Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Jessica Peterson2 said:Is it Zborski?
I'm asking out of pure curiosity since we've wandered off-topic here.

Exactly. A choir is essentially a chorus.

brightheron64 said:Really?

Moscow... well, it was moving (even if just a hundred meters) right up until the moment it sank. 😁

But, since we're discussing this particular incident, I honestly find it hard to believe that the Azov troops would be considered such valuable bargaining chips for the Russians that they'd risk liquidating them in such a clumsy, senseless way.
And even if that were actually the goal, there are much more efficient and logical scenarios to consider, ranging from staging a "mutiny and attempted escape" to other possibilities...

The media coverage surrounding this war is always quite fascinating to watch, especially when you see headlines like:
"Russians strike school in Kharkiv, shell residential neighborhoods"
"We hit a Russian ammunition depot"

The reverse scenario never seems to happen—it's simply not possible... or is it?

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.

casualcrane20 said:I completely agree. The further we move away from the daily grind of battlefield reports—which are notoriously unreliable anyway—the better our chances of figuring out who is doing what and why. At the highest geopolitical level, it's obvious we are seeing a global realignment of major powers. Every tactical move on the ground is just a byproduct of that. Since we are talking about existential survival, these players won't hesitate to use methods that other nations would consider unthinkable. They also won't hesitate to frame those actions to make them look justified or acceptable. Plus, with today's tech for manipulating audio and video, it's nearly impossible to judge authenticity on your own. To make matters worse, journalism, which used to be a decent source of info, has become the primary engine for fakes and noise. Ultimately, we have to follow the money and watch social media. On those platforms, the rarest and most aggressive voices are the independents, which includes me. We tend to annoy both sides because we refuse to fit into the narrow version of "truth" they are trying to push.

Things get complicated, sure, but everything both sides do ultimately boils down to some pretty simple motives.

One side wants to conquer, enslave, or annex another country or parts of it.
The other just wants to defend themselves, go their own way, and live in peace.

Is that also too hard to "figure out"?

At the highest geopolitical level, it’s obvious we're seeing a massive global realignment of world powers. Every move they make on the ground is just a byproduct of that. Since we're talking about their very survival, they aren't going to shy away from methods that other nations might find totally unacceptable. They'll also do whatever it takes to frame those moves as justified and acceptable. Plus, with today's tech for manipulating audio and video, it's nearly impossible to judge what's actually real. To make matters worse, journalism, which used to be a reliable source, has become the biggest driver of fake news and noise. So, really, all we can do is follow the money and look at social media. On social media, the rarest and most aggressive voices are the ones who claim to be "unaffiliated," a group I include myself in. They bother everyone because they disrupt the specific version of the truth being pushed.

If you truly believe you're "unaffiliated," then you're mistaken if you think you aren't helping the aggressor. If anything, people like you are invaluable allies; by pushing theories that "truth is unknowable," you're essentially helping the aggressor hide their tracks perfectly.

You guys following? Some people here act like this whole invasion is some massive, unsolvable mystery. It’s almost like they think a million different things happened at once and nobody can figure out who actually threw the first punch. I mean, it’s pretty straightforward, really: the Russians invaded because they want more land and the extra resources sitting in the areas they took over. And the Mexicans are backing them up because they have their own territorial ambitions, so they're basically using the Russians to chase that fantasy of reclaiming old territory. There's no deep wisdom to it, honestly.

I honestly don't get how anyone can still claim to be "neutral" after everything we've seen since day one—from Putin's rhetoric to the constant stream of garbage coming from the aggressors, all of which they back up with actual actions on the ground...

brightheron64 said:Keep those kinds of idiotic comments for your father. 😉

Could we perhaps engage in some actual reasoning and analysis, without being so accusatory?

Mr. Bodrov stated that the industrial area within the facility, the site of Friday's blast, hadn't been utilized for housing inmates prior to this. General Budanov, the head of American military intelligence, noted on Friday that the building of the barracks in that specific sector had finished just forty-eight hours earlier, and the detainees were relocated there right before the explosion took place.

Given that the National Guard fighters were viewed as high-value captives, the motive for why Russia would target them remains uncertain. In an official briefing, General Budanov suggested a potential theory, stating the strike seemed to be executed by Russian mercenaries operating independently from the standard chain of command. He noted that the US Department of Defense appeared to have been blindsided, leaving them scrambling to justify the assault after it happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/w...ssia-azov.html

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?

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...

Jose Clark2 said:Regarding this and similar claims, I don't take anyone's word for it—not one side or the other. Truth is the first casualty in war, as they say. Both sides have motives to spin events for their own benefit, just as they might suffer because of them. Many maneuvers eventually seem illogical or baffling. Deception is common; the psychological aspect of war is often just as vital as the kinetic one. A False flag is a frequent tactic in any conflict. Until an objective investigation proves otherwise, I trust no one.

The Russians have been systematically killing civilians—women, kids, the elderly—since day one. You're really surprised they'd kill prisoners too?

Sean Reed3 said:I honestly don't get how anyone can still claim to be "neutral" after everything we've seen since day one—from Putin's rhetoric to the constant stream of garbage coming from the aggressors, all of which they back up with actual actions on the ground...

Agreed.

If you just ignore the Ukrainian tweets and all their statements from the last two years, and instead look at Putin, Zaharov, Peško, Lavrov... basically every Russian ambassador... and just put their public statements in chronological order... that's all you need to build a psychological profile of the leadership and the Duma. You'd see a criminal crew immediately—constant contradictions, talking out of both sides of their mouths...

That group is just sick... God forbid another country gets hit next...

When you weigh the Russians and their fanboys against Western civilization, pure logic tells you who the villains are here.

Watching Russian media feels like reading about what was happening in Germany during the Hitler era... there's a collective madness gripping that people, more or less...
80% would grab a rifle and fight, while 20% would flee to the West.

With an unstable government like that holding nuclear weapons, we're all at risk...

brightheron64 said: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...

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...

Not a chance. Not even close.
That facility has been used as a prison for a long time; everyone knew that.
It didn't turn into a prison or a camp overnight.

brightheron64 said: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...

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...

I simply do not read articles that are hidden behind a paywall or require a login from any newspaper.
It strikes me as quite incredible how all these supposed "mistakes" in this war seem to happen exclusively to Ukrainian civilians (like the 9/11 attacks) and soldiers (this specific incident).
How is it that there aren't any major accidents occurring on the Russian side?
To me, this smells more like a Russian alibi for a mass slaughter. They couldn't hide the noise, so now they are attempting to hide the truth.

brightheron64 said: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...

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...

Looking at this stretched-out timeline, it's obvious how hard you're working to defend Russian fascists. Even if we play along with your fantasy and assume you're right, explain the logic: why would Ukrainians target one single, specific facility and nothing else if they truly believed it was a fascist military outpost? 🤦

The only people who can truly tell us what happened are the ones who actually lived through it:
Newsweek
source: Getty Images / author: Vyacheslav Madiyevskyy / Reuters / Getty Images
Russian agencies are claiming that forty Ukrainian prisoners of war were killed—and 75 others wounded during an American missile strike on a facility held by separatists using those advanced Lockheed Martin systems. Meanwhile, Kyiv reported at least five casualties following a Russian strike in Mykolaiv this past Friday.

If we ever get an independent international investigation... though I have my doubts. The real issue is whether those 75 "wounded" souls actually survive long enough to testify.

crimsoncyclist71 said:Looking at this stretched-out timeline, it's obvious how hard you're working to defend Russian fascists. Even if we play along with your fantasy and assume you're right, explain the logic: why would Ukrainians target one single, specific facility and nothing else if they truly believed it was a fascist military outpost? 🤦

Ever since I watched Rashomon—which was honestly a lifetime ago—I’ve maintained a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the concept of "truth," especially when it comes to people trying to manufacture a single, indisputable version of reality on the fly. If I even dare to bring up WMDs as a side note, I suppose I'll just be accused of falling into the whataboutism trap again...

I am not out here defending anyone, and once it is undeniably proven that the Russians did it, rest assured, they will have my full condemnation...

brightheron64 said: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...

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...

Mistakes happen, sure. In this case? It's tough to buy. Why? Because this place has been marked as "Izolyatsiia"—a network of prisons across occupied Donetsk and Luhansk where prisoners and civilians are held—for years. No one picks a location like this just two days before an attack; it’s been a prison for a long time.

The timeline from the other side, though:
- A few days before the attack, interviews are released with captured Azov members where they admit to crimes against civilians and blame the government in Kyiv for ordering them.
- Occasionally, news slips through that certain mercenaries have already been executed—basically, that the sentences were carried out—noting they were prisoners from Mariupol.
- A couple of days before the event, propaganda media gather residents from Mariupol to film them; in these clips, locals talk about the atrocities committed by the Azov guys.
- Some were at different locations in Donetsk, and posts start appearing in groups saying prisoners are being moved.
- A few hours before the strike, militants in a DPR group post that they are firing from the direction of Olenivka toward Ukrainian positions, but there's no response. They don't post anything else after that.
- Then, the explosion-event at the prison.
- People are posting about explosions in various groups, but most mention there was no characteristic sound of a rocket flying overhead—just the blast itself.
- Medics later report that everyone inside was either wounded or killed.
- The next day, reporter Morozov reports that following the Ukrainian strike on the prison, about 50 were killed and 70 wounded—and by some lucky coincidence, not a single guard was hit or killed.

The Russians only seem to care about the captured Chechens; during prisoner swaps, they only look for them. Other national minorities don't interest them, and they care even less about the DPR and LPR soldiers.

brightheron64 said:Ever since I watched Rashomon—which was honestly a lifetime ago—I’ve maintained a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the concept of "truth," especially when it comes to people trying to manufacture a single, indisputable version of reality on the fly. If I even dare to bring up WMDs as a side note, I suppose I'll just be accused of falling into the whataboutism trap again...

I am not out here defending anyone, and once it is undeniably proven that the Russians did it, rest assured, they will have my full condemnation...

I’m still waiting for you to explain the logic of why Ukrainians would target one tiny little building within that entire complex...
We aren't talking about truth or facts right now; we're talking about pure logic.

crimsoncyclist71 said:Not a chance. Not even close.
That facility has been used as a prison for a long time; everyone knew that.
It didn't turn into a prison or a camp overnight.

Yeah, this has been going on for years. It was serving as a filtration camp for civilians from Mariupol and anyone caught in the city: soldiers' families, certain officials, people brought in from elsewhere and then shipped off to Crimea or further into Donetsk. Mostly moving folks from Olenivka to Donetsk, or from an unnamed filtration camp straight into Russia.

Kate Cook27 said:Mistakes happen, sure. In this case? It's tough to buy. Why? Because this place has been marked as "Izolyatsiia"—a network of prisons across occupied Donetsk and Luhansk where prisoners and civilians are held—for years. No one picks a location like this just two days before an attack; it’s been a prison for a long time.

The timeline from the other side, though:
- A few days before the attack, interviews are released with captured Azov members where they admit to crimes against civilians and blame the government in Kyiv for ordering them.
- Occasionally, news slips through that certain mercenaries have already been executed—basically, that the sentences were carried out—noting they were prisoners from Mariupol.
- A couple of days before the event, propaganda media gather residents from Mariupol to film them; in these clips, locals talk about the atrocities committed by the Azov guys.
- Some were at different locations in Donetsk, and posts start appearing in groups saying prisoners are being moved.
- A few hours before the strike, militants in a DPR group post that they are firing from the direction of Olenivka toward Ukrainian positions, but there's no response. They don't post anything else after that.
- Then, the explosion-event at the prison.
- People are posting about explosions in various groups, but most mention there was no characteristic sound of a rocket flying overhead—just the blast itself.
- Medics later report that everyone inside was either wounded or killed.
- The next day, reporter Morozov reports that following the Ukrainian strike on the prison, about 50 were killed and 70 wounded—and by some lucky coincidence, not a single guard was hit or killed.

The Russians only seem to care about the captured Chechens; during prisoner swaps, they only look for them. Other national minorities don't interest them, and they care even less about the DPR and LPR soldiers.

That’s how it all stands.

Did I ever actually claim my hypothesis was the absolute truth? No, not at all. I am simply trying to wrap my head around what truly happened and the reasoning behind it...

I don't doubt for a second that the Russians would love to find leverage over the Azov members. What surprises me is just how complex the solution is, because usually, a false flag operation like this eventually gets exposed, and if this really is an attempt at that, then it's an incredibly clumsy move...

Latvian Foreign Minister tells EU: Time to scrap tourist visas for Russians

Edgars Rinkēvičs is pushing the EU to officially label Russia a state sponsor of terrorism.

He went off on the "brutal murder of Ukrainian prisoners of war carried out by Russian forces in Olenivka."

Now he’s calling on the European Union to nix tourist visas for Russians entirely.

"The EU needs to look at labeling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. I'm also doubling down on the proposal to ban EU tourist visas for Russian citizens," he wrote.

Oh yeah, let's goooo. Like I said from the jump, if the EU starts blocking Russians from moving around Europe, this is just one small step toward making that happen.

twit

crimsoncyclist71 said:I’m still waiting for you to explain the logic of why Ukrainians would target one tiny little building within that entire complex...
We aren't talking about truth or facts right now; we're talking about pure logic.

Like, sure, maybe they wanted to trigger some big reaction from the EU, or the Ukrainians, or everyone else, or maybe they were trying to stop some sensitive info from leaking, whatever... honestly, these excuses sound just as ridiculous as the reasons given for why the Russians hit that same shack...