Putin's invasion of Ukraine

billvon said:
Well, right. But artillery officers aren't idiots; they know the accuracy of their weapons. If they fire it towards an area that includes a train station, they know that they might hit it.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure. I'm not suggesting they are innocent of all and any wrongdoing, only that they probably didn't deliberately target civilians, as seems to be implied by some outlets. There is a difference between deliberately targeting, and not caring too much if they hit. I'm not sure the victims could care for the difference, though, but that doesn't mean the difference should be ignored.
 
foghorn said:
How do you explain all those ripped open tower blocks in the cities?
Click to expand...
I don't. I'm only suggesting that in this particular case the evidence is of a notoriously inacurate weapon hitting a packed train station, and that perhaps the civilians were not the target. Or at least one can not simply assume that they were.
Had the weapon had a history of accuracy then there would be less doubt.
That's all.
Sometimes accidents aren't recognised as such because of everything else that is going on. The Russian's refusal to take ownership, deliberate or otherwise, certainly doesn't help matters.
 
Sarkus said:
There is a difference between deliberately targeting, and not caring too much if they hit.
Click to expand...
I agree. And had this been a guided weapon that malfunctioned, I would agree that this was more of a casualty of war than a deliberate attack on civilians.

But firing an unguided ballistic missile (if that's indeed what this was) towards an area that includes civilians - that IS a deliberate attack on civilians. It doesn't matter that they wished that it had hit a military target. The fact that it was no more likely to hit the military target as hit civilians means that they can't use that excuse.
 
Sarkus said:
I don't. I'm only suggesting that in this particular case the evidence is of a notoriously inacurate weapon hitting a packed train station, and that perhaps the civilians were not the target. Or at least one can not simply assume that they were.
Had the weapon had a history of accuracy then there would be less doubt.
That's all.
Sometimes accidents aren't recognised as such because of everything else that is going on. The Russian's refusal to take ownership, deliberate or otherwise, certainly doesn't help matters.
Click to expand...
If you put this all in the context of all the other atrocities against civilians so far seen , then it would be fair to say that it was most likely deliberate and condoned. IMO
There appears to be a policy of attacking civilians generally and claiming the human shield excuse in place. Terrorizing the population is a typical Putin strategy.

Of course as with the BUK missile hit on flight MH17 (2014), it is a bugger to prove Russian culpability.
 
Last edited:
no doubt the race will be on
occupying Russian military wants humans shields to prevent retaliation strikes from ukranians

Russia will want to grab as much of their key objectives as possible before all their foreign income gets turned off & they run out of money.

the Russians probably want to kill civilians in revenge for the poison alcohol they drank
Russian commands fault for having no supply's of food and drink and lack of discipline from overt totalitarian military systems.

the only soldiers on the front line thinking for themselves will be the serial killers and rapists
 
Russia is no longer deploy Russian troops. They have invited many mercenaries who wish to fight in their cause .
mercenaries are notorious for ignoring the rules.

Russia poised to deploy up to 1,000 more mercenaries to Ukraine as official warns Moscow could 'bombard cities into submission'
By Natasha Bertrand, Oren Liebermann and Barbara Starr, CNN
Updated 9:35 PM ET, Fri March 4, 202

There are no serial "accidents" in war. The object here is to erase the local population, not displace them, lest they become civilian resistance. They are using mercenaries to get Russian "deniability".

"They did it"!

It has precedent in NAZI Germany more blatantly, where Arien Germans engaged in genocide against Jewish Germans in the "final solution".

Note that the term NAZI is being bandied around freely and often.
 
Write4U said:
Sorry: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/world/russia-mercenaries-ukraine/index.html
Click to expand...

because it has gone soo terribly wrong for them
i expect they are calling up people who served in Afghanistan who had probably retired.
i doubt they can do much more with the same level of ability
which is probably why they want raider style units hitting deep
that wont solve their supply or command problems & it appears like command have ordered strikes on civilian targets
or lost command.

they need to have the grain regions producing to feed their own people.
i think they may have over looked that reality
because by the time the 2nd round of sanctions start to cut off their fossil fuel revenue, they will be in a food shortage

maybe they have decided they will starve their own people already
their next winter is getting harder the longer the war goes on.
 
RainbowSingularity said:
because it has gone soo terribly wrong for them
i expect they are calling up people who served in Afghanistan who had probably retired.
i doubt they can do much more with the same level of ability
which is probably why they want raider style units hitting deep
that wont solve their supply or command problems & it appears like command have ordered strikes on civilian targets
or lost command.
Click to expand...
I guess it may be a choice between body bags with mercs or body bags with regular troops...body bags with regular troops are harder to deal with. (politically)
 
Will the fuel payments still being paid by Europe to Russia, allow Putin to manufacture or buy more weapons quicker or slower than the supply of arms to Ukraine from Europe and US?
 
Last edited:
foghorn said:
Will the fuel payments still being paid by Europe to Russia, allow Putin to manufacture or buy more weapons quicker or slower than the supply of arms to Ukraine from Europe and US?
Click to expand...
The EU paid c.$130 bn to Russia for energy in 2021. That compares to Russia's GDP of c.$1,700 bn. Bear in mind, though, that just because their GDP would drop as a result, there's no link per se between that income from the EU and their ability to purchase/manufacture weapons. So I would say that while it will hurt their overall economy, and thus put pressure on those at the top, Russia will still likely source all the weapons it feels it needs, and likely at the same speed whether the EU use Russian energy or not.
Russia would also be more willing to put their country on a war-footing, i.e. directing private enterprises to produce specifically for the war effort. They can redirect funds, food, energy etc to the war at the expense of people, if they need to.
So in the short-term, I can't see stopping the EU payments (by stopping energy imports from Russia) having any practical impact on Russia's war capabilities. It would, of course, have significant long-term effects.
 
Nato provides Ukraine more weapon so that more people will die.
Eventually self destruction to Ukraine.
And more Russians die too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top