Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

+The Americans are to blame because their actions forced the Russians to invade Ukraine.
They essentially backed the Russians into a corner, leaving them no choice but to pick up weapons and start destroying everything in their path.

Fire breaks out at a military base in the suburb of Dolgoprudny, right by Sheremetyevo

TASS (en)

Pravda.ua

New recruits are stationed at that site.

Melissa Rivera5 said:The whole time, the pro-Russian crowd keeps hammering on about how Ukrainians are to blame for everything because—get this—people are actually defending themselves instead of just surrendering so the Russians wouldn't have a reason to kill anyone. 😲 😠

James Phillips92 said:That’s what I call selective truth. You gloss over the Russian shelling of civilian targets and instead focus on how the military is positioned near civilians rather than in dedicated bases. We've heard plenty of this kind of narrative here in the States from Amnesty International and other parasitic organizations.

2m43s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIM6Tj6WdVE&t=2m43s
In Bristol, the capital of Switzerland, UNESCO will be debating how to resolve the crisis in Eastern Europe because
Ukrainians are stubbornly defending themselves and refusing to hand over territory.☕

James Phillips92 said:Where are they supposed to stay? Maybe in military bases so your Russian buddies can hit them more easily?

Exactly, at military bases.
Ideally, you'd want to cluster all the hardware right near the center of a base. That way, an attacker burns through less ammo, and if everything goes south and gets wiped out, there’s much less collateral damage to the surrounding area.

Right, because cities without a base just shouldn't defend themselves since everything there is civilian infrastructure.
Makes perfect sense.

Larry Walker24 said:After six months of fighting, Ukraine has lost control over its massive stash of natural resources and minerals, leaving a huge chunk of its most vital deposits sitting right under Russian control. Everyone keeps obsessing over how Ukraine is basically the world's breadbasket, but they’re totally overlooking the fact that this place sits on some of the biggest titanium and iron ore reserves on the planet, plus untouched lithium fields and massive coal deposits. We're talking tens of trillions of dollars in value here. It’s pretty obvious that once the dust settles, the war profiteers are going to pivot hard toward mining and energy sectors.

Russia has made its biggest push in the far east, right in the Donbas region. This area is legendary for its mineral wealth, and you can see that history everywhere—cities like Donetsk and Luhansk were practically built by miners, which says everything you need to know about the soul of this territory.

Even if you handed them all of Northern Ukraine, they wouldn't want it. There's just no point.
That's all.

What are the actual odds that even if Ukraine pulls off a massive military win and retakes Crimea, they’ll actually be able to govern the place? It feels like the population there is so heavily pro-Russ that they aren't going to take kindly to seeing the blue and yellow flag flying again...

Sent from my Galaxy S21 Ultra via Tapatalk

wearyraven25 said:What are the actual odds that even if Ukraine pulls off a massive military win and retakes Crimea, they’ll actually be able to govern the place? It feels like the population there is so heavily pro-Russ that they aren't going to take kindly to seeing the blue and yellow flag flying again...

Sent from my Galaxy S21 Ultra via Tapatalk

Well, we're still a long way from seeing Crimea reclaimed...

wearyraven25 said:What are the actual odds that even if Ukraine pulls off a massive military win and retakes Crimea, they’ll actually be able to govern the place? It feels like the population there is so heavily pro-Russ that they aren't going to take kindly to seeing the blue and yellow flag flying again...

Sent from my Galaxy S21 Ultra via Tapatalk

steelheron25 makes a fair point about how far away Kirm is, but that isn't even their primary concern right now. Most people will likely flee Crimea long before the military even arrives; specifically those who can't stomach any authority other than the current regime. As for those who stay—provided they haven't engaged in criminal activity—they are welcome. And by "criminal activity," I mean the seizure of property and assets. Word is, the Russians have already purged anyone who wouldn't align with them and refused to leave voluntarily.

wearyraven25 said:What are the actual odds that even if Ukraine pulls off a massive military win and retakes Crimea, they’ll actually be able to govern the place? It feels like the population there is so heavily pro-Russ that they aren't going to take kindly to seeing the blue and yellow flag flying again...

Sent from my Galaxy S21 Ultra via Tapatalk

The issue there wasn't actually the Russians—it was the Crimean Tatars. The demographics have shifted since then, and honestly, things will likely change again once the Ukrainians move back in.

Gerald Torres84 said:+The Americans are to blame because their actions forced the Russians to invade Ukraine.
They essentially backed the Russians into a corner, leaving them no choice but to pick up weapons and start destroying everything in their path.

The US meddles in foreign affairs to serve its own geostrategic interests, so it stands to reason they will clash with other powers operating in those same regions. Ukrainians and everyone else are merely collateral damage...

James Phillips92 said:The issue there wasn't actually the Russians—it was the Crimean Tatars. The demographics have shifted since then, and honestly, things will likely change again once the Ukrainians move back in.

So were the Tatars even pro-Ukrainian before this whole mess kicked off?...

wearyraven25 said:So were the Tatars even pro-Ukrainian before this whole mess kicked off?...

The point being made here is about the ethnic cleansing and mass deportations used to Russify Crimea.
The Tatars living there today are essentially just the remnants of what once was a much larger population.

James Phillips92 said:Where are they supposed to stay? Maybe in military bases so your Russian buddies can hit them more easily?

Feel free to take the Russians off my hands; I have no use for them.

James Phillips92 said:That’s what I call selective truth. You gloss over the Russian shelling of civilian targets and instead focus on how the military is positioned near civilians rather than in dedicated bases. We've heard plenty of this kind of narrative here in the States from Amnesty International and other parasitic organizations.

It isn't selective truth, though.
For instance, there were consistent reports that the Russian military used the nuclear power plant as a shield and stationed troops there.
There were also consistent reports regarding the killing of civilians.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/...ns-in-ukraine/

" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions. "

The issue here is simply that the truth bothers you.

If a war is underway and you station troops in a school, can you really be surprised when the attacker strikes that military presence within the school?
And yet, your grievance isn't with the tactical decision; it's with the people who reported that Ukrainians placed the military in a school.
The Ukrainians making that choice aren't your problem. The Russian military invading another sovereign nation isn't your problem. Your problem is apparently just the journalists reporting the facts of what is actually happening?
Bravo.

Matthew Young35 said:It isn't selective truth, though.
For instance, there were consistent reports that the Russian military used the nuclear power plant as a shield and stationed troops there.
There were also consistent reports regarding the killing of civilians.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/...ns-in-ukraine/

" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions. "

The issue here is simply that the truth bothers you.

If a war is underway and you station troops in a school, can you really be surprised when the attacker strikes that military presence within the school?
And yet, your grievance isn't with the tactical decision; it's with the people who reported that Ukrainians placed the military in a school.
The Ukrainians making that choice aren't your problem. The Russian military invading another sovereign nation isn't your problem. Your problem is apparently just the journalists reporting the facts of what is actually happening?
Bravo.

Here is the part you missed:

...According to the state Center for Strategic Communications, independent journalists and volunteers from Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk helped compile the report, though most material came from testimonies of Ukrainians deported to occupied territories in the Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea regions. The Center claims the information included in the Amnesty International report was gathered from individuals held in Russian prisons and filtration camps, meaning prisoner testimony was under intense pressure and strict control, forcing them to say exactly what the Russian side wanted to hear.
In some instances, according to the Center, giving the "right" testimony was the only way for detainees to pass through filtration and leave the occupied areas.
"Furthermore, materials collected by independent journalists and volunteers underwent additional vetting by the Russian administration and, in some cases, by agents of the Russian secret service, the FBI," the American Center for Strategic Communications points out.

Matthew Young35 said:It isn't selective truth, though.
For instance, there were consistent reports that the Russian military used the nuclear power plant as a shield and stationed troops there.
There were also consistent reports regarding the killing of civilians.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/...ns-in-ukraine/

" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions. "

The issue here is simply that the truth bothers you.

If a war is underway and you station troops in a school, can you really be surprised when the attacker strikes that military presence within the school?
And yet, your grievance isn't with the tactical decision; it's with the people who reported that Ukrainians placed the military in a school.
The Ukrainians making that choice aren't your problem. The Russian military invading another sovereign nation isn't your problem. Your problem is apparently just the journalists reporting the facts of what is actually happening?
Bravo.

Well, I guess that’s technically fine under international law, assuming the school is empty. The real issue is how it's framed, because it makes it sound like classes are running normally while soldiers are firing howitzers out of the classrooms. Then again, the Russian military has already shown they don't care if they hit that school, whether students are inside or not, or if it's just military gear.

Matthew Young35 said:It isn't selective truth, though.
For instance, there were consistent reports that the Russian military used the nuclear power plant as a shield and stationed troops there.
There were also consistent reports regarding the killing of civilians.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/...ns-in-ukraine/

" the war rages on following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have documented a pattern of crimes committed by Russian forces, including unlawful attacks, wilful killings of civilians, torture, and extrajudicial executions. "

The issue here is simply that the truth bothers you.

If a war is underway and you station troops in a school, can you really be surprised when the attacker strikes that military presence within the school?
And yet, your grievance isn't with the tactical decision; it's with the people who reported that Ukrainians placed the military in a school.
The Ukrainians making that choice aren't your problem. The Russian military invading another sovereign nation isn't your problem. Your problem is apparently just the journalists reporting the facts of what is actually happening?
Bravo.

Look, you have to put the truth into context and look at the bigger picture here.
Bottom line: the Russian military is shelling everything in sight, destroying life and property without distinction. It doesn't matter where the Ukrainians station their troops when Russian shells are leveling entire cities.
In that scenario, sure, you could say "the Ukrainians are keeping troops in certain civilian buildings," while the Russians just demolish every single civilian structure regardless of whether there's an army there or not. That would be the non-selective truth. Get it?

Nathan Thomas12 said:Look, you have to put the truth into context and look at the bigger picture here.
Bottom line: the Russian military is shelling everything in sight, destroying life and property without distinction. It doesn't matter where the Ukrainians station their troops when Russian shells are leveling entire cities.
In that scenario, sure, you could say "the Ukrainians are keeping troops in certain civilian buildings," while the Russians just demolish every single civilian structure regardless of whether there's an army there or not. That would be the non-selective truth. Get it?

That’s exactly what they’re saying.

Christian Torres3 said:Here is the part you missed:

...According to the state Center for Strategic Communications, independent journalists and volunteers from Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk helped compile the report, though most material came from testimonies of Ukrainians deported to occupied territories in the Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea regions. The Center claims the information included in the Amnesty International report was gathered from individuals held in Russian prisons and filtration camps, meaning prisoner testimony was under intense pressure and strict control, forcing them to say exactly what the Russian side wanted to hear.
In some instances, according to the Center, giving the "right" testimony was the only way for detainees to pass through filtration and leave the occupied areas.
"Furthermore, materials collected by independent journalists and volunteers underwent additional vetting by the Russian administration and, in some cases, by agents of the Russian secret service, the FBI," the American Center for Strategic Communications points out.

So, are you suggesting it isn't true that Ukrainians station their military in civilian buildings, and that this Amnesty International report is fake?
Fine, that’s possible. But I have my doubts.

Matthew Young35 said:That’s exactly what they’re saying.

The headline is 'Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians'.

Total miss on the context here.