 2014

We can see that more than half each year from 2018 onwards were caused by unexploded munitions and mines.

Total conflict-related casualties in Ukraine in 2014-2021:

OHCHR estimates the total number of conflict-related casualties in Ukraine from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021 to be 51,000–54,0008: 14,200-14,400 killed (at least 3,404 civilians, estimated 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and estimated 6,500 members of armed groups), and 37-39,000 injured (7,000–9,000 civilians, 13,800–14,200 Ukrainian forces11 and 15,800-16,200 members of armed groups).

If it's not clear to those who refuse to comprehend, the figures above indicate that conflict-related deaths dramatically reduced in 2015 (by more than half), then reduced by a further 89 percent in 2016, held steady for a year, then reduced by an additional fifty percent (on the 2016/2017 number) in 2018, and another fifty percent (on the 2018 number) from 2019 onwards.

If anything those numbers appears to demonstrate a radical reduction in hostilities and, in the absence of other information, may in fact point to peace being achieved in the 'disputed' region.

Of course, Russia then rolled its tanks over the border and literally pulverised that trend.

"Objective standards mean that defense is justified. Unjustified aggression is not. Aggression could be justified if it averts an obvious impending war. Given that Ukraine was not planning to attack Russia and that the OBJECTIVE numbers tell us that the numbers of killed civilians were dropping almost exponentially from 2014 to 2021, and that Ukraine had asked for UN peacekeepers but Russia refused, there is no way to OBJECTIVELY justify Russia's war of aggression."

 

[hexagon]

[repost]

Yeah - and France & Germany mediated firstly the original Minsk and then Minsk II agreements because they had nothing better to do with their time. LOL.

 

[ForceFate]

Russia's former president said nuclear threats are a bluff, NATO won't step in if Russia nukes Ukraine​

Russia's former president said nuclear threats are a bluff, NATO won't step in if Russia nukes Ukraine | Business Insider

Dmitry Medvedev repeated Russia's nuclear threats to Ukraine, saying it's "not a bluff." One expert told Insider it's because Putin is "in a corner."

www.businessinsider.co.za

I think he is right. Nato is weak and split. Russia should make use of this in order to establish themselves as new world leaders.

Medvedev has become a joke. He's been barking the same rhetoric since the beginning of the war. Each time he does, NATO sends more weapons.

 

[ForceFate]

Sure. If we neglect a 2014 coup, 8 years of civilian decimation and all other relevant history.

More than 2,600 civilians killed, 5,500 others wounded in Donbass over past 8 years - IC

More than 400 criminal cases into the events in Donbass have been opened and are being investigated, according to the IC

tass.com

Tass's figures exclude casualties of MH17, which was downed by the Russian-backed separatists using BUK system supplied by Russia. Im the same period, over 500 Russian soldiers died in the conflict according to UN report.

 

[CommonSense]

I am guilty of this.

In a way I do feel that sometimes it is necessary to engage, to shine a light on their beliefs, to push them to inadvertently expose their true beliefs, as many of them hide behind a faux neutrality facade.

An example was how I had NarrowBand claim that a country joining NATO meant that NATO had annexed them, in the same way Russia had annexed Crimea etc. It showed how biased and warped his world view is. I feel had we ignored his statements, we would have missed that insight into how his bias drives his posts.

However, I take your point and agree. I will ignore the more belligerent trolls, with their overt attempts to sow discord and bedlam in these forums.

Thanks for giving me cause, to pause for some reflection.

That is a very mature response. Thank you.

I know that some people get their jollies to interact with these people. But that is simply more trolling in my view.
And for that I believe there is another Off Topic forum thread where they can engage in that.
But it does appear as if these "on the right side" people are actually also craving an audience and re-assurance from others.

But this (above) is also trolling behavior. One group trolls, the other group trolls back.

Eventually it is a troll vs troll thread. One side I agree with, one I disagree with, but it is still trolling.

And the main point is that the trolls crave the exposure. And if you feed them they get MORE exposure.
People think they are debunking them, but that is not really the point of trolling. Trolling is to get a response, and then to keep on engaging in nonsense responses, thereby distracting from the issues at hand.

The only ones winning really is those that want to sow confusion and then make people doubt their reality (gaslight). Only the trolls win.

So thank you for reflecting on it.

There are members on here who does post valuable info, but eventually the junk responses to the junk troll posts just makes one put them too on ignore. Again, the trolls win.

 

[Dave]

The true facts are recorded by video and eyewitness testimony. You are welcome to repost whatever you like but it won't change history.

Let’s all sit down for a fairy tale as told by Liewe Hexie.

 

[ForceFate]

The true facts are recorded by video and eyewitness testimony. You are welcome to repost whatever you like but it won't change history.

Like true facts about MH17? Or "little green men" in Crimea? Or the sham "referendum" of days ago. You seem selective in your selection of facts or in your case, "facts".