Ukraine

[belton rover]

I have pretty well withdrawn from this thread. I find myself dumbfounded by the sheer illogocality, willfull blindness, claptrap uttering, evidence lacking filth and wild generalisartions of certain right wingers on this thread. Yes Axholme. Amongst others, that's you.  Liberty has its limits - which is where I disagree with Wilts. Yes Axholme has shown the truly awful nature of his personality. But the poison he utters is on a par with preaching terrorism  - which this country has banned.  Go much further Axholme and I will report you to the responsible people. I do know them by the way,

BobG

Bobby G. That is a very serious accusation. If you think someone is preaching terrorism, you have a duty to report it, rather than procrastinating and telling everyone you ‘know people’.

[drfchound]

Belton, I bet AL won’t sleep at night, worrying about the knock o; the door late one night.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST, are you denying Ukraine has shelled civilian areas? Are you confident that the burning of civilians in Odessa has nothing to do with Ukraine pro western politicians, US agents (I'm using agents specifically meaning those officials who have been engaging in Ukraine and encouraging the pro NATO and pro EU demos). Are you confident that Ukraine troops haven't been firing mnes into civilian areas? Are you confident that Ukraine doesn't position troops and heavy weaponry adjacent to civilian buildings including hospitals? I could add much more.

[idler]

BRR the Ukrainians should surely be able to stockpile munitions and weapons wherever they want on their own territory.
They are defending their homeland. Any Russian military personnel dying in the Ukraine are invaders and at the very least trespassing on foreign territory.
Every country should have the right to defend itself surely?

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR the Ukrainians should surely be able to stockpile munitions and weapons wherever they want on their own territory.
They are defending their homeland. Any Russian military personnel dying in the Ukraine are invaders and at the very least trespassing on foreign territory.
Every country should have the right to defend itself surely?

If they're putting it next to civilians, that is a crime. It becomes a target, obviously.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR.
1) .... For the record, I have seen evidence of Ukranian troops killing captured Russian prisoners. I did and do condemn that unreservedly. It's a war crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIfMK0xBrJQ

[Bristol Red Rover]

2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN"  outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."

3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime.

4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word.
"Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."

By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTc

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR.
1) If you have credible evidence of Ukrainian soldiers raping and killing Russian civilians, post it instead of doing what you usually do - your Trump-esque thing of "A lot of people are saying both sides are doing it.".....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat6JWKp1kw

[Bristol Red Rover]

5) If you know of evidence that there are military targets being hidden in civilian areas, post it. If you don't, have some self respect and stop playing the Useful Idiot on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rhidUyObE

Actually human shields, which is worse.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR the Ukrainians should surely be able to stockpile munitions and weapons wherever they want on their own territory.
They are defending their homeland. Any Russian military personnel dying in the Ukraine are invaders and at the very least trespassing on foreign territory.
Every country should have the right to defend itself surely?

If they're putting it next to civilians, that is a crime. It becomes a target, obviously.

Lotta people saying that...

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.
1) If you have credible evidence of Ukrainian soldiers raping and killing Russian civilians, post it instead of doing what you usually do - your Trump-esque thing of "A lot of people are saying both sides are doing it.".....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat6JWKp1kw

Credible evidence? Honestly? You call that credible evidence?

[BillyStubbsTears]

5) If you know of evidence that there are military targets being hidden in civilian areas, post it. If you don't, have some self respect and stop playing the Useful Idiot on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rhidUyObE

Actually human shields, which is worse.

Let me get this right. They've just been released from being held hostage in a steel works. And all of them are spotlessly clean with combed hair and bright, fresh clothes on?

[BillyStubbsTears]

2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN"  outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."

3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime.

4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word.
"Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."

By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTc

Assuming the validity of that, it's horrible. Truly.

I've never questioned that horrific things have gone on in the Donbas after 2014 when Russia fiirst invaded. I think there is evidence of war crimes committed by both sides. That is pretty much inevitable in any conflict where the front line is in urban areas.

What there is no evidence of, is indiscriminate lobbing of 1000kg anti-tank missiles into populated areas hundreds of miles from the front.

Neither is there evidence of systematic obliteration of large urban regions by Ukrainian bombardment.

[wilts rover]

And anti-ship missiles. That is, missiles that have not been designed for and are not precise enough to be used for land targets never mind (supposed) land targets near a shopping centre.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sorry. I meant anti-ship missiles. My mistake.

[Bristol Red Rover]

5) If you know of evidence that there are military targets being hidden in civilian areas, post it. If you don't, have some self respect and stop playing the Useful Idiot on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rhidUyObE

Actually human shields, which is worse.

Let me get this right. They've just been released from being held hostage in a steel works. And all of them are spotlessly clean with combed hair and bright, fresh clothes on?

Quite probably not immediately after their release.

[Bristol Red Rover]

2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN"  outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."

3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime.

4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word.
"Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."

By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTc

Assuming the validity of that, it's horrible. Truly.

I've never questioned that horrific things have gone on in the Donbas after 2014 when Russia fiirst invaded. I think there is evidence of war crimes committed by both sides. That is pretty much inevitable in any conflict where the front line is in urban areas.

What there is no evidence of, is indiscriminate lobbing of 1000kg anti-tank missiles into populated areas hundreds of miles from the front.

Neither is there evidence of systematic obliteration of large urban regions by Ukrainian bombardment.

It does seems from many vids and reports that Ukraine is hitting back including at civilian targets as they retreat.

And then this
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/least-three-killed-blasts-russias-belgorod-near-ukraine-border-local-governor-2022-07-03/

[glosterred]

2) Amnesty International have today accused Russia of deliberately targeting the Mariupol theatre. That targeting was possible because they had air superiority. The theatre was hit with two separate 500kg air drop bombs, despite the sheltering civilians having written (I'm Russian) "CHILDREN"  outside in huge letters precisely to indicate that it should not be a target. If you have evidence that contradicts the Amnesty report, post it. And "evidence" doesn't mean "someone on Telegram said maybe..."

3) In areas where Russia does not have air superiority, they have routinely attacked with unguided or poorly guided rockets and missiles. Doing that in densely populated areas is a war crime.

4).....This from the Human Rights Watch body, about the Geneva Convention's definition of the word.
"Under international humanitarian law, attacks that are not, or as a result of the method of attack cannot, be aimed at military targets, are considered "indiscriminate." They are prohibited under Protocol I and, under the same treaty, constitute war crimes."

By no means imaginable can a KH22 missile be orecisely aimed at a specific target in an urban area. Either in principle (because the 50 year old guidance technology was intended to get the missile to the general vicinity of a big target while carrying a thermonuclear warhead) or in practice, as we have seen this week. Launching that at a civilian area (even if, as you do, you believe the Russian propaganda that the intended target was military) and then killing civilians IS a war crime. It is the very definition of an indiscriminate attack under the Geneva Convention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOfWXBSKGTc

Assuming the validity of that, it's horrible. Truly.

I've never questioned that horrific things have gone on in the Donbas after 2014 when Russia fiirst invaded. I think there is evidence of war crimes committed by both sides. That is pretty much inevitable in any conflict where the front line is in urban areas.

What there is no evidence of, is indiscriminate lobbing of 1000kg anti-tank missiles into populated areas hundreds of miles from the front.

Neither is there evidence of systematic obliteration of large urban regions by Ukrainian bombardment.

It does seems from many vids and reports that Ukraine is hitting back including at civilian targets as they retreat.

And then this
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/least-three-killed-blasts-russias-belgorod-near-ukraine-border-local-governor-2022-07-03/

You realise that this was probably cause because it was intercepted by the Russian and the debris fell on its own citizens, just saying

[Bristol Red Rover]

You realise that this was probably cause because it was intercepted by the Russian and the debris fell on its own citizens, just saying

If you go with blithe one sided bias you may well choose to think that. If you look even in mainstream western media, you can see that is highly unlikely at best. Totally different scenarios.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10977415/At-three-killed-apparent-Ukrainian-airstrike-Russian-town-Putin-allies-demand-revenge.html

[SydneyRover]

bias, hmmmm

[Axholme Lion]

In my eyes collateral damage from an air and missile attack is always the fault and blame of the attacker who has caused the situation by choosing a target where this is possible. Even if the damage was technically caused by debris from air defence missiles or targets these defence missiles had hit, the attacker is fully to blame. BTW I am no expert but the pictures of the apartment block I have seen look more like damage from an explosion than being hit by debris.

Compare that with NATO's first ever offensive mission against Bosnian Serb air defences in which the Theatre Air Commander personally vetted all targets on a daily basis to make sure there was no chance of collateral damage.

Source: 'Deliberate Force, an Air Study in Air Campaigning' by Col Robert C Owen (which backs up my personal experience as part of an after action Lessons Learned team)

Putin and his Commanders have at best taken no account whatsoever of civilian casualties on regularly repeated occasions (Theatres, Churches, Schools, Hospitals, Supermarkets.......), and at worst are deliberately targeting them which is a war crime pure and simple. 

I meant to get back to this. It was around 500 civilians killed by NATO air strikes in Serbia?

If so, that would be 1/16th the number that Mladic's Serb-backed butchers massacred in a couple of days in Srebrenica. If the NATO action did anything to prevent a repeat, it was justified.

RUBBISH. WTF was Serbia any business of NATO? NATO is clearly a tool in the west and international big business to shape the world in their desired shape. SCUM.

Axholme, I am sure you are completely aware that I find your post offensive and would simply like to ask specifically who within NATO are you calling scum. Is it:

•   The politicians who make all the decisions to either accept a NATO new member, launch any NATO operation, define new strategic concepts etc

•   The current military staff serving under a current rotation at a NATO establishment or Headquarters who direct an operation authorized by the politicians according to their guidance

•   The permanent staff (many civilians, international civil servants if you like)

•   All of the above   

If the first then you are calling scum every political leader of each NATO nation including the US and the UK, but also Norway, Denmark, Greece, France, Canada, Germany, Poland just to name a very few. The operation referred to in my post was in 1995 when John Major was PM, was authorised by a United Nations Security Council Resolution (are you calling them scum as well). The operation had next to no collateral damage, ended the war in Bosnia, lead to peace and Mladic and Karadzic being found guilty of war crimes (remember Srebenica?). The operation in 1999 (which I was not referring to originally) was launched when Tony Blair was PM, did cause ca 500 deaths by collateral damage which is indeed bad, but can claim to have saved many more lives than that.

If your answer is the second then these are people who followed strict guidelines.

If your answer is 3 or 4 then I am personally being attacked. I think it likely you know very little indeed about my work, but in my 35 years civilian service I always questioned my role and the role of NATO.  Throughout I was always convinced NATO was trying to establish and protect peace. I am proud to have done a tiny amount and am honoured to have met some wonderful people who truly have made a difference.   

The two operations above are the only offensive ones ever undertaken by NATO – NATO refused to enter operations in Iraq, and was involved as a peace-keeping force in Afghanistan (the initial ISAF force was an ad-hoc coalition, not NATO). In Libya NATO was responsible for the no-fly zone, but it was the US who unilaterally launched the air strikes. NATO was asked to take over so that strikes could be vetoed (from wiki):

24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest, allowing Turkey to veto strikes on Gaddafi ground forces from that point forward.[76] Later reports stated that NATO would take over enforcement of the no-fly zone and the arms embargo, but discussions were still under way about whether NATO would take over the protection of civilians mission. Turkey reportedly wanted the power to veto airstrikes, while France wanted to prevent Turkey from having such a veto.[77][78]

This is one example of the fact of all NATO nations having to agree an operation or allow accession to a new member (like Sweden & Finland today) means it is a difficult organization for any one nation (particularly the US) to high-jack. Indeed NATO has on occasions refused some aggressive proposals (e.g first Gulf War).  Other operations seem to be quickly forgotten such as Humanitarian Relief to Pakistan after an earthquake.

With regards to NATO expansion, not one single nation has been asked to join NATO, it is by request and every single nation concerned has positively wanted this. In my time (I retired more than a decade ago) expansion was never an objective of NATO.

That is the reality I experienced from the inside for 35 years and you now seem to be calling me and my colleagues scum.

None of this is remotely comparable with the brutal actions of Russia in Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol, and as it looks like many more cities to come.

I hope you read this sufficiently carefully and can decide that your comment may have been founded on insufficient information and knowledge.

The political 'leaders' of the west who wish to shape the world in their own desired shape. If other areas of the world wanted our so called democracy then the people of those regions would have it.

[Axholme Lion]

I am against all power blocks, EU, NATO, USA... they all lead to trouble in the end. IMO they are all driven and controlled by multinational big business who only wish for bigger markets and more profits. The people of all nations are pawns in their games.
Did the U.S. care about Vietnam? No, but they bombed the shit out of it just to prove a point. Western democracy?

[Axholme Lion]

There you go. New avatar, is everyone happy now???

[wilts rover]

There you go. New avatar, is everyone happy now???

Love it comrade. Looking forward to you promoting communism on other political threads too.

[Axholme Lion]

There you go. New avatar, is everyone happy now???

Love it comrade. Looking forward to you promoting communism on other political threads too.

No problem. Enver Hoxha was a top man.

[Dutch Uncle]

I am against all power blocks, EU, NATO, USA... they all lead to trouble in the end. IMO they are all driven and controlled by multinational big business who only wish for bigger markets and more profits. The people of all nations are pawns in their games.
Did the U.S. care about Vietnam? No, but they bombed the shit out of it just to prove a point. Western democracy?

Axholme – I am certainly not going to defend the USA for a number of things it has done since WW2. However as I have said before, in my opinion, formed from 35 years direct experience, NATO has often proven an effective restraining mechanism against initiating aggressive force through the simple fact that a unanimous vote of all member nations is required. Vetoes have prevented the US from launching operations under the NATO flag.

One Powerblock you omit to mention (or 2 depending on how you look at it) is the Soviet Union/Russian Federation. In the days of the Soviet Union a supposedly equivalent organization to NATO was the WTO/WP (Warsaw Treaty Organisation or Warsaw Pact). Unlike NATO the member nations (Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and East Germany) had no such power to stop Soviet policy or decisions, indeed Hungary and Czechoslovakia were invaded by the Soviet Union when they showed dissidence.

I am also not going to argue about the evils of arms dealers and companies. IIRC in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s of the 25 major companies providing arms to the conflict, 23 were doing so to both sides. French industry continued for a while providing Exocet training to Argentinian forces during the Falklands conflict. However do these companies have sway over politicians? Yes, but any politician who goes so far as to launch offensive operations based only on increasing arms sales is totally corrupt, and I condemn outright. I can however see that if a nation is thinking of launching operations (e.g. UK Falklands) then an appraisal of what is feasible both in terms of current  capabilities and quickly acquired new ones might legitimately be taken into consideration (as far as the decision to launch was legitimate in the first place).

The EU does not play a significant military role but I accept the economic effect of coordinated sanctions from a financial trading powerblock can have an effect. However as has been pointed out earlier in this thread I also believe the EU has been remarkably successful in keeping Europe free from inter member-country wars (so e,g, Northern Ireland as an internal conflict does not count) by having everyone talking and knowing each other within the organization.           

[BillyStubbsTears]

Dutch.

Re: EU and peace. The way in which the anti-EU people blithely ignore this is very depressing. As the saying goes, those who don't know their history are fated to repeat it.

I've been reading the excellent "Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through" by the brilliant Duncan Weldon. It's about the last two centuries history of our economy. He gets it. He says about the founding of the EU, "the idea was to tie Germany and France in such a loving embrace that neither would be able to get a fist free to punch the other one."

[Axholme Lion]

Dutch.

Re: EU and peace. The way in which the anti-EU people blithely ignore this is very depressing. As the saying goes, those who don't know their history are fated to repeat it.

I've been reading the excellent "Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through" by the brilliant Duncan Weldon. It's about the last two centuries history of our economy. He gets it. He says about the founding of the EU, "the idea was to tie Germany and France in such a loving embrace that neither would be able to get a fist free to punch the other one."

But they're nothing to do with us are they? The French will always be second to Germany and they hate us because we've saved them from them twice.

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.

You reckon that military action between Germany and France wouldn't affect us?

[Axholme Lion]

AL.

You reckon that military action between Germany and France wouldn't affect us?

Well it's never going to happen is it? The French don't have the bottle for a fight and the Germans have been indoctrinated for the last seventy odd years.