Ukraine taking it to Russia

[Yoused]

They are dancing around it in their various statements.

The goal is to cast shade on Кремль, make everyone have doubts about their veracity, make them look even more like toddlers stamping their little feet. Hopefully even Russians will start looking askance at their leadership, which is seriously losing the image war on all fronts (well, maybe not US Republicans). Russia is a wintry country, so it is no surprise it being plagued by delicate snowflakes.

 

[Eric]

An incomprehensible post, as I don't know what you are attempting to say, infer, suggest with these.....words.

Nobody on any of these threads is supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

What we are saying is that this story needs to be treated with considerable caution and no small amount of scepticism, for a variety of reasons.

While true, there are many defending, if not placting, Putin and have even went as far as to make the same claims that Hitler should not have been removed from power. If marching 6 million innocent Jews into ovens won't convince them, then certainly blowing Ukraine into smithereens won't, either.

As for the offensive, if found to be true then we should be applauding them. Nobody should sit idly by while their people are senselessly murdered by Putin, if you get an upper hand, no matter where or how slight, you take it.

 

[Yoused]

and have even went as far as to make the same claims that Hitler should not have been removed from power

of all the horrors that guy perpetrated, at least he did kill Hitler

 

[Scepticalscribe]

As for the offensive, if found to be true then we should be applauding them. Nobody should sit idly by while their people are senselessly murdered by Putin, if you get an upper hand, no matter where or how slight, you take it.

No.

Ukraine will have a hard case to make if seeking western support for an offensive military stance, - especially if they seek western military support, weapons, equipment to do so - and few western governments could justify arming them, or supplying them with military equipment, were they to embark on an offensive of any sort against Russia.

This is something that would be most unwise, diplomatically, militarily, and politically.

In fact, if this was proven, western governments would be quite within their rights to cease supplying Ukraine with arms, - to use them to defend yourself is one thing, to use them to attack Russia is quite another - and, moreover, Russia would be quite within its rights to call out the west for supporting (and arming) a government which had been proven to have attacked Russia.

No western government would want - or wish - for this. And neither would their electorats. An armed conflict with Russia would not be in anyone's interest.

Ukraine's strength - in moral terms - is that they are the victim of a groundless, illegal, unprovoked and unjustified attack, and that they are defending themselves, and seeking to preserve their state and their independence - against an especially appalling and odious opponent.

Meanwhile, for now, - and bear in mind that the Ukrainians have denied it; moreover, these days, given the respective reputations of the parties to this conflict for telling the truth, the Russian narrative may not be believed, whereas the Ukrainians can expect to be taken more seriously, as what they have said to date is a lot more credible.

In any case, I suspect that this is a classic "false flag" operation on the part of Russia; the war is going badly for them, and they are grasping at straws to seek to galvanise public support (domestically).

Thus, until otherwise proven, I will assume that the Ukrainians were not responsible for this action.

 

[Yoused]

This is something that would be most unwise, diplomatically, militarily, and politically.
…

Ukraine's strength - in moral terms - is that they are the victim of a groundless, illegal, unprovoked and unjustified attack, and that they are defending themselves, and seeking to preserve their state and their independence - against an especially repellant opponent.

The Belgorod attack was a target ~20 miles from the border, a facility Russia would have been using to support its war effort. If I am very much mistaken, casualties were minimal. In this respect, an attack would not be unreasonable, given that its primary goal would have been to kneecap the Russian war effort. And, quite frankly, I seriously doubt that this was a false flag op from Moscow: Vlad is at best a sociopath who would order a false flag that would kill a lot of innocent people, in order to generate maximum outrage and sympathy.

Honestly, if Russia fails to retreat from Donbas, I doubt anyone would fault Ukraine for across-the-border attacks on infrastructure, in order to weaken the Russian assault in the East. As long as they are not laying waste to homes and malls and civilian lives, the world will tolerate attacks on Russia with the goal of stopping the attacks on Ukraine.

 

[SuperMatt]

No.

Ukraine will have a hard case to make if seeking western support for an offensive military stance, - especially if they seek western military support, weapons, equipment to do so - and few western governments could justify arming them, or supplying them with military equipment, were they to embark on an offensive of any sort against Russia.

This is something that would be most unwise, diplomatically, militarily, and politically.

In fact, if this was proven, western governments would be quite within their rights to cease supplying Ukraine with arms, - to use them to defend yourself is one thing, to use them to attack Russia is quite another - and, moreover, Russia would be quite within its rights to call out the west for supporting (and arming) a government which had been proven to have attacked Russia.

No western government would want - or wish - for this. And neither would their electorats. An armed conflict with Russia would not be in anyone's interest.

Ukraine's strength - in moral terms - is that they are the victim of a groundless, illegal, unprovoked and unjustified attack, and that they are defending themselves, and seeking to preserve their state and their independence - against an especially appalling and odious opponent.

Meanwhile, for now, - and bear in mind that the Ukrainians have denied it; moreover, these days, given the respective reputations of the parties to this conflict for telling the truth, the Russian narrative may not be believed, whereas the Ukrainians can expect to be taken more seriously, as what they have said to date is a lot more credible.

In any case, I suspect that this is a classic "false flag" operation on the part of Russia; the war is going badly for them, and they are grasping at straws to seek to galvanise public support (domestically).

Thus, until otherwise proven, I will assume that the Ukrainians were not responsible for this action.

I reject this argument. If Russia is launching missiles into hospitals from a site 1 inch over the border, do you claim it would be wrong for Ukraine to take an opportunity to destroy the missile launcher? Just let Russia keep murdering civilians and do nothing?

 

[Cmaier]

I reject this argument. If Russia is launching missiles into hospitals from a site 1 inch over the border, do you claim it would be wrong for Ukraine to take an opportunity to destroy the missile launcher? Just let Russia keep murdering civilians and do nothing?

The world needs cowardly surrender-monkeys. Someone’s got to live in [name your own place here, so I don’t get in trouble], after all.

 

[lizkat]

It all sadly falls into support of the fact that once a war gets off the ground, there's no telling what can happen. I have no idea of "rules of engagement" after one country commits an illegal invasion and brings military force across the border.

But to suggest that the other country has to follow all the rules and conduct defense from within its own borders anyway... well that may feel like "OK let me fight with one hand behind my back while you do whatever you want".

So now, if it wasn't a false flag attack on that fuel depot, there has been some tit-for-tat regarding illegal border crossing with use of military force. All the civilians of south and western Ukraine are likely to point at the local devastation committed by Russian operations there and say "yeah? and so f'g what?".

 

[SuperMatt]

It all sadly falls into support of the fact that once a war gets off the ground, there's no telling what can happen. I have no idea of "rules of engagement" after one country commits an illegal invasion and brings military force across the border.

But to suggest that the other country has to follow all the rules and conduct defense from within its own borders anyway... well that may feel like "OK let me fight with one hand behind my back while you do whatever you want".

So now, if it wasn't a false flag attack on that fuel depot, there has been some tit-for-tat regarding illegal border crossing with use of military force. All the civilians of south and western Ukraine are likely to point at the local devastation committed by Russian operations there and say "yeah? and so f'g what?".

Good point. When another country is bombing your civilians, there is no such thing as an illegal border crossing into their country. You started a war. The country you’re attacking WILL fight back. If those counterattacks spill into your territory, that is the cost of starting the war in the first place.

I don’t recall America being restricted in launching attacks on Afghanistan’s soil after 9/11.

 

[Yoused]

… regarding illegal border crossing …

I say "All Your Country are Belong to Us!" and send my thugs over to enforce my declaration. In that moment, I have effectively erased the border. Your country is now part of ours, in my view. In that sense, there really is no border between us to illegally cross, and I have no grounds to object if you do.

 

[lizkat]

I say "All Your Country are Belong to Us!" and send my thugs over to enforce my declaration. In that moment, I have effectively erased the border. Your country is now part of ours, in my view. In that sense, there really is no border between us to illegally cross, and I have no grounds to object if you do.

That's how I'd feel about it if I lived in someplace like Mariupol today.

Good for goose, good for gander. If Putin doesn't like that, well: turn your Russian planes and tanks and artillery heavers around and have them back where they came from (leaving poor Belarus to dig out from its having simply lain down for a permanent Russian occupation, duh).

 

[Cmaier]

That's how I'd feel about it if I lived in someplace like Mariupol today.

Good for goose, good for gander. If Putin doesn't like that, well: turn your Russian planes and tanks and artillery heavers around and have them back where they came from (leaving poor Belarus to dig out from its having simply lain down for a permanent Russian occupation, duh).

Every plane that now needs to patrol Russian skies to protect russia against nazi Ukraine aggression is one less plane that can fly over Ukraine to bomb evil nazi kindergartens.

 

[lizkat]

Every plane that now needs to patrol Russian skies to protect russia against nazi Ukraine aggression is one less plane that can fly over Ukraine to bomb evil nazi kindergartens.

Heh,yeah... but there's enough disinformation floating around that you should probably mark your post as perhaps not exactly satirical, but anyway meant to highlight the absurdity of Putin's claims that Ukraine is full of Nazis and so needed a housecleaning from benevolent papa Vladimir.

I mean it's true there are some right wing nationalists in Ukraine, as in other countries in Europe and indeed around the world --and some of them do even adopt the insignia and other trappings of Hitler's party-- but they are a distinct minority, the same as they are in the USA, and in any case still aspire even to gain significant local political power. Putin only seizes upon their existence (and embellishes their intentions) in order to justify his own long held intention to make the land grabs in Ukraine that are going so wrong for him now.

 

[Eric]

More good news...

Ukrainian flag raised over Chernobyl nuclear plant after Russian troops withdraw​

Ukrainian flag raised over Chernobyl nuclear plant after Russian troops withdraw

"Today, April 2, at 11:00, Ukrainian flag was raised over the Chernobyl NPP and the anthem was sung," Energoatom said in a statement.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Cmaier]

More good news...

Ukrainian flag raised over Chernobyl nuclear plant after Russian troops withdraw​

Ukrainian flag raised over Chernobyl nuclear plant after Russian troops withdraw

"Today, April 2, at 11:00, Ukrainian flag was raised over the Chernobyl NPP and the anthem was sung," Energoatom said in a statement.

www.businessinsider.com

Though, if I was in charge of Ukraine, I might leave a Russian flag over it. Don‘t really want to take credit for that mess.

 

[Yoused]

Though, if I was in charge of Ukraine, I might leave a Russian flag over it.

At the time Chernobyl/Pripyat was developed and brought on line, the leader of the USSR was Leonid Breshnev, a Ukrainian.

 

[Cmaier]

At the time Chernobyl/Pripyat was developed and brought on line, the leader of the USSR was Leonid Breshnev, a Ukrainian.

Doesn‘t mean that Ukraine wants to take credit for the disaster. (Which happened when Gorbachev was in charge, no?)

 

[MarkusL]

Though, if I was in charge of Ukraine, I might leave a Russian flag over it. Don‘t really want to take credit for that mess.

When I visited I got the impression that the Ukrainians are very proud of what has been achieved at Chernobyl from a very grim starting point after the disaster. That pride is also visible on the power plant’s official youtube channel.

The disaster itself was manufactured by the Soviet Union, and the initial efforts to contain it was also handled by troops and workers from all over the union. But the long-term responsibility has been taken by Ukraine.

 

[Nycturne]

It all sadly falls into support of the fact that once a war gets off the ground, there's no telling what can happen. I have no idea of "rules of engagement" after one country commits an illegal invasion and brings military force across the border.

But to suggest that the other country has to follow all the rules and conduct defense from within its own borders anyway... well that may feel like "OK let me fight with one hand behind my back while you do whatever you want".

So now, if it wasn't a false flag attack on that fuel depot, there has been some tit-for-tat regarding illegal border crossing with use of military force. All the civilians of south and western Ukraine are likely to point at the local devastation committed by Russian operations there and say "yeah? and so f'g what?".

You sum up how I feel about the whole thing. As was pointed out in this thread, this fuel depot was likely feeding vehicles Russia is using in eastern Ukraine. Assuming Ukraine forces did do it, the justification seems a sane one to me: disrupt Russian military logistics and their ability to wage war in Ukraine. A surgical strike against such a target doesn’t seem out of bounds to me, especially if it can save lives in the long run by wearing down the Russian military’s will to fight and bringing this to an end faster than simply piling up casualties on both sides.

 

[Cmaier]

Russian Troops Killed, Sickened By Poisoned Food From Ukraine Residents, Say Officials — HuffPost

“Ukrainians resist the occupiers by all available means,” the Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine said of the poisonings, according to a translation.

apple.news