UKRAINE

Tools    





I haven’t seen anywhere online a shout-out to the Ukrainian firefighters. What a crap & highly dangerous job: putting out fires in destroyed buildings. So I’ll put a shout-out here.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Regarding the dead Ukrainian civilians who were recently found with their hands tied and then executed...I wondered why the Russians would leave the bodies in the open where they could easily be found thus proving that the Russian military is involved in executing civilians, which of course is a war crime.

I suppose some would argue it's a warning from the Russians to the Ukrainians as to what will happen to them if they don't surrender soon. That could be true.

But I think the executed civilians were left out in the open so the Russians could see how the USA, Nato and Europe would react. I believe it's a test to see just how far the west reluctance to get directly involved in the conflict goes...and to test how strong of a hand the Russians have.

I think the Russians (and the Chinese who are paying close attention to Ukraine) are learning the west is afraid of a major direct conflict. I think our weak response is causing the Ukrainians great harm and has made the world a more dangerous place. Like a festering wound left untreated the end result can be gangrene and amputation.



Regarding the dead Ukrainian civilians who were recently found with their hands tied and then executed...I wondered why the Russians would leave the bodies in the open where they could easily be found thus proving that the Russian military is involved in executing civilians, which of course is a war crime.

I suppose some would argue it's a warning from the Russians to the Ukrainians as to what will happen to them if they don't surrender soon. That could be true.

But I think the executed civilians were left out in the open so the Russians could see how the USA, Nato and Europe would react. I believe it's a test to see just how far the west reluctance to get directly involved in the conflict goes...and to test how strong of a hand the Russians have.

I think the Russians (and the Chinese who are paying close attention to Ukraine) are learning the west is afraid of a major direct conflict. I think our weak response is causing the Ukrainians great harm and has made the world a more dangerous place. Like a festering wound left untreated the end result can be gangrene and amputation.
I'm not offering an answer - just something I heard on a late night radio show called The Other Side of Midnight (hosted by Frank Morano) last night regarding this specific issue - some guy was on as a guest (unfortunately I missed his name & credentials)...

He said there are these Nazi militia groups fighting on the side of Ukraine. (President Zelensky was quoted to have said when questioned about these groups in an interview with Brett Baer that "they are what they are" - and allegedly FOX cut that portion of the interview according to this guy on the radio).

Anyway, whoever this guy on the radio was theorized that these Ukrainian Nazi groups are executing Ukrainians who either side with Russia or simply want to surrender to Russia to stop the attacks. So basically he's saying the Ukrainians executed in the street were killed by other Ukrainians who belong to Nazi militias and left as an example to anyone that doesn't want to join the fight on the side of Ukraine.

I have no idea if any of that is true or what it's based on.




I have no idea if any of that is true or what it's based on.

Are these the standards you need to be met before you start speculating about matters worthy of serious consideration?


Like, dude, at what point is something not worth repeating?



At what point is amplifying talking points that sound an awful lot like the rhetoric Putin used to invade a sovereign country, irresponsible?


Maybe these are things to consider when we are just 'asking questions'. A practice that has been both knowingly and unknowingly used to spread a lot of really bad, really harmful, really distracting news stories the last few years.



Are these the standards you need to be met before you start speculating about matters worthy of serious consideration?


Like, dude, at what point is something not worth repeating?



At what point is amplifying talking points that sound an awful lot like the rhetoric Putin used to invade a sovereign country, irresponsible?


Maybe these are things to consider when we are just 'asking questions'. A practice that has been both knowingly and unknowingly used to spread a lot of really bad, really harmful, really distracting news stories the last few years.
I'm not speculating, just repeating something that was aired on a public national radio station. And it was one person's publicly aired opinion in answer to a question that was also just posed here - because no explanations for the atrocities make much sense.

The only reason I'm repeating it is the question was just posted today and I heard one person's explanation just last night.

A while back I asked a question about where was Putin getting his talk about Nazis in the Ukraine (that, for some insane reason, he's somehow using to justify bombing the civilians of a country that has attacked no one). Someone responded who has a lot more insight into that area of the world than I with a very in-depth & detailed answer - you may want to go back and look for that post.

As a general statement I will say it seems more than apparent there is absolutely no logical rationale for the extreme violence & unprovoked mass murder Putin has unleashed on the innocent civilians of a sovereign & peaceful country.



I'm not speculating, just repeating something that was aired on a public national radio station.

Then permit me a few questions about what you repeated.



Was what he said based on anything to back it up? Had he actually conducted an investigation? Did he have sources handy? Interviews? Was he in correspondence with field reporters or official experts of any kind? What made him someone worth listening to? Worth taking seriously?

Or was it just a guy wondering aloud about some stuff he'd thought? Was he just asking questions? Cosplaying shit about a tragedy?

Because if it is the latter, I overheard some guy at a bar talking about how he was raising pet crabs in a locker at a Greyhound station. Hopefully he never gets any air time on a public national radio station, because then God knows what crazy, unbelievable things we'll learn about the Ukraine. What secrets they've been hiding in their bus locker.



Then permit me a few questions about what you repeated.



Was what he said based on anything to back it up? Had he actually conducted an investigation? Did he have sources handy? Interviews? Was he in correspondence with field reporters or official experts of any kind? What made him someone worth listening to? Worth taking seriously?

Or was it just a guy wondering aloud about some stuff he'd thought? Was he just asking questions? Cosplaying shit about a tragedy?

Because if it is the latter, I overheard some guy at a bar talking about how he was raising pet crabs in a locker at a Greyhound station. Hopefully he never gets any air time on a public national radio station, because then God knows what crazy, unbelievable things we'll learn about the Ukraine. What secrets they've been hiding in their bus locker.
I don't know the answers to the questions. I turn the radio on while cleaning up the kitchen before bed and listen to whatever's on, then turn it off as soon as I'm done or when commercials come on.

As said, the only reason I repeated it was because a question about that specific news item was the latest post on this thread and the portion of the radio show I heard was also addressing that specific question.

All I know is the guy was a featured "guest" on that portion of the show as opposed to someone calling in to the show.

I did look up the info today on the Net about FOX cutting the portion of the Zelensky interview and found corroboration.



Then permit me a few questions about what you repeated.



Was what he said based on anything to back it up? Had he actually conducted an investigation? Did he have sources handy? Interviews? Was he in correspondence with field reporters or official experts of any kind? What made him someone worth listening to? Worth taking seriously?

Or was it just a guy wondering aloud about some stuff he'd thought? Was he just asking questions? Cosplaying shit about a tragedy?

Because if it is the latter, I overheard some guy at a bar talking about how he was raising pet crabs in a locker at a Greyhound station. Hopefully he never gets any air time on a public national radio station, because then God knows what crazy, unbelievable things we'll learn about the Ukraine. What secrets they've been hiding in their bus locker.
Don't know if this helps, but I found a link to the show:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR...EegQIAhAF&ep=6

Based on this site's description it says a guy named Dan Kovalik (human rights activist & labor rights author) offers insights on Russia-Ukraine war. I never heard of him, nor know anything about him, but I'm assuming that's the guy since I found yesterday's show.

Looks like you can listen to the entire show (over 3 hours).



I wondered why the Russians would leave the bodies in the open where they could easily be found
Apart from checking how the West would react, here are other likely reasons:
  • They simply didn't bother cleaning up the corpses. The Russian army is disorganized, so once they more or less claim a piece of land, they move onto it like a swarm of locusts on a cornfield, and totally devastate it.
  • They wanted to intimidate other civilians and undermine Ukrainian morale. This is quite a popular strategy. You brutally murder some people to show the rest there is no point in resisting. Psychological warfare.
  • They didn't have trench-digging equipment at hand, so they couldn't hide the corpses fast and were too lazy to / had no orders to dig up mass graves using shovels.
  • They were angry they can't make any progress in conquering Kyiv so they took out their anger on civilians in small towns.

I have no idea if any of that is true or what it's based on.
This is a dot-to-dot version of the Kremlin propaganda's excuse for murdering civilian men, women, and children. Sharing these insights perpetuates Russian propaganda. Whether you did it on purpose or not, doesn't matter. The damage is done. I, too, have some unconfirmed claims about Russians raping 40 children and pulling out their teeth, but I don't share this information since it has not been confirmed yet. Not that I would be surprised if it turned true. The point stands, though: Even if you ask in good faith, it's hard not to see it as harmful, as it helps spread propaganda. Now, other MoFos have to do hard work debunking at least some of these claims.

Someone responded who has a lot more insight into that area of the world than I with a very in-depth & detailed answer - you may want to go back and look for that post.
It was me. But the main takeaway from my post should've been that UPA no longer exists and the Azov Batallion is some 2,500 people at best. Here's the main point I was making:
How a militia of 2,500 members justifies the violent subjugation of 44 million Ukrainians including the bombing of the entirety of 430K Mariupol?
And yet, simply by asking, you totally ignored that point.

As a general statement I will say it seems more than apparent there is absolutely no logical rationale
Logical as in, justifiable? There is none. Logical as in, explainable? There is more than one.

Everybody please stop responding to Steel's wackadoodles.
He already posted this, so we have to respond and correct the harmful insinuations he perpetuates. Ignoring his post without giving any criticism could be read as silent support for what he wrote.



After 12 pages of it?
Fair point. His posts haven't been deleted, though, and are some of the newest posts in the thread. His posts can still be seen by people who know nothing or very little about the conflict, and without any reaction to them, they would seem of equal weight to other posts. His post should be deleted. Especially the one with the link.



Fair point. His posts haven't been deleted, though, and are some of the newest posts in the thread. His posts can still be seen by people who know nothing or very little about the conflict, and without any reaction to them, they would seem of equal weight to other posts. His post should be deleted. Especially the one with the link.
Wonderful; so you are explicitly promoting censorship. Just checking - wouldn’t be the first time.



Wonderful; so you are explicitly promoting censorship. Just checking - wouldn’t be the first time.
Yes, I'm explicitly against sharing inane fake excuses that help the aggressor's side justify their barbarous crimes.



Yes, I'm explicitly against sharing inane fake excuses that help the aggressor's side justify their barbarous crimes.
Fair enough, but you are deluded if you don’t think your entire spiel/tone of every single comment of yours isn’t ideologically coloured. Everything is ideologically coloured, yet with your absolutist assertions throughout the thread of what “Russians” do and think, “Russia is” and “Russia does”, I still haven’t seen any evidence of your credentials to make any such claims. No one could quite explain where such phenomenally absolutist statements originate, in an evidence-based way, at least.

Do you have a postgraduate degree in Russian history from a respectable international institution, did you do a secondment there? Or isn’t it that, oops, you just live roughly in the vicinity of Russia? That alone means that your perception of Russia is coloured by the post-Soviet dislike and resentment of the country which is so typical of ex-Soviet republics and surrounding areas.

Someone placing so much emphasis on the concept of “fake” would, one would think, attempt at least to adhere to an objective, unemotional perspective - not the case here though.

What with your suggestions of exaggerating the figures for Russian casualties and minimising those for Ukraine, and many other comments here, it is crystal-clear that you’re very much “pro sharing inane fake excuses” (sic) as long as that helps propagate the narrative you support (it really doesn’t matter what the narrative is). And that’s pathetic and a case of blinding hypocrisy at that.



Oh come on, the entire world is shocked at the crimes of Russian soldiers in Ukraine, but you felt the need to be a contrarian.

Freedom of speech ends where hurting another person begins. We cannot show tolerance for intolerance. I know it's a clichéd comparison, but the pattern is the same as with Germans during the Second World War: Germans were taught that they were Übermensch, which meant every other "race" was inferior. Not just Jews, but also Slavs. Germans planned to totally wipe out Jews and greatly reduce the population of Poland to make it a nation of enslaved serfs.

Similarly, Russians have been taught that they are the greatest nation in the world and that everybody else is inferior and against them. Everybody is a Nazi or an American spy, according to Russian information sources. This is the actual line of propaganda in Комсомольская Правда and РИА Новости articles, among others. I'm not going to link to these articles so as to not spread bull propaganda. You don't speak Russian? Thankfully, some of these articles have been translated to English just to point out how delusional Russian state propaganda is. You can find them if you want to.

Fair enough, but you are deluded if you don’t think your entire spiel/tone of every single comment of yours isn’t ideologically coloured. Everything is ideologically coloured
This is a rhetorical distraction often used by Russian trolls to take everybody's eyes from what really matters:

1. Russia attacked a sovereign country.
2. Russia is raping, torturing, and murdering civilians.

How do you ideologically color the tying a person's hands behind their back and shooting them in the head from behind? How do you ideologically color the torture of a person in the basement? How do you ideologically color the rape of women and children? None of these acts have anything to do with ideology. Unless your ideology allows these things.

In Russia, there is no talk about Russian crimes, which were aplenty in its long and turbulent history. State propaganda convinces people that it is not a war crime if you murder a "Nazi". Even a ten-year-old "Nazi". After all, to this day, Russia takes pride in winning over Nazism and ending the war. Of course, this is greatly exaggerated. Americans would've won anyway. It'd just take more time. And less suffering in Poland and Germany, as once the Germans ran away, Russians came in and murder started again, this time spiced with rape and stealing LITERALLY everything.

If you don't think Russians are brainwashed on average, just try telling one that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were once friends and had signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact that described how Poland will be divided between these two countries. Tell them that the Soviet Union attacked Poland from the East on June the 17th 1939 only 16 days after Germany attacked from the West. If you tell them all that and they say "you are right" then you have been lucky. Because my experience is totally different.

I still haven’t seen any evidence of your credentials to make any such claims
Just watch the pictures from the Bucha Massacre. I'm not going to post these disturbing pictures here. You can find them in many ways, e.g., by going to Twitter and typing "Bucha graves" in the search box.

Do you have a postgraduate degree in Russian history from a respectable international institution, did you do a secondment there?
Do you? We can start exchanging ad hominem retorts if you want. But I don't think it would contribute to this thread as a whole. If anything, it'd only derail it and force Yoda to close it.

Or isn’t it that, oops, you just live roughly in the vicinity of Russia? That alone means that your perception of Russia is coloured by the post-Soviet dislike and resentment of the country which is so typical of ex-Soviet republics and surrounding areas.
There is a reason for that. But I wouldn't call that resentment. It's a rational fear of Russia; that Russia will attack other countries, again with the excuse of denazification. And that they will somehow still try to pose as liberators.

We saw that happen in Poland during the Second World War, and unfortunately, little has changed. I heard many stories from my grandma and dozens of other people's grandmas. Russians would steal toilets and women's underwear, rape and torture women that were still children as well as older women, saw off their breasts, etc. They'd dig up raw potatoes from the fields. They'd steal everything they could and set fire to whatever was left. This is happening again, on a smaller scale, yes, but maybe only because this war is a smaller war, too.

When she was still alive, my grandma would tell me a lot of stories about the war. She said that when the Germans entered her village, they have killed a few people there, and they took a few to the Treblinka Extermination Camp, including her father. But she somehow spoke flatteringly about the Germans anyway. She said that she was sitting somewhere hidden in a ditch and a German saw her, walked over, looked, and walked on. And besides, the Germans gave chocolate to children, etc. Yes, she admitted Germans too murdered people and some of them were scary monsters, but the main difference was that Germans did everything in a very routine and orderly way. By the way, I'm not trying to perpetuate the "good Wehrmacht" myth because Wehrmacht committed a lot of war crimes, too. But Russians were feared more than Germans were. And that says a lot.

When the Russians came to my grandma's village, they started from digging up raw potatoes. The women started hiding because Russians had raped some women before. My grandmother's mother was caught by a Russian soldier with an ax in his hand who entered their house uninvited. The soldier grabbed her by the hair. She fell. Then, my grandma threw herself on her knees in front of him and begged him for mercy. Miraculously the Russian soldier left the house. But other women in the village weren't so lucky. They were raped, mutilated, or murdered. Some women had their breasts cut off with a saw or ax.

Imagine how evil must've been the Russians who entered my grandma's village that she, whose father was taken to Treblinka by the Germans and died there, still thought that Russians were worse.

And I spoke to numerous people from all around Poland. Their grandparents had very similar stories to tell. Then, the Russians moved on to Germany and did similar, if not the same. They were fighting Nazis. By raping women and murdering children.

If accounts of survivors are not enough for you, you can look at the thing in a wider scope by googling "soviet war crimes" or something. And then googling "Bucha massacre" and reading what Russian troops are doing in Ukraine. The similarities are scary. The thing is, googling it may not be enough. You need to spend more time reading about all that.

What with your suggestions of exaggerating the figures for Russian casualties and minimising those for Ukraine
There are definitely wars where one side has a huge moral advantage over the other and the war in Ukraine is such a conflict. If you compare these two things:
  • Ukrainians might've overestimated Russian losses, delibaretly or not.
  • Russians attacked an independent country. They raped, tortured, and murdered civilians in Bucha, Irpin, and other cities (I fear to think what is happening in Donbas).

You will see how inane your allegations sound.

And that’s pathetic and a case of blinding hypocrisy at that.
I don't mind you saying that. It's a very good example of how most Russians and pro-Russian people react when they see what Russian troops are doing in Ukraine. Denial is one of the most basic defense mechanisms. And that refers to every nation. The thing is, most intelligent people accept the truth sooner or later. It's the uneducated who keep being stuck in their ignorance.



I am the Watcher in the Night
Why would the Russian commit war crimes, in a situation where they are already winning with negotiations going their way and zero military involvement from NATO and the US, plus neutrality if not support from the likes of China and India?
Wouldn't leaving dead bodied lying around willy nilly lead to further sanctions, potential military involvement and potential loss of Asian allies/neutrality.

It's sounds about as logical as Assad winning in Syria, negotiating ceasefire from western bombings only to sabotage himself by supposedly using chemical weapons .Later reports proved the weapons never used or the evidence was extremely LIMITED.
__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"



Why would the Russian commit war crimes, in a situation where they are already winning
They are not winning. They are getting their ass kicked. They already retracted back to Donbas and hope to win the war with the least possible gains (Donbas + maybe a tip of Southern Ukraine). Spoiler: They will lose.

So yeah, they realized they cannot win there, cannot take Kyiv, so they got angry and did the only thing they had so far succeeded at: murdering even more civilians. This sounds like one of many plausible explanations to me.

Wouldn't leaving dead bodied lying around willy nilly lead to further sanctions, potential military involvement and potential loss of Asian allies/neutrality.
Russia doesn't care. The national news is already saying that Russia is left alone in the fight against Nazis all around the world, or some other bull like that. The issue here is that sometimes we try to analyze these things from our democratic, Western, educated perspective. But Russia has a different way of looking at things. It's either win or destroy everything so that they do not win.

It's sounds about as logical as Assad winning in Syria, negotiating ceasefire from western bombings only to sabotage himself by supposedly using chemical weapons .Later reports proved the weapons never used or the evidence was extremely LIMITED.
Okay, now you're literally denying Russian war crimes. Hmm.



Or isn’t it that, oops, you just live roughly in the vicinity of Russia? That alone means that your perception of Russia is coloured by the post-Soviet dislike and resentment of the country which is so typical of ex-Soviet republics and surrounding areas.
So would you also dismiss a rape victim's allegations towards the rapist because she's too close to the rapist and her perception is colored by dislike and resentment so typical to rape victims? Just applying your logic here.

In my opinion, it's exactly these countries that used to be under Soviet oppression that has first-hand knowledge of how Russians work. Experience is a great teacher. But then again, my opinions don't matter either as Finland is also Russia's neighbor, right?
__________________