Ukraine

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST, I thought you had the wherewithal to work that out? Okay then, let's pick thru your drivel...

Russian supporting left. Can you be specific? I've continuously made myself clear on that both personally and re your generalisations/rhetoric.

Russia's strategic interests. I've no doubt Russia has been itching to take a portion of Ukraine. NATO, the US, etc handed them the excuse on a  plate. I doubt they'll want more than what I've suggested a few times, though the longer the US etc spin this episode out, the larger that will be. As for other countries? I doubt that, at least in the near, medium future. Maybe you can back up your version of the future?

Their artillery is predominantly focused on destroying Ukraine military, as well as some infrastructure that weakens whatever is left of Ukraine. You seem to be focused on just destruction. Maybe you can clarify what you mean be this esp given that there is a war on. And maybe you know why Ukraine hits civilian targets as it retreats?

NATO etc the real baddies. Well, again, I have spelt out my feelings about this several times. To hold your hand through this I can repeat, but then you choose to ignore what I've said so what's the point?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right let's take these one at a time.

Russian supporting Left. I'm happy to accept that your not on the far Left, because you have many similarities with folk on the far Right. What I'm not accepting is that you have magically transcended political alignment. You might not consider yourself to be at the place where far Left meets far Right, but you exhibit all the symptoms of it. So, in the absence of any contrary information, that's where you sit for me.

"Russian supporting". Your regular regurgitation of information from Russian propaganda sources leaves me with little other conclusion to draw
 The most egregious recent example was when Russia lobbed two 1000kg anti-ship missiles into a supermarket and the side of a public park 300 miles from the front.

You went through the full gamut of Russian propaganda responses.

1) It might be anti-Russian propaganda.
2) It might be a false flag.
3) It might have been aimed at a military target.
4) What about Ukraine?

1-3 were all demonstrably false. But they were precisely what Russian trolls were pushing. And you pushed them hard.

And I know your line. "Ooh! Ooh! I only said "might"." Which of course is exactly how the best  propaganda works. You blow smoke all over the scene but give yourself an out.

Course, if you were REALLY acting in good faith, when it was clear that your "mights" were all wrong, you'd go back and hold your hand up and say "Yes I agree, it was a shockingly reckless terrorist attack by a gangster state."

But you don't. You push the fourth point "What about Ukraine?" even harder.

So go on. Give me an example of Ukrain chucking 1000kg anti ship missiles into residential areas of towns hundreds of miles from the front.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Right let's take these one at a time.

Russian supporting Left. I'm happy to accept that your not on the far Left, because you have many similarities with folk on the far Right. What I'm not accepting is that you have magically transcended political alignment. You might not consider yourself to be at the place where far Left meets far Right, but you exhibit all the symptoms of it. So, in the absence of any contrary information, that's where you sit for me.

"Russian supporting". Your regular regurgitation of information from Russian propaganda sources leaves me with little other conclusion to draw
 The most egregious recent example was when Russia lobbed two 1000kg anti-ship missiles into a supermarket and the side of a public park 300 miles from the front.

You went through the full gamut of Russian propaganda responses.

1) It might be anti-Russian propaganda.
2) It might be a false flag.
3) It might have been aimed at a military target.
4) What about Ukraine?

1-3 were all demonstrably false. But they were precisely what Russian trolls were pushing. And you pushed them hard.

And I know your line. "Ooh! Ooh! I only said "might"." Which of course is exactly how the best  propaganda works. You blow smoke all over the scene but give yourself an out.

Course, if you were REALLY acting in good faith, when it was clear that your "mights" were all wrong, you'd go back and hold your hand up and say "Yes I agree, it was a shockingly reckless terrorist attack by a gangster state."

But you don't. You push the fourth point "What about Ukraine?" even harder.

So go on. Give me an example of Ukrain chucking 1000kg anti ship missiles into residential areas of towns hundreds of miles from the front.

Cherry picked reply from you, as per. You know what you ignored, intentionally.

Yes, I gave the info about the supermarket as you and others here said it was an intentional attack on civilians - which you repeated above. I gave other posibilities, including the military target which appears to be accurate. I also clarified it was not a hit on the supermarket. And you still believe that Ukraine having weapons stores in civilian areas is okay. Nuts. I am also aware Russia has some stores in civilian areas. They are both guilty here. But you only see one set of baddies.

As for your ignoring of my point re NATO/US, it appears you are an imperialist, which is weird given your comdemnation of the Iraq (and Libya??) crimes. Both Russia and the US, UK etc etc, are doing exactly the same, albeit in slightly different ways. They are all imperialist, run by the wealthy, stealing from ordinary people to give to the wealthy including creating wars to enhance all that.

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Where the left meets the right etc etc - just in that nonsense, you are yourself saying how the left right idea is gone. Let it go, enter the century we are in. This is, and always was, about people not being slaves. And on the other hand, about groups of elite managing their slaves in the best way possible. Like Rome turned from military to religion and milked the people more effectively, the West is predominantly a culture of paliating the masses with bullshit democracy, sports, drugs, consumerism and the classic divide and rule - and in that last one, you sit playing their game for them with your left v right.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.

I didn't say it was an intentional hit on  the supermarket.

It couldn't be an intentional hit on a target of that size, because those missiles aren't capable of being aimed that accurately. Which destroys any argument that they were targeting a military facility. Although once again, like the Russian propaganda bots, you throw that in. And you follow it up with your "Ukraine...military stores... civilians" which has precisely zero to do with this issue.

All that is why I say you are a Russian propaganda stooge.

By the way, I said the missile was a reckless attack on a civilian area. Which it was. Utterly unsupportable. Unless you're inventing reasons to support it.

And it WAS a direct hit on the supermarket. Not deliberate, because it couldn't be. Reckless. Your photo wasn't enough to ascertain the exact detonation point, but I've figured it out for myself from the CCTV video. Bellingcat came to a similar conclusion.

But you'll continue believing your own alternative truth.

[SydneyRover]

''Bellingcat is Banned in Russia. Here’s How to Beat the Block''

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2022/04/22/how-to-beat-russias-block-on-bellingcat/

you could pass this on to your neighbour BRR

[Bristol Red Rover]

''Bellingcat is Banned in Russia. Here’s How to Beat the Block''

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2022/04/22/how-to-beat-russias-block-on-bellingcat/

you could pass this on to your neighbour BRR

What crass prejudice. You're one sicko.

[SydneyRover]

''Bellingcat is Banned in Russia. Here’s How to Beat the Block''

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2022/04/22/how-to-beat-russias-block-on-bellingcat/

you could pass this on to your neighbour BRR

What crass prejudice. You're one sicko.

has she asked you to send her money yet?

[Dutch Uncle]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

[Bristol Red Rover]

''Bellingcat is Banned in Russia. Here’s How to Beat the Block''

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2022/04/22/how-to-beat-russias-block-on-bellingcat/

you could pass this on to your neighbour BRR

What crass prejudice. You're one sicko.

has she asked you to send her money yet?

wtf are you talking about? Way too many fosters going on? Smoking Platypus dung? Whatever it is, do one.

[Bristol Red Rover]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BRR.

I didn't say it was an intentional hit on  the supermarket.

It couldn't be an intentional hit on a target of that size, because those missiles aren't capable of being aimed that accurately. Which destroys any argument that they were targeting a military facility. Although once again, like the Russian propaganda bots, you throw that in. And you follow it up with your "Ukraine...military stores... civilians" which has precisely zero to do with this issue.

All that is why I say you are a Russian propaganda stooge.

By the way, I said the missile was a reckless attack on a civilian area. Which it was. Utterly unsupportable. Unless you're inventing reasons to support it.

And it WAS a direct hit on the supermarket. Not deliberate, because it couldn't be. Reckless. Your photo wasn't enough to ascertain the exact detonation point, but I've figured it out for myself from the CCTV video. Bellingcat came to a similar conclusion.

But you'll continue believing your own alternative truth.

Oh dear.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BRR.

As engaged with the facts as ever.

Do you want to know why your insistence on where the impact point was of the missile at the supermarket?

Two reasons.

1) Bellingcat point out with geolocations and assessment of the field of view of the CCTV footage of the missile strike that the detonation point had to be within the perimeter of the supermarket.

Scroll down about halfway here. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/06/29/russias-kremenchuk-claims-versus-the-evidence/

In fact, no, don't scroll down. Read the whole article. see how it systematically demolishes the very arguments you've put up in here (which bear remarkable  similarity to Russian propaganda ops).

2) My own analysis. Simple enough really for anyone scientifically trained. A quick and dirty analysis  of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPZ_Zl-2l78

he point at which you insisted the missile struck is 115m from the CCTV camera that recorded the footage. You can clearly see on the CCTV camera footage, the time of detonation and the arrival of the shock wave at the camera. There's a delay of 9 frames and both the metadata of the YT video, and counting the frames per second on the CCTV digital clock show that the video was captured at 25 frames per second.

So the time lag from detonation to the blast wave arriving at the CCTV camera is 0.36s. Which implies an average blast wave speed of 115m/0.36s = 314m/s.

But this is slower than the speed of sound in air (~340m/s). And blast waves always travel FASTER than the normal speed of sound in air. So the only conclusion is that the detonation didn't happen at the point where you insisted it did. It was further away than that, and along a different line - if it had been by the rail track, it would have obscured that yellow facade of the supermarket as the Bellingcat analysis shows.

I wonder whose interests it was in to spread the lie that the detonation was on the rail track, not on the supermarket itself? The lie that you have gullibly repeated multiple times.

[Dutch Uncle]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

I will let everyone judge for themselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations

In principle I would like to think that Ukraine would not be handled differently from any other sovereign nation w.r.t accession. Quite how pro-active that is and whether it is reasonable or excessive will be a matter of opinion. IMHO NATO would not be pro-active to any nation not wishing to join, it would not actively 'recruit'. Quite how pro-active to be once interest is declared should be the same (cf Sweden, Finland). 

Any Nation wanting peace should not fear NATO.

[Bristol Red Rover]

BST, I'll get back to your cherry picked replies fully when I have time, meanwhile it'll be interesting to see how the accurate the HIMARS are. Reportedly being successful at hitting warehouses and command posts, though also killing a great many civilians too. So now maybe even Stevens in that way.

Russians are targeting the HIMARS, obviously, reportedly a number destroyed. The next week or so should give some proof to the puddings either way.

More interesting is what Ukraine does next. It is evidently on a steady losing streak in the North East. Russians giving more action in the Kharkiv area. Ukraine may not be able to do too much there, but are reportedly going to start on the south west area. Will they be successful?

[SydneyRover]

I suggest ignoring brr and let him play soldiers in his own little world

[drfchound]

New moderator?

[Colin C No.3]

BST, I'll get back to your cherry picked replies fully when I have time, meanwhile it'll be interesting to see how the accurate the HIMARS are. Reportedly being successful at hitting warehouses and command posts, though also killing a great many civilians too. So now maybe even Stevens in that way.

Russians are targeting the HIMARS, obviously, reportedly a number destroyed. The next week or so should give some proof to the puddings either way.

More interesting is what Ukraine does next. It is evidently on a steady losing streak in the North East. Russians giving more action in the Kharkiv area. Ukraine may not be able to do too much there, but are reportedly going to start on the south west area. Will they be successful?

It’s a war not a soap.

[wilts rover]

BST, I'll get back to your cherry picked replies fully when I have time, meanwhile it'll be interesting to see how the accurate the HIMARS are. Reportedly being successful at hitting warehouses and command posts, though also killing a great many civilians too. So now maybe even Stevens in that way.

Russians are targeting the HIMARS, obviously, reportedly a number destroyed. The next week or so should give some proof to the puddings either way.

More interesting is what Ukraine does next. It is evidently on a steady losing streak in the North East. Russians giving more action in the Kharkiv area. Ukraine may not be able to do too much there, but are reportedly going to start on the south west area. Will they be successful?

What is success when your country has been invaded?

[wilts rover]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

I would always defer to DU on the running and organisational structure of NATO, he knoweth of which he speaks, but my answer to the question would be - No NATO country has ever been attacked.

[wilts rover]

Death toll rises to 15 following Russian missile attack on residential apartments in Chasiv Yar yesterday.

'A Janet & John version of the war'

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1546089036300812288

Not seen you mentioning Ukraine shelling of civilians, including the deaths of children. That's the point.

Ukraine hasn't invaded anywhere - it has been invaded by a fascist imperialist - that's the point.

Death toll from this attack now 43. It's 12 miles from the front line.

[Axholme Lion]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

I would always defer to DU on the running and organisational structure of NATO, he knoweth of which he speaks, but my answer to the question would be - No NATO country has ever been attacked.

Falkland Islands?

[glosterred]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

I would always defer to DU on the running and organisational structure of NATO, he knoweth of which he speaks, but my answer to the question would be - No NATO country has ever been attacked.

Falkland Islands?

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack

Too far south, NATO is only for the wealthy North apparently.

[wilts rover]

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack

Too far south, NATO is only for the wealthy North apparently.

The clue's in the name...

[Bristol Red Rover]

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack

Too far south, NATO is only for the wealthy North apparently.

The clue's in the name...

#blinkersbrigade

[Dutch Uncle]

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack

Too far south, NATO is only for the wealthy North apparently.

Official Text (bold my emphasis):

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 1

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

    on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
    on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.



Nothing to do with wealth, more that in 1949 NATO (as the name suggests) was set up for this geographical area, and to avoid any perceived power projection.

[Axholme Lion]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

I would always defer to DU on the running and organisational structure of NATO, he knoweth of which he speaks, but my answer to the question would be - No NATO country has ever been attacked.

Falkland Islands?

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack.

It's British territory.

So who attacked the US on 911. As far as i can see no nation state was responsible.

[Colin C No.3]

Afghanistan, via Bin Laden, via Al Queda, via the Taliban.

[glosterred]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

I would always defer to DU on the running and organisational structure of NATO, he knoweth of which he speaks, but my answer to the question would be - No NATO country has ever been attacked.

Falkland Islands?

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack.

It's British territory.

So who attacked the US on 911. As far as i can see no nation state was responsible.

It’s a British Overseas Territory, not covered by NATO, see the answer by DU which explains it far better than I can

[BillyStubbsTears]

NATO may be all about protection and defence, but it is purely a glossy shop front for the imperialist countries that sponsor it. How anyone, including DU, cannot see that is beyond me.

Maybe 35 years of experience of (among other things) the contracting side of NATO, the bidding process for common funding projects, and how difficult it is for any large company to have any influence or sway?

However I have no experience of how large companies can or can't influence large contracts with individual NATO member nations.

Please keep the distinction clear between NATO the international body, and the individual nations who are free to contract anything they want through their own procedures and their own national funding outside of NATO common funding.   

I will absolutely stand by NATO, the international organisation, as a peace oriented body, and disagree profoundly with your description.

I guess we will always differ here. But tell me how has NATO encouraging Ukraine to join has contributed to peace and saving lives.

I would always defer to DU on the running and organisational structure of NATO, he knoweth of which he speaks, but my answer to the question would be - No NATO country has ever been attacked.

Falkland Islands?

Didn’t realise that the FI were part of the NATO. The only country to activate article 5 of the NATO treaty would be America after 9/11 attack.

It's British territory.

So who attacked the US on 911. As far as i can see no nation state was responsible.

Article 5 doesn't say anything about an attack being by a nation state.

Here's a thought! Why don't you go and read it?