Ukraine

[Osborne Russell]

Missiles of Goodness, Humanitarian Strikes

Some commentators called for even more brutal strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.

“A massive humanitarian military strike against Ukraine has begun. … Its goal is to stop the terror attacks the Kyiv regime is conducting on Russian territory,” Sergei Markov, a politician and frequent pundit on Russian state TV shows, wrote on his Telegram blog. “One can even say there are a hundred Russian missiles in the sky flying there for humanitarian purposes. That’s what we need to call them. Humanitarian strikes, missiles of goodness.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ssile-barrage/

[sandtown]

Why just Europe? Look at Israel, Saudi Arabia, North Korea...just to name a few. Now answer my question please.

I answered it above in post 7446 - but also see 7455, prospects for negotiations right now are not so good.

And do you get that extreme ethnic nationalism has a really terrible history in Europe ?? Think Germany.

So to me, the threat of it in Ukraine is a legitimate topic of discussion.

[WX]

I answered it above in post 7446 - but also see 7455, prospects for negotiations right now are not so good.

And do you get that extreme ethnic nationalism has a really terrible history in Europe ?? Think Germany.

So to me, the threat of it in Ukraine is a legitimate topic of discussion.

Why focus on Ukraine, why not the excessive brutality of the Russian soldiers?
Seems to me a bloke would better off surrendering to the Ukrainians than to the Russians.

[WX]

Are you saying that Gen Milley is a troll ?

I doubt it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Milley#Racial_issues

[C. Ross]

^ Spoil sport.
Some folks enjoy wrestling with pigs whilst p!!$!ng in the wind.

Forgive me. I don’t know what I was thinking. There’s no reaching someone so far down the pipe.

[heimlaga]

When sandtown wrote about the problems with ultranationalistic right wing extremism in various European countries he somehow forgot to mention Russia. Maybe because such extremism isn't a problem to the government in Russia. It is the government and the state ideology of Russia.

The interresting part is that very many of those nazi-wannabees in Europe seem to sympathize with the Russian side in this conflict.

[sandtown]

The interresting part is that very many of those nazi-wannabees in Europe seem to sympathize with the Russian side in this conflict.

I do not sympathize with any of them. How about you ??

[sandtown]

I doubt it.

Now that right there is pathetic beyond belief, but predictable on this thread.

You disagree with Milley, and many others . . . but totally lack the intellect to engage with their ideas.

So you attack their character.

Did you even bother to read Milley's Wiki race entry ?? He apologised for the "jaunt", and defended diversity at West Point. That is all.

Seriously, what is wrong with you ??

[dutchpp]

The ISW Russian offensive campaign assessment, December 6.
https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...ent-december-6

Unfortunately war criminal and mass murderer Igor Girkin survived his tour in Ukraine, although I have doubts if he ever crossed the Russian Ukrainian border, most Russian "heroes" are not that brave. The chasing of him continues by the way
girkin.jpg

Key Takeaways

• The Kremlin directly responded to Russian rumors of a second wave of mobilization in an apparent effort to manage growing societal concern and recentralize information about the war with the Russian government and its authorized outlets, but there are several indicators that Russia still intends to conduct a second wave of mobilization.
• Igor Girkin, a former Russian militant commander and prominent critical voice in the Russian milblogger information space, returned to Telegram following a nearly two-month stint in Ukraine and used his return to offer a vitriolic first-hand account of the situation on the frontlines.
• Ukrainian forces likely made recent gains in northeastern Kharkiv Oblast, and Russian forces conducted limited attacks and defended against Ukrainian counteroffensive actions.
• Russian forces continued to conduct ground attacks near Bakhmut and Avdiivka.
• Russian sources claimed that Russian forces made marginal territorial advances near Bakhmut, but Russian forces have not succeeded in their efforts to surround the city.
• Russian authorities are very likely conducting an information operation to convince Russians of the security and integrity of the Kerch Strait Bridge following repairs to the bridge span.
• Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova denied rumors on December 5 that Russia is preparing to withdraw from or transfer control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) to another actor.
• Russian occupation authorities continued to strengthen security measures in occupied territories.

[WX]

Now that right there is pathetic beyond belief, but predictable on this thread.

You disagree with Milley, and many others . . . but totally lack the intellect to engage with their ideas.

So you attack their character.

Did you even bother to read Milley's Wiki race entry ?? He apologised for the "jaunt", and defended diversity at West Point. That is all.

Seriously, what is wrong with you ??

Are you deranged or what? I took the trouble to look up Milley, like what I saw and posted the wiki link. What the hell is wrong with you!?

[JayInOz]

He's a rude, disgruntled miserable old pig Gary. You're wasting valuable oxygen responding to him. I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Custer yet

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Stefan Korshak cheers up a bit:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/dec-6-day-286-cruise-missiles-and-heinkel-111s-and-hermann-goering-and-sergey-surovikin-434df94250d7

[skuthorp]

News here carrid a bit about Russian civilians undertaking automatic weapons training at a gun club, it did not say where. Said they were concerned they may have to defend themselves.
From whom, Ukranians or fellow Russians?

[Osborne Russell]

When sandtown wrote about the problems with ultranationalistic right wing extremism in various European countries he somehow forgot to mention Russia.

Russia, the very paragon of ultranationalistic right wing extremism.

Boils down to west bad, therefore Russia good. It's irrational and immoral. As the lady thought when she woke up from the missile hitting her apartment building.

I know the trauma of Viet Nam runs deep, but dude, get a grip. Your victory -- peace -- consists in you not losing your mind.

[Peerie Maa]

And do you get that extreme ethnic nationalism has a really terrible history in Europe ?? Think Germany.

So to me, the threat of it in Ukraine is a legitimate topic of discussion.

Just so. Reclaiming lands occupied by German-speaking peoples was the excuse for starting WWII by a far right government.
I do hope that any call for a negotiated settlement does not include appeasement.
We tried that in September 1938 and look where that lead us.

[dutchpp]

A team of 40 forensic experts of the Dutch military police returned home after their second tour in Ukraine. They investigated a lot of alleged warcrimes and they conducted a serious number of forensic autopsies on POW's of Mariupol that were killed in Olenivka prison, allegedly by the Russians.
The results of their work will be handed over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the results will for the time being not be revealed to the general public.
KM .jpg
The team at work in the remains of an apartment complex in Izjoem ( Charciv region)

[Canoeyawl]

It is not difficult to note that Moscow must now be well within reach...


650901D6-6B4F-44B9-9E06-B4DF6EDFF905.jpeg

[Landrith]

I always think it is a betrayal for a country in war to accept outside help that comes with restrictions on prosecuting the war. At its Zenith, it devolves into to the Kissinger practice of not striking North Vietnamese Surface to Air Missile installations on the days Soviet technicians were there training the NVA to shoot down US aircraft, or not bombing Hanoi's harbors while the Bulgarian and Romanian weapons ships are docked and unloading. A now censored truth I first awakened to reading Thud Ridge: F-105 Thunderchief Missions Over Vietnam by Colonel Jack Broughton.

At the time, I thought the Chechnyans were justified in bombing Moscow as their war progressed. It turns out, that the atrocities were likely a false flag to install more powers upon Putin: Two Decades On, Smoldering Questions About The Russian President's Vault To Power https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-russia.../30097551.html

Here, Ukraine so far is denying the attacks on Russian air bases in Russia. I think it is too far for their drones and their missiles can be tracked.

[sandtown]

He's a rude, disgruntled miserable old pig Gary.

And you are a cowardly keyboard warrior, salivating over the prospect of killing and death for anyone but you.

See?? Others can play the personal attack game too !!c

[sandtown]

I do hope that any call for a negotiated settlement does not include appeasement.
We tried that in September 1938 and look where that lead us.

Too bad the world also too often appeased centuries of Brit ethnic imperialism.

[WX]

And you are a cowardly keyboard warrior, salivating over the prospect of killing and death for anyone but you.

See?? Others can play the personal attack game too !!c

One thing I've learnt in my years on this forum is that most people here are quite sane. That is something, I don't think you understand. You have a strong propensity to misunderstand what people are saying, and I'm wondering if it is intentional?

[George Jung]

Remarkable; our very own russian apologist appears to have alienated every other Bilge rat on this thread.

Use those 'powers' responsibly!

[WX]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63893316

Back in Russia, any potential criticism of Putin's invasion was stymied before the human rights council.In the run-up to Wednesday's meeting, 10 members of the council who had expressed doubts about the war were removed. Pro-war replacements were brought in instead.


Subjects to be discussed during the meeting were also heavily vetted beforehand, according to the independent Russian news outlet Verstka.

[Peerie Maa]

Too bad the world also too often appeased centuries of Brit ethnic imperialism.

Well, it was very fashionable at the time. Every European nation tried it on and even the US had a go, but by the time they got started there was not much left to colonise.

So, not appeasement as such, but a common ideal, started by the Spanish and Portuguese, and carried on by the Dutch, France, Belgium, Germany and latterly Italy.

Meanwhile, does your post indicate that you believe appeasement to be a good strategy?

[gypsie]

Missiles of Goodness, Humanitarian Strikes

yes, sickening hey.
Its hard to pick public opinion in Russia, do they suck this stuff down..?

[mizzenman]

yes, sickening hey.
Its hard to pick public opinion in Russia, do they suck this stuff down..?

It is said that the Idea is to fill the information space with so many wild claims that the population simply gives up any critical thinking

[johnw]

Stefan Korshak cheers up a bit:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/dec-6-day-286-cruise-missiles-and-heinkel-111s-and-hermann-goering-and-sergey-surovikin-434df94250d7

Good news!

[Osborne Russell]

yes, sickening hey.
Its hard to pick public opinion in Russia, do they suck this stuff down..?

Just keep pumping it, seems to be the idea. Drown 'em in it.

[gypsie]

Just keep pumping it, seems to be the idea. Drown 'em in it.

I get the average run of the mill 'Motherland' BS being drunk down with gusto.
Its the totally absurd ones, i can't believe they believe people will swallow it.

But as someone showed earlier in the thread re Germany in the 30's; once you've committed, picked a team and decided to get behind them, you lock out logic. You're emotional need to be a 'good guy' blinds you to the absurdities.

[WI-Tom]

One thing I've learnt in my years on this forum is that most people here are quite sane. That is something, I don't think you understand. You have a strong propensity to misunderstand what people are saying, and I'm wondering if it is intentional?

I see this quite a bit differently. I don't think sandtown misunderstands what anyone is saying. I think he sees implications in what people say that people prefer not to acknowledge. I read his comments as falling essentially along these lines: "When you say this, ___________ is also implied, and __________ is a logical conclusion to that line of thinking. And those implications and logical conclusions are bad. So you're really giving your approval to something bad."

I think the WBF (well, the Bilge) has built itself a habit of resisting anyone who questions the implications of what posters say. The accusation of "straw man" or complaints that some posters "misrepresent what I said" get used as an evasive maneuver--a tactic that allows people to avoid confronting the potential implications and subtexts of what they say. People get defensive about how "I never said that!" and fail to consider honestly that, when they said X, yes, it might be reasonable for someone to understand Y and Z as natural accompaniments to X.

Conversely, people might address the logic of linking X to Y and Z, and explain why they think Y and Z do not follow from X. But in the end, some people will see links to Y and Z, and some will not. It's not useful or charitable to attack someone who sees it differently.

So when sandtown--or me, or anyone--responds to things that people think they haven't said, that's probably true. But it's not a strawman. It's not misrepresenting anything. It is demonstrating how, when you say X, some people sincerely see that Y and Z go along with it. And that, if you don't agree with Y and Z, you might want to reconsider your commitment to X as well.

Instead, most people get defensive, shut down, and start accusing others of "straw man" and "misrepresenting" etc. etc. ad nauseam. And things then escalate to the kind of rhetoric we're seeing on this thread.

And that's a shame. Because sandtown is bringing a perspective that is worthy of discussion. And the people sandtown is engaging with are asking crucial tough questions and pointing out key weaknesses in sandtown's positions. But neither is able to engage with the other.

Tom

[gypsie]

I think the assertion that Sandtown is bringing a perspective is charitable.
Its pretty easy to say 'war is bad' and everyone who says Ukraine should be helped is therefore bad. Easy to say, but without more context it's just a meaningless platitude. Its that meaninglessness that's frustrating. He appears to argue with you, but offers no substance.

Sandtown hasn't expressed a negative opinion on Russian hawkishness, or the futility demonstrated in the past of acquiescing to Russia. Russia's inability to maintain an agreed peace. He avoids the almost certain outcome of a Ukrainian surrender - more aggression from Russia in the future, more death, more torture, more rape, more theft. Russia has taken the most valuable farmland, major gas fields, as well as important infrastructure like nuclear power plants, airports etc.. They get to keep those assets that Ukraine built and needs? He goes to a lot of effort to avoid blaming Russia for anything and white washing recent Russian aggression in other parts of the region. War Crimes - not a mention. The Russian terms; surrendering 'annexed' territory and the demilitarisation of Ukraine (sitting duck clause)... no mention.
Any criticism of Russia is met with something about Britain in the 18th century or some such irrelevant-to-this-thread nonsense. (Whats the logic? Ukrainian men should let the Russians rape their women because the US attacked Iraq?) I've had him on ignore for a while because i felt he was contributing nothing but noise, he may have fleshed out his perspective since. I won't know.

[Decourcy]

Sandtown prefers to argue against the points he’s decided someone made, rather than the points actually made. Sorry wi-Tom, you’re being far too charitable.
He’s so off topic with his responses at times I wonder whether he’s actually read anything. Well, I guess it’s on-topic for him. The only topic being “but what about what some other foreign power did in the past. It’s worse than Russia now”

[WI-Tom]

Sandtown prefers to argue against the points he’s decided someone made, rather than the points actually made.

I disagree. I think he prefers to argue against points that he has decided follow logically from positions expressed by other posters. That's a far different thing, but it rarely gets recognized on the WBF for what it is.

Now, I think there are three lines of response relevant to what I think I know about sandtown's position:

1. You can disagree that sandtown's claims about what does, and does not, follow logically from a stated position, while understanding that there will always be some degree of disagreement, and that someone who sees implications that you don't see is not making sh*t up or "misrepresenting" anyone.

2. You can argue against sandtown's position (as I understand it) that the actions of the U.S. and NATO over the years contributed to encouraging Russian aggression and militarism. Note, however, that simply saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unjustified aggression does NOT necessarily mean that, had the West handled things differently, they might be facing a different Russia right now.

3. You can argue that sandtown's anti-war stance is unrealistic and idealistic, but that it provides no real answer about what to do to preserve order and stability when other nations use violence and aggression.

For me, here's what I think:

1. I see many of the same implications sandtown sees, I think, in our positions here. We're in the uncomfortable position where doing the practical, necessary thing involves killing and war and destruction. Where I think sandtown is completely unfair, and has alienated so many here, is that he seems unable to believe that those who think war with Russia (violent resistance to invasion) is necessary actually don't like war any more than he does. I'd put myself in that camp.

2. I have no strong opinions nor much knowledge yet. But in my experience as a teacher, I'm absolutely certain that most undesired behaviors are expressions of unmet needs. That's not an excuse, or a justification. But it could be very interesting indeed to have a discussion about how Russia came to be what it is, and what role the West might have played in Russia ending up that way. And how other actions might have led to a very different Russia. None of which excuses Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, nor is any reason not to back Ukraine fully in their military efforts.

3. For me, it's clear that the West (and the world) has a strong self-interest in making sure Russia gets absolutely NOTHING from its Ukrainian invasion. No appeasement. No negotiations ceding any territory. Nothing. I firmly believe that "You deserve what you tolerate." If the world decides to tolerate aggressive military seizures and unprovoked aggression to seize territory, the world will deserve the results.

Tom

[JayInOz]

Sandtown has some valid arguments and makes some reasonable points. But then he has to go and add some little insult to the poster he's responding to. Some little put down. Lectures from his high position as an ambassador for peace and does it in an abrasive, rude antagonistic manner. He was in Vietnam. Woopy friggin doo. He's no better than anybody else and no more wise. He just has an angle. I wonder did he volunteer for Vietnam? Making him a massive hypocrite. Or was he drafted and didn't have the courage of his glorious convictions to say no. Or did he get to travel, maybe smack down a couple of gooks and come home with some stories for the boys before finding a way to make it play for him. He called me a keyboard coward. I've never said anything on this forum that I wouldn't say to the persons face. Same with that obnoxious windbag. JayInOz

[Nicholas Carey]

I see this quite a bit differently. I don't think sandtown misunderstands what anyone is saying. I think he sees implications in what people say that people prefer not to acknowledge. I read his comments as falling essentially along these lines: "When you say this, ___________ is also implied, and __________ is a logical conclusion to that line of thinking. And those implications and logical conclusions are bad. So you're really giving your approval to something bad."

I think the WBF (well, the Bilge) has built itself a habit of resisting anyone who questions the implications of what posters say. The accusation of "straw man" or complaints that some posters "misrepresent what I said" get used as an evasive maneuver--a tactic that allows people to avoid confronting the potential implications and subtexts of what they say. People get defensive about how "I never said that!" and fail to consider honestly that, when they said X, yes, it might be reasonable for someone to understand Y and Z as natural accompaniments to X.

I can buy that.

Conversely, people might address the logic of linking X to Y and Z, and explain why they think Y and Z do not follow from X. But in the end, some people will see links to Y and Z, and some will not. It's not useful or charitable to attack someone who sees it differently.

So when sandtown--or me, or anyone--responds to things that people think they haven't said, that's probably true. But it's not a strawman. It's not misrepresenting anything. It is demonstrating how, when you say X, some people sincerely see that Y and Z go along with it. And that, if you don't agree with Y and Z, you might want to reconsider your commitment to X as well.

I would argue that if one wants to posit that

(X implies Y) AND (Y implies Z)

[not going to try and use proper formal logic symbols]

One might want back their assertion up with solid arguments in support of the same.