Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Panto_Villan]

10 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

Love the sarcasm btw. But no, ethics aren't for suckers however Russia have already proved that they don't give a crap about Ukrainian civilians and would quite happily exterminate them all. On that basis I think Ukraine are fully justified in using whatever methods at their disposal to defend themselves. 

Yes, I understand the train of thought. But then the same logic applies to torturing POWs to death, or raping and murdering civilians in Kursk. Russia has already done that to Ukraine, so presumably you think Ukraine is justified in doing it back?

When Western forces battled ISIS they weren't given a free pass to behave like ISIS when doing it. Nor does Israel have a free pass to kill everyone in Gaza, even though you can post some horrific pictures of people killed by Hamas' terror attack and say Hamas would happily exterminate every Israeli in the country.

Dropping thermite on a line of trees with enemy soldiers in it isn't against the Geneva Convention anyway, as I posted. I just find it astonishing you're "gobsmacked" anyone would have an issue with Ukraine committing war crimes.

[avfc1982am]

10 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yes, I understand the train of thought. But then the same logic applies to torturing POWs to death, or raping and murdering civilians in Kursk. Russia has already done that to Ukraine, so presumably you think Ukraine is justified in doing it back?

When Western forces battled ISIS they weren't given a free pass to behave like ISIS when doing it. Nor does Israel have a free pass to kill everyone in Gaza, even though you can post some horrific pictures of people killed by Hamas' terror attack and say Hamas would happily exterminate every Israeli in the country.

Dropping thermite on a line of trees with enemy soldiers in it isn't against the Geneva Convention anyway, as I posted. I just find it astonishing you're "gobsmacked" anyone would have an issue with Ukraine committing war crimes.

You've gone off on a right tangent here. I mean nobody mentioned it was okay to torture captured POW's or acceptable in any way. That in itself wouldn't turn the tide of the war or aid Ukraine to defend themselves.

We are discussing weapons being used on a battlefield, Ukrainians fighting for their right to exist on their own land. We are discussing the defenders, not those that are the aggressors that are free to do as they please without fear of retribution. There is a huge difference.  

 

[avfc1982am]

3 hours ago, Genie said:

I guess it’s in the unwritten rules of engagement, to use whatever the other guy is using is fair game. It’s why nuclear weapons are so rarely used.

If Russia were to use one they know that it dramatically increases the probability they get one in return.

On the battlefield, yes. It's like the saying, "Why bring a knife to a gunfight." 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

8 hours ago, Genie said:

 

If Russia were to use one they know that it dramatically increases the probability they get one in return.

If Russia uses one it guarantees NATO joining the fight. 

Fallout entering NATO territory is considered an act of war. 

[Panto_Villan]

6 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

You've gone off on a right tangent here. I mean nobody mentioned it was okay to torture captured POW's or acceptable in any way. That in itself wouldn't turn the tide of the war or aid Ukraine to defend themselves.

We are discussing weapons being used on a battlefield, Ukrainians fighting for their right to exist on their own land. We are discussing the defenders, not those that are the aggressors that are free to do as they please without fear of retribution. There is a huge difference.  

You're still making very open-ended statements that can be used to justify pretty much anything, though. Many of the things outlawed in the Geneva Convention do have battlefield utility (which is why they had to be outlawed). Even torturing POWs has battlefield utility; the Afghans used to horrifically torture captured Soviet soldiers in Russia's last major excursion abroad and I imagine the Afghans would say it contributed to the eventual Soviet defeat and withdrawal.

If this use of thermite was against the Geneva Convention (which it isn't) then I'd view it as much like the way Ukraine breaks the rules on videoing POWs. It's a very major infraction; it's not something that needs punishing. But if we don't acknowledge that it's bad and instead start saying that it's fine and justified, or deny that it's a war crimes, where does that stop?

For a less exaggerated example, you could make a case for using chemical weapons against the Russians on the battlefield. Might be useful for troops say clearing trenches or basements, right? Russia's definitely done worse in this war than using chemical weapons. Does that sit within your "whatever methods at their disposal to defend themselves"? It fits within all the rules you've outlined in your previous post, no?

Problem is, once you start disregarding rules without wanting to throw the rulebook out entirely, you end up in a weird grayzone where you're trying to weigh up whether death by mustard gas is worse than death by white phosphorous, etc, and whether chemical weapons are really that bad after all. It's much better to stick to the "this is ALL bad" rules set out by the Geneva Convention imo.

Edited September 5 by Panto_Villan

[avfc1982am]

32 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

You're still making very open-ended statements that can be used to justify pretty much anything, though. Many of the things outlawed in the Geneva Convention do have battlefield utility (which is why they had to be outlawed). Even torturing POWs has battlefield utility; the Afghans used to horrifically torture captured Soviet soldiers in Russia's last major excursion abroad and I imagine the Afghans would say it contributed to the eventual Soviet defeat and withdrawal.

If this use of thermite was against the Geneva Convention (which it isn't) then I'd view it as much like the way Ukraine breaks the rules on videoing POWs. It's a very major infraction; it's not something that needs punishing. But if we don't acknowledge that it's bad and instead start saying that it's fine and justified, or deny that it's a war crimes, where does that stop?

For a less exaggerated example, you could make a case for using chemical weapons against the Russians on the battlefield. Might be useful for troops say clearing trenches or basements, right? Russia's definitely done worse in this war than using chemical weapons. Does that sit within your "whatever methods at their disposal to defend themselves"? It fits within all the rules you've outlined in your previous post, no?

Problem is, once you start disregarding rules without wanting to throw the rulebook out entirely, you end up in a weird grayzone where you're trying to weigh up whether death by mustard gas is worse than death by white phosphorous, etc, and whether chemical weapons are really that bad after all. It's much better to stick to the "this is ALL bad" rules set out by the Geneva Convention imo.

The reason why I'm making open ended statements is because I'm all for Ukrainians being able to hold of the invasion and their extermination. That's it. Do I agree with everything they do? No I don't, but at the the same time I live in the UK, in relative peace, comfortable and without my family being maimed, murdered, raped, my home being destroyed and my life in my own hands. I have no real understanding of the situation many Ukrainians are living in and the emotional turmoil they deal with daily. 

War is bad, its heart-breaking and nobody wants to see anybody die unnecessarily, by any method. But if for instance the UK came under attack during my lifetime, if able I wouldn't give a fig about how I protected my family and friends from any invading force. I can say that with 100% certainty. I'd use any method to protect those I care about without blinking or giving a care for some rule book on what or what isn't allowed. I'd also become medieval in my methods, possibly turn into the darkest version of myself.  

Like I've said previously, Russia decided on which path they wanted to take this conflict down, not Ukraine. It's Ukrainians fighting for their lives and lands and whether you agree with me or not, I'm not against them doing whatever necessary to stay alive. Does it all sit well with me.... of course not. It's pretty sickening that 2 and a half years later this thread is still going to be quite honest. 

[villa89]

 

 

[Panto_Villan]

47 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

The reason why I'm making open ended statements is because I'm all for Ukrainians being able to hold of the invasion and their extermination. That's it. Do I agree with everything they do? No I don't, but at the the same time I live in the UK, in relative peace, comfortable and without my family being maimed, murdered, raped, my home being destroyed and my life in my own hands. I have no real understanding of the situation many Ukrainians are living in and the emotional turmoil they deal with daily. 

War is bad, its heart-breaking and nobody wants to see anybody die unnecessarily, by any method. But if for instance the UK came under attack during my lifetime, if able I wouldn't give a fig about how I protected my family and friends from any invading force. I can say that with 100% certainty. I'd use any method to protect those I care about without blinking or giving a care for some rule book on what or what isn't allowed. I'd also become medieval in my methods, possibly turn into the darkest version of myself.  

Like I've said previously, Russia decided on which path they wanted to take this conflict down, not Ukraine. It's Ukrainians fighting for their lives and lands and whether you agree with me or not, I'm not against them doing whatever necessary to stay alive. Does it all sit well with me.... of course not. It's pretty sickening that 2 and a half years later this thread is still going to be quite honest. 

Yeah. All of which boils down to you believing that as soon as someone’s family / country / way of life is threatened, they’re entitled to disregard the laws of war and do literally anything that might help them win that conflict.

Unfortunately there’s a lot of people in the world that think the same way as you. Plenty in Russia who believe the propaganda that NATO is a threat, for example, who are all too keen to “become medieval in their methods” and “become the darkest versions of themselves” to win the proxy war in Ukraine.

Anyway, no point going round in circles. I don’t think stuff like medieval barbarism is acceptable in any circumstances. Even in a major war of survival like WW2 there were ethical limits; the UK didn’t commit atrocities on the level of say the Japanese. Clearly you’ve got other opinions, and it doesn’t seem like either of us will get the other to change their mind. Best to leave it there I guess.

[villa89]

 

[avfc1982am]

1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah. All of which boils down to you believing that as soon as someone’s family / country / way of life is threatened, they’re entitled to disregard the laws of war and do literally anything that might help them win that conflict.

Unfortunately there’s a lot of people in the world that think the same way as you. Plenty in Russia who believe the propaganda that NATO is a threat, for example, who are all too keen to “become medieval in their methods” and “become the darkest versions of themselves” to win the proxy war in Ukraine.

Anyway, no point going round in circles. I don’t think stuff like medieval barbarism is acceptable in any circumstances. Even in a major war of survival like WW2 there were ethical limits; the UK didn’t commit atrocities on the level of say the Japanese. Clearly you’ve got other opinions, and it doesn’t seem like either of us will get the other to change their mind. Best to leave it there I guess.

See you're skewing things again. There is a huge difference between being the aggressor and attacking or defending yourself and you family, but you disregard that. You disregard the fact that I mentioned defending loved ones as I'm sure that's how Ukrainians feel. Instead point the finger over hypothetical situation and something that will possibly never occur as some exclusive Russian train of thought. What Father wouldn't protect their children by any means?! 

And then you talk about the laws of war like everyone follows them which is complete nonsense. UK forces have also been found to carry out the torture of POW's during recent conflicts or kill unnecessarily. Afghanistan or Iraq Countries we really had no argument with or should never have entered but for idiot politicians in government during them periods. 

Don't forget about the allied bombing of German cities during WW2 using incendiary bombs to turn them into a furnaces. You missed that atrocity bit, maybe not as callous as the Japanese methods or Nazi's against the Jews but still indiscriminate and killing many innocent civilians. Or what about the US dropping nukes on Japanese cities. Don't talk to me about ethical limits when you completely disregard facts like Western governments are all about doing the right thing.  

At the end of the day only monsters crave war but you believe what you will and live in your little fantasy land whereby everyone respects rules of engagement during conflicts and everyone else is just barbaric. Even those defending themselves however they can. 

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, avfc1982am said:

See you're skewing things again. There is a huge difference between being the aggressor and attacking or defending yourself and you family, but you disregard that. You disregard the fact that I mentioned defending loved ones as I'm sure that's how Ukrainians feel. Instead point the finger over hypothetical situation and something that will possibly never occur as some exclusive Russian train of thought. What Father wouldn't protect their children by any means?! 

And then you talk about the laws of war like everyone follows them which is complete nonsense. UK forces have also been found to carry out the torture of POW's during recent conflicts or kill unnecessarily. Afghanistan or Iraq Countries we really had no argument with or should never have entered but for idiot politicians in government during them periods. 

Don't forget about the allied bombing of German cities during WW2 using incendiary bombs to turn them into a furnaces. You missed that atrocity bit, maybe not as callous as the Japanese methods or Nazi's against the Jews but still indiscriminate and killing many innocent civilians. Or what about the US dropping nukes on Japanese cities. Don't talk to me about ethical limits when you completely disregard facts like Western governments are all about doing the right thing.  

At the end of the day only monsters crave war but you believe what you will and live in your little fantasy land whereby everyone respects rules of engagement during conflicts and everyone else is just barbaric. Even those defending themselves however they can. 

I left out the distinction you're drawing between aggressor and defender because I don't think it means anything in practice.

Wars don't happen in a vaccuum. Even the aggressor usually has a rationale for the war, and on the rare occasions they don't, once the bombs and bullets start flying it doesn't really matter what started the war - from that point on soldiers on both sides genuinely are fighting to protect their friends / loved ones / country. So I don't think you can say it's fine to break the rules of war if you're defending something, because everyone always thinks they're defending something, even when they're doing it by attacking another country.

Yes, British soldiers during recent conflicts have been found to torture or kill POWs. I don't understand why you bring this up, because surely under your logic they should be given medals rather than put on trial? I'm sure they felt they were out in the desert doing their bit to keep their country and families safe, which according to your previous post means they shouldn't have to care about the Geneva Convention and nor should we?

It's the same point with the WW2 Britain / Japan comparison. Britain would have acted just as brutally as Japan if everyone had your mindset, as say experimentation on POWs (google Unit 731) would have helped them win the war and so would have been justified. I'm aware of all the examples you gave; nonetheless Japan and Germany and the Soviet Union all committed far more atrocities than the US or Britain did.

[magnkarl]

13 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah. All of which boils down to you believing that as soon as someone’s family / country / way of life is threatened, they’re entitled to disregard the laws of war and do literally anything that might help them win that conflict.

Unfortunately there’s a lot of people in the world that think the same way as you. Plenty in Russia who believe the propaganda that NATO is a threat, for example, who are all too keen to “become medieval in their methods” and “become the darkest versions of themselves” to win the proxy war in Ukraine.

Anyway, no point going round in circles. I don’t think stuff like medieval barbarism is acceptable in any circumstances. Even in a major war of survival like WW2 there were ethical limits; the UK didn’t commit atrocities on the level of say the Japanese. Clearly you’ve got other opinions, and it doesn’t seem like either of us will get the other to change their mind. Best to leave it there I guess.

I don't agree with this at all. We were the winners and hence no one really talks about it, but we did commit some horrendous war crimes.

I.e.

Operation Gomorrah: The First of the Firestorms

Quote

During that year’s unusually dry and hot summer, RAF Bomber Command’s Air Marshal Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris determined the northern German city a worthy target. Planning to strike this center of industry, Harris ordered a 10-day-long campaign targeting the city, code-naming it Operation Gomorrah, a reference to the biblical rain of ruin and fire coming from above. Originally planned for July 22, the raid was delayed for two days due to cloud coverage; by the 24th, the skies had cleared. That evening, starting at approximately 10:00 p.m., 791 British bombers took off under cover of darkness. The air fleet was composed of British Lancaster, Stirling, Wellington, and Halifax bombers flying in six waves. Each wave had between 100 to 120 aircraft hoping to concentrate as much destruction as possible. 

Between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., 2,300 tons of bombs were dropped on the city, setting a new world record. Included in the aerial salvo were 8,000-pound “block busters” and 4,000-pound “cookies,” along with over 350,000 individual incendiary bombs. It was these incendiary bombs that caused much of the havoc. Eyewitnesses described the next few hours as filled with a continuing stream of explosions. Time stood still as people crammed into shelters with the mass of humanity shaking along with the structures’ concrete walls; with no lights, water, or food, the people who made it to safety could only wait. Most of the destruction was not from the explosions, but the ensuing fires.

The fire seemed to become a living entity, changing course at will, consuming everything in its path, and generating a heat that melted glass and cutlery and turned bricks to ash. For over four hours, the city burned. Charred bodies littered the landscape as only the facades of buildings remaining. While no definitive casualty number was recorded, some estimates place it near 40,000.

While maybe not as cruel as the Japanese war crimes, the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg in particular (and Caen), are diabolically nasty and evil examples of British war crimes. The Germans didn't even come near the level of destruction in our own cities. Harris probably should've been hanged. We were winning the war, yet resorted to carpet bombing 100.000 civilians to death using incendiary bombs on old Hanseatic wooden cities. Here's the note from bomber command to its bombers before they killed 25.000 civilians in Dresden:

Quote

Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas. At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance ... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.

Sorry, that was probably a tangent not suitable in this thread.

In relation to Ukraine, I think it's easy to be high and mighty about them using means like this thermite to defend themselves, but history shows that there aren't really any combatants that don't fall to this level of barbarity if they're desperate enough. I.e. our fight against ISIS where white phosphorus was used against civilians.

Edited September 6 by magnkarl

[avfc1982am]

13 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I left out the distinction you're drawing between aggressor and defender because I don't think it means anything in practice.

Wars don't happen in a vaccuum. Even the aggressor usually has a rationale for the war, and on the rare occasions they don't, once the bombs and bullets start flying it doesn't really matter what started the war - from that point on soldiers on both sides genuinely are fighting to protect their friends / loved ones / country. So I don't think you can say it's fine to break the rules of war if you're defending something, because everyone always thinks they're defending something, even when they're doing it by attacking another country.

Yes, British soldiers during recent conflicts have been found to torture or kill POWs. I don't understand why you bring this up, because surely under your logic they should be given medals rather than put on trial? I'm sure they felt they were out in the desert doing their bit to keep their country and families safe, which according to your previous post means they shouldn't have to care about the Geneva Convention and nor should we?

It's the same point with the WW2 Britain / Japan comparison. Britain would have acted just as brutally as Japan if everyone had your mindset, as say experimentation on POWs (google Unit 731) would have helped them win the war and so would have been justified. I'm aware of all the examples you gave; nonetheless Japan and Germany and the Soviet Union all committed far more atrocities than the US or Britain did.

Of course you wouldn't. 

It always matters who started the war or the chain of events that leads to murder or atrocities from one side or the other. Without the trigger being pulled in the first instance war doesn't exist. That's just a fact and to dismiss it by say it doesn't matter who started it once the bullets start flying is ridiculous. 

As for your accusation that any soldier committing torture or killing POW's would be awarded a medal by my logic, well I cannot recollect stating that was acceptable in any of my previous posts. What I've stated is Ukrainians should use any means they can to rid themselves of the Russian forces that are indiscriminately trying to exterminate them. Now you can divert from that and  act all self righteous saying they should fight within the rules of the Geneva Convention etc but I doubt Ukrainians involved in this war and defending their homeland give a shit what you or I think. They're just trying to survive this mess. 

 

 

 

 

[magnkarl]

Ukraine is innovating at a pace not seen since WW2.

 

[magnkarl]

Seems the Pokrovsk push has been stopped for now. Hopefully that was Russia culminating until the rains start. It could of course just be a pause.

[Anthony]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Ukraine is innovating at a pace not seen since WW2.

 

I do marvel at this. It must be insanely complicated to locate the spy drone in the first place. Then they have to get one of their hunter drones up there and get close to the spy drone. But there has to be a hunter drone nearby that is charged and has an operator. And then operator has to get close without being spotted. And it has to be done at speed. Very impressive work.

[magnkarl]

So the US has indicted two Russian nationals for hiring a bunch of right wing 'commentators' who have been spreading Russian propaganda for them for years.

Hope we do the same. George Galloway would be history.

DOJ alleges Russia funded US media company linked to right-wing social media stars

Quote

The alleged Russian operation tapped two people to set up the company in their names to add to its legitimacy and the two founders were aware Russian money backed the operation, according to the indictment.

The goal of the operation, according to prosecutors, was to fuel pro-Russian narratives, in part, by pushing content and news articles favoring Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and others who the Kremlin deemed to be friendlier to its interests.

Among the commentators listed on Tenet Media’s website are right-wing personalities Benny Johnson, Tim Pool and Dave Rubin. All have released statements saying they were victims of the alleged Russian scheme and they maintained editorial control of the content they created.

Lauren Southern, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, Turning Point USA, Tim Pool +++. Essentially the whole team that Elon has been promoting on his turd of a platform since he took over.

Same guy, once he figured out he will likely go to jail:

 

Edited September 6 by magnkarl

[Panto_Villan]

12 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I don't agree with this at all. We were the winners and hence no one really talks about it, but we did commit some horrendous war crimes.

I.e.

Operation Gomorrah: The First of the Firestorms

While maybe not as cruel as the Japanese war crimes, the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg in particular (and Caen), are diabolically nasty and evil examples of British war crimes. The Germans didn't even come near the level of destruction in our own cities. Harris probably should've been hanged. We were winning the war, yet resorted to carpet bombing 100.000 civilians to death using incendiary bombs on old Hanseatic wooden cities. Here's the note from bomber command to its bombers before they killed 25.000 civilians in Dresden:

Sorry, that was probably a tangent not suitable in this thread.

In relation to Ukraine, I think it's easy to be high and mighty about them using means like this thermite to defend themselves, but history shows that there aren't really any combatants that don't fall to this level of barbarity if they're desperate enough. I.e. our fight against ISIS where white phosphorus was used against civiliansa.

I’m not getting high and mighty about Ukraine dropping thermite on the Russians in the treeline. It’s not a war crime and I posted the excerpt from the Geneva Convention to prove it.

You can still fight very effectively within the rules. When was the last time you saw a Ukrainian complaining that they’d be winning the war if only they could commit more war crimes? 

Most of the stuff that’s outlawed by the convention that could give you an advantage is pretty dark stuff. Deliberately attacking ambulances and medical facilities. Disregarding civilian casualties entirely. Torturing and killing POWs. Using chemical weapons, etc. There’s no need to do any of it. Yet we have people in the thread who are “gobsmacked” that anyone might expect Ukraine not to do those things.

As for the tangent, yes, Britain did firebomb various German cities but it’s hardly Unit 731 or the Rape of Nanjing or the Holocaust etc. Obviously still horrific but you can even read from the note you posted that the attacks were done with largely military intentions (i.e. to weaken the military by attacking civilians) which isn’t the case for the other atrocities, plus it killed fewer people too.

So given my statement was that Britain didn’t commit atrocities on the level of the Japanese, I really don’t see anything you posted as contradicting that.

Edited September 6 by Panto_Villan

[Panto_Villan]

10 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

Of course you wouldn't. 

It always matters who started the war or the chain of events that leads to murder or atrocities from one side or the other. Without the trigger being pulled in the first instance war doesn't exist. That's just a fact and to dismiss it by say it doesn't matter who started it once the bullets start flying is ridiculous. 

As for your accusation that any soldier committing torture or killing POW's would be awarded a medal by my logic, well I cannot recollect stating that was acceptable in any of my previous posts. What I've stated is Ukrainians should use any means they can to rid themselves of the Russian forces that are indiscriminately trying to exterminate them. Now you can divert from that and  act all self righteous saying they should fight within the rules of the Geneva Convention etc but I doubt Ukrainians involved in this war and defending their homeland give a shit what you or I think. They're just trying to survive this mess. 

If we’re talking realpolitik - the Ukrainians absolutely should fight within the Geneva Convention because they’ve been told by the US that they won’t get any more military support if they don’t. That should be reason enough for people to care about them sticking to it tbh.

As for the ethics of it - to clarify my point, the reason why there’s no exceptions written into the rules of war is because war is a high-stakes game and everyone would believe the exceptions should apply to them too, so if you’re arguing for Ukraine to be allowed to disregard the laws of war then it means everyone else will too. The world would be a worse place, and there’d be no reason to, say, prosecute UK troops torturing POWs.

That’s why the US has made aid conditional on Ukraine playing by the rules, even though Russia clearly isn’t doing so. I think that’s the correct decision, personally. Hopefully that makes my point clearer. If you still disagree, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Xann]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=russian+media+monitor&sp=EgIIAw%3D%3D