Thomas Walker84 said:It’s possible, but unlikely, given the nature of this war, why both sides are fighting, and how they choose to fight.
The Rus target homes and civilians intentionally. We saw that same kind of terror back in the Middle East. It’s a tactic meant to intimidate and force the victim to submit to the stronger side. They don't care about the destruction or the killing because, despite all their talk about "brotherhood" and the "Russian world," they aren't locals here.
The Ukrainians primarily target military objectives because they just want to defend their own land. They have no desire or interest in destroying it, let alone killing their own people or harassing the Russians living there, unless those individuals are actively supporting the aggressor. Ukrainians are fully prepared to respect minority rights, especially as they move toward joining the EU. In any case, they have zero interest in "endangering" them.
So, if Ukrainians hit a civilian target, it's by mistake; but when the Rus hit one, in most cases, that was the actual goal.
Now, there’s the sentence I’ve been waiting for...
Is there any chance this massacre was just a massive error? From what I’ve managed to dig up in the media, the timeline looks something like this:
- Russian forces arrive at the site, clear out the local militia, bring in their own troops, and hoist their flag...
- Work is being done, things are being set up, beds and equipment are being moved in... right up until two days before the strike
- Just before the attack itself, you see crowds of people in uniform milling about the area...
- And then, in the dead of night, Ka-boom. A massacre.
It’s a very simple question—could someone on the Ukrainian side have misread the situation and thought they were hitting a new Russian camp that needed to be leveled? Of course, if that really happened, no one on the Ukrainian side is going to step forward and say, "Oops, our bad." That’s just not how war works.
There are plenty of precedents from WWII, and these two are particularly striking:
The Laconia Incident - where a German U-boat sank a British ship carrying 1,400 Italian prisoners.
The Rakuyo mar incident - when an American submarine sank a Japanese vessel holding 1,500 British and Australian prisoners.
Strangely enough, neither the German nor the American media ran headlines saying
"Sorry, shit happens.".
On the other hand, I have to ask again:
why would the Russians want to eliminate the National Guard when they could trade any one of them for at least two of their own prisoners? Or even just stage a media circus with a trial?
And if they really did intend to liquidate them, why go through all these complications? Throughout history, those kinds of things have always been handled in a much more straightforward way. Honestly, if they wanted to pin this on the Ukrainians, they could have just loaded them onto military trucks marked with a large Z one night, left them on some roadside, and waited for the fallout...
Gerald Torres84 said:Cvjetica, are you still placing your faith in the Russians?
Didn't they claim they weren't planning an invasion, asserting they were merely conducting military exercises in Belarus?
Didn't they claim a cook set fire to the ship Moskva?
Didn't they claim Ukrainians were shelling their own cities just to pin the blame on the Russians?
Go ahead. Analyze all those instances where the Russians said one thing, yet it was proven they did the exact opposite.
Do you truly believe them, or are you just whitewashing everything in the name of Putko?
I don't believe him, and I never have. But truthfully, I didn't think they would actually launch the attack.
By the way, that article you mentioned is from The New York Times, not RT, so please don't view this as being pro-Russian; it's just an attempt to solve a puzzle...