Russia on Monday launched more missile barrages against Ukrainian energy infrastructure after it said Ukraine launched a drone attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea.
According to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, the strikes targeted 10 regions across Ukraine and damaged 18 mostly energy-related facilities. He said the missile barrage left hundreds of towns and villages without power.
In the capital Kyiv, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said 80% of the city’s residents were left without water, and 350,000 apartments had no power after the Monday strikes. Later in the day, he said 270,000 apartments remained without power and 40% of residents were still without running water.
According to South Front, Russia’s strikes resulted in the largest losses of energy supply throughout the country since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the strikes were a response to the drone attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol but hinted more retaliation could come. “But that is not all we can do,” he said, according to TASS.
Russia’s Defense Ministry said that 16 aerial drones and unmanned vessels targeted Russian ships in the Sevastopol attack, which occurred on Saturday. Ukraine has not taken credit for the attack, and so far the US has only acknowledged that there were explosions near Russian ships in the area.
Russia had previously avoided large-scale coordinated strikes on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, a common tactic of US military operations. The Russian attacks on infrastructure began after the truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge, which connects the Russian mainland to the Crimean peninsula.
Russia wants to make sure Ukraine feels the cold of winter until March.
Cheering an actual war crime – nice to know where you stand.
Did you cheer Shock and Awe?
Nobody sane wants a war, orcwish it on anyone.
Let’s outlaw all wars. Outlaw all abise of civilian population by any state under a punishment of “do not like people — cannot keep their land”.
Let us do something useful. O, I forgot, Elections have nothing to do with wars,
No, does that surprise you?
Good to know that you actually feel this way.
Would be very nice if we could.
I’m guessing that you are thinking about the US mid terms and not the Danish elections happening today! If correct, then the answer (in both cases as it happens) is that elections (especially midterm ones) are almost exclusively determined by domestic policies.
We should stop being the largest exporter of weapons of war, might be a start.
Unlikely to end wars – but nice try.
Export of more and more deadly weapons, makes it certain that it won’t.
Do you cheer this, Bianca? https://wapo.st/3NDTlJv
“Let’s outlaw all wars. Outlaw all abise of civilian population by any state under a punishment of “do not like people — cannot keep their land.”
You should tell that to yourself, Bianca. You are a huge Putin’s War supporter here. Deny it and I’ll pull your archive comments that proves so.
Your riposte is both inaccurate and insulting.
Warmongers never see the war crimes “their side” commits, and usually deny even knowing about them.
It’s not hard to spot the anti US folks here. They cannot hide their love for Putin and desire to see the West defeated to make their point.
I thought we were “antiwar” here. Neither pro US nor pro West nor pro Putin nor pro Russia nor “anti US.” You seem to be pro war. Maybe you are lost. Why don’t head over to one of the nine million pro war places on the internet, and stop trolling here?
I am against the war in the Ukraine. I am a citizen of the USA. I am not “anti US.” But I do want US policy to be directed towards ending the war in the Ukraine. Not sponsoring it. Nor continuing and prolonging it. And not having provoked it in the first place. All of which it has done, is doing, and seems to want to continue to do. IMO. That’s how I see it. That doesn’t make me pro Putin.
Too bad if you don’t like it.
According to them, anyone who was pro-Trump for example or believe that diplomacy and co-existence is better than war/destruction is now hopeful that the “West” whatever that is, is defeated.
Well said. I concur. There is a planet veering toward a classic bifurcation point, beyond which all our petty squabbling about freedom and democracy will be made moot – for everyone.
There is no “West”. There’s one boss/leader and a bunch of hostages/followers.
Even analyzers that analyze a situation get a bad rep.
In case you missed that episode, here is the video:
https://youtu.be/RM0uvgHKZe8
The late Secretary of State Madeleine Albright*
Sometimes Genocide Is OK…
It just depends who is in office at the moment.
Here is a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on “60 Minutes” back on May 12, 1996 that is not getting much play lately:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.**
It’s worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl–a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.
dennis hanna
*
When Albright took office as the 64th U.S. Secretary of State on January 23, 1997, she became the first female U.S. Secretary of State and the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government at the time of her appointment.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton
and confirmed by the Senate of United State
**
Please note that neither Secretary of State Albright, President Clinton nor any official of the Clinton administration ever denied, retracted, amended or in any way did anything but to affirm Secretary of State Albright’s “… we think the price is worth it.”
dennis hanna
She couldn’t say that the purpose was to kill the civilians and rob Iraqi oil. And yet she had to say something.
Is the fact that the US has imposed deeply flawed and frankly revolting sanctions on Iraq, now a justification for Putin trying to freeze the Ukrainian population into subjugation?
No. It is just provides a spotlight on hypocrisy,
So just irrelevant to the question about whether we should resist the Russian annexation of territory!
Who resisted our annexation (by force) of Mexican lands?
Before the UN was created and back in a time where it was very much the norm to ‘annex’ territories from weaker neighbors.
There is a difference between the annexation of territories which never belonged to you and returning your own land after the referendum of the local people.
There certainly is had Russia done that then there would likely have been no problem but instead they invaded and drove millions of people to flee – and only then did they hold a sham of a referendum – not even a plethora of the nations in the ex Soviet area have acknowledged this annexation.
Add to this that Russia had signed an agreement to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine (and Kazakhstan and others to get them to hand over their nuclear weapons) and you may see why only 4 nations have acknowledged this annexation.
The USA has also approved Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. Well after the establishment of the UN, and with the modern norm against forcible annexation in full effect. To take just the most obvious example.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201900172/pdf/DCPD-201900172.pdf
Yes the US has – the wider west not so much – moreover the Golan Heights though illegally annexed were annexed following several wars that the Syrians forced upon Israel so the annexation was not the consequence of a single war started by Israel with the purpose of annexing the Golan Heights.
A more appropriate example would be the annexation of the settlements in Palestine. Jeez sometimes one could think that the only nation that you bother to check is the US – there are many other nations in the UN – and very few have acknowledged Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights.
Again, I am an American citizen. It is my country’s actions which are most relevant to me. And when my country’s actions show moral bankruptcy and hypocricy, that’s what motivates me to post.
And I chose the Golan Heights for several other reasons, as well. First of all, the Heights were never part of the Palestine Mandate territory, so Israel’s claim has not even a fig leaf of legitimacy. It is based solely on the right of conquest. Which is what the norm against forcible annexation is supposed to be about preventing. You claim that Syria “forced” wars on Israel. That is almost entirely untrue, the opposite of the truth, in fact. But, even if it were true, that might justify Israeli occupation of the Heights, but not annexation.
And yet, here we are, with the last POTUS baldly stating that the Heights are “part of Israel.” And the current POTUS, AFAICT, doing nothing to reverse that decision.
One rule for Putin, another for Netanyahu. One rule for our client’s and allies, another rule for our strategic rivals. That’s the moral status of the USA.
Sure as is your right – however even without US help it is very likely that Europe by now would opt to continue support for the Ukrainians – you argue as if there is only one active party on the side of the Western powers – that is not the case.
No it is based on security policy – there is no right of conquest that we in Europe have acknowledged – but we recognize the security concerns a country like Israel may have when attacked repeatedly.
Agreed on the annexation part – which is why we have not recognized it.
Yes they are just plain wrong.
No one rule for wars of aggression with the purpose of territorial conquest and an other for defensive war and occupation of strategic inroads to the country that has been attacked.
Complete nonsense. Israel has zero legal right to annex the Golan Heights. As you yourself admit. Yet the USA formally approves the action (as well as bankrolls Israel, run interference for it politically and diplomatically, supplies it militarily and with “intel,” etc, etc.). Illegal, territorial annexation of conquered territory. Which is the alleged crux of the issue with Russia. No matter how you spin it, change the subject, lie about the ME wars, and so on, the obvious and fundamental hypocricy of the USA remains.
And, once again, you should learn that verbosity does not equal persuasiveness.
Not only did I admit that Israel has no legal right to annex the Golan Heights, that is actually the stance of my government AFAIK, so not sure what point you are trying to make here.
I can’t be held responsible for the fact that Trump chose to acknowledge this annexation – what I did say is that the annexation came about from a very different process than Putin’s annexation of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, etc. and that this is very far from an unimportant point.
I have no problem acknowledging that the US is hypocritical, my government and those of most of the rest of the western ‘coalition’ are not – that is my point.
Try counting words – I wrote fewer than you did in the comment I replied to.
Again, I don’t “hold you accountable” for anything. As you say, the USA is entirely hypocritical. That’s my point. It has no moral standing to criticize anyone.
As for the rest of the “coalition” members, most, if not all of them, have their own hypocricies. The Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states, for example, are all signatores of the UN Charter, but all of them were part of the “coalition of the willing,” which treated that document as a piece of toilet paper in the illegal war against Iraq led by the USA. Every NATO country is complicit in NATO’s various wars of aggression. And so on. So all of them are pretty much full of crap, when they get on their high horse about the SMO.
It’s about countries and their FPs. NOT whether you, me, or any poster here is consistent or not
Whataboutery – of the first order.
It is never “whataboutism” when it is about the hypocricy of the participants. The USA, and its allies, clients and toadies, simply cannot insist, with any basis in morality, on imposing a set of rules on others which they refuse to abide by themselves. And not only refuse to abide by, but flout on a regular basis. Again, you can, and perhaps do, condemn all of them for violating the rules. Good for you. But they are not you. They bring their own baggage into any controversy.
or to put it an other way the reason that we support Ukraine is not justified from a moral stand point nor a legal (UN) based one, but on based on the simple principle that not supporting them will lead to many more wars and many more deaths, plus I bet more importantly a lot more money wasted on military hardware that could have been spend better on more productive things.
So unless you think that the MIC is the best place to put your money and that we will all be in a better world if we spend much more on defense then you have to be against the Russian war of territorial conquest.
First par: pure, unsubstantiated speculation.
Second par: builds on first par to reach absurd conclusion that war is peace. OK, Big Brother!
As an aside, one response per customer is nettiqutte. K?
The first is only speculation to the extend that speculation is listening to what the people in charge say is the reason that they do what they do.
The second follows from the fact that if not sanctioned wars of territorial conquest is a significantly profitable or beneficial activity for very many nations.
This is what the Kenyan Ambassador was telling you already in February 2022 – why I need to link this very simple insight almost every day is kind of sad – one would have thought that people could realize this fairly simple concept by themselves.
Drivel.
Good to see that you know when you have lost!
And the Ukrainazis sent approximately 6000 soldiers to Iraq, as part of the Coalition of the Bribed.
Ain’t karma a bitch?
“…No it is based on security policy…”
Well, there you have it. Russia’s beef with the west in a nutshell. You see, you do agree with Putin’s reasons for resisting threats to Russian security.
By words from Putin’s own mouth this is not true – Putin as no problem with Finland joining NATO – Finland and NATO member Latvia are closer to St Petersburg and Moscow than any part of Ukraine – and Ukraine was not even close to joining NATO – no country with a current conflict can.
” … even without US help it is very likely that Europe by now would opt to continue support for the Ukrainians … ”
For reasons that defy rationality (I suspect Neocon influence in the EU) Europe has given itself over to becoming the US’s bitch, and of course the US is already Israel’s bitch.
Then you write regarding Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights:
“No it is based on security policy …” Well, true enough, yet the Zionists have been the aggressors against the Palestinians since The Balfour Declaration — 1917. Since then, with the complicity of the UN, both of them — the UN and nascent Israel — have been aggressors against both the Palestinians and their Arab co-ethnics, in violation of the both the anti-aggression and self-determination principles of UN Charter since the UN’s inception 1948 … even before the ink was dry.
Meanwhile, Russia’s action in Ukraine is based on security policy as well, justified security concerns provoked by the declared criminal intent by the US Neocons — the Wolfowitz Doctrine — to destroy (and loot) Russia per the Neocon obsession.
You need to reconnect with reality. Read The Hidden History of Zionism, by Ralph Schoenman, available free and text online at the link below:
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hidden/index.htm
Factually wrong Putin has stated that they have no problems with Finland joining NATO – Ukraine was not about to join NATO – and Ukraine is further from Moscow than e.g. Latvia – so try again.
If you believe that Israel has no right to exist (I acknowledge that valid arguments can be made for this) then there is no justification for anything they have ever done – that however in not the reality I live in, in my world the vast majority of countries have accepted that Israel exists and that it has some right to defend itself.
I personally believe that we made a huge blunder in allowing our bad conscience to let us ‘give’ to the Jews land that was not ours to give away. But I also accept that it is by now not a problem we can wish away that easily.
” … following several wars that the Syrians forced upon Israel …”
Ziostooge nonsense.
Israel is a geopolitical crime-in-progress. No crime “has a right to exist”. No criminal cabal in the commission of a crime “has the right to defend itself” against those who seek to put an end to the criminal activity.
The people who own the media you watch, own your mind. Try to break free from that prison.
Are you disputing that they say what they say, claiming that they are translating it wrong or just what alternate reality do you reside in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qetPWY15RgE
That’s a take down.
Well said! Bravo!
We ignore the UN ever since we came up with the legal sounding “rules based order” of our own making.
Those lands several times changed hands. We hoped it will not happen in our time. Then NATO robbed Serbia of Kosovo destroying a hundred of Christian churches in the process and using the bombs with depleted uranium against civilian Serb population. After this war crime, Serbia became the leader in Europe regarding cancer diseases. During the first 10 years after the bombings, some 30 000 people came down with cancer in the country.
Whataboutery.
But quite relevant on the question of whether the United States of America is hypocritical for doing so, regardless of whether the royal “we” is or is not.
None of our business.
I very much disagree, but then you are free to have your opinion if you live in the west.
Really – strange that that opinion is not tolerated on the vast majority of our MSM.
Is it though, when you say not tolerated, I suspect that you are thinking about the kind of replies you get on your comments – because comments like yours appear just about everywhere. If so what you expect is to be allowed to write the stuff you do without having people replying quite possibly in very unkind ways!?
Otherwise your kind of opinion is very much tolerated lest you violate rules of the sites by spouting anti-Semitism or somehow otherwise violate site rules – so possibly cheering on terror bombardments or war crimes – mind you I’m not accusing you of having done either.
Would you like to stop the war? Would you like to end the death and destruction? It’s not at all difficult. Not a bit. Zelensky need only announce an immediate ceasefire and unconditional surrender. That’s what’s coming eventually, so why not now?
Answer the question Michael64. Because one must assume that if you have some objection to an immediate unconditional surrender, then you must somehow prefer a continuation of the death and destruction.
Could it be that preserving your ego and your Russia-hatred ideology are more important to you than the suffering of literally ***BILLIONS*** across the planet (and of course millions across Ukraine)?
That is for the Ukrainians to decide – our part in it is only to support them to the extend they want to fight the Russians and to continue the sanctions, regardless of when the Ukrainians decide to agree to terms, until every nation tempted to copy the SMO will see that this will lead to their ruin.
Ukraine surrendering is not likely to end the death and destruction – have you not followed RT – they will be the target of a political reprogramming where the ones not sufficiently enthusiastic about becoming Russian and forgetting having been Ukrainians will be killed!
I think you have my answer – and the Ukrainians surrendering will not end the suffering – as the west would likely then impose upon Russia what they did on Iraq.
Could it be that I have always believed that freedom from time to time requires that a generation suffers more than the ones before or after – yes – that I believe that this cost by and large is worth paying for the next generations to live in much better conditions – yes.
If you want to bend the knee to any would be dictator then that is for you to do – what I can promise you is that it will cost you ever so much more than standing up to them – but yes some will die – that unfortunately has been our lot since the time of dawn.
So your source re Russian strategy is RT? Tell me, English version or Russian version???
Russian version! And it is not my source for Russian strategy, but for what the Ukrainians may think about Russian goals and thinking – you know the kind of perception that might motivate the Ukrainians in their fight.
“For the Ukrainians to decide”?
I believe that I, as an Amerikkkan taxpayer who is funding the Clown of Kiev, should have a say in this matter.
Just FYI, over half of the Amerikkkan populace want this sh*t to END via diplomacy.
The individual Ukrainian always have the choice to not fight – as we saw in Afghanistan if the people supposed to do the fighting are not motivated to do so the thing falls apart very fast. Seeing as European support would not end if US support was ended a potential end to continued support by the US is not the necessarily going to end this.
A face that sunk a thousand ships………………………………………………….
(If her face got stretched any further, it would snap…)
It would be better if you didn’t make it about her appearance. Albright could have been as beautiful as Helen of Troy, and yet her views and policies would have been just as ugly.
Fair enough PL, fair enough but it felt good to tweak her just a bit…
The price for supporting Kiev regime will increase progressively.
Whereas the cost of not supporting Ukraine will increase exponentially.
Correct. https://wapo.st/3NDTlJv
Yes, that’s the conviction of the Davos Neocon/Neolib crowd. And “cost” is the correct word.
That is what the Kenyan Ambassador to the UN was predicting – so the idea that this is limited to a small group of people in only western countries is just not supported by the evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf0gb0sQI40
The costs in the shape of a much higher share of the GDP of countries going to military hardware is already a fact and not going to get any lower if Russia is allowed to start a new norm of annexing territory of neighbors.
Yes, and don’t forget the the ‘Bucha war crimes’ .
I think the Ukrainians will not, do you think they will? Or what is your point?
He made the point. What is your point in asking what his point is when he obviously raised a point that you’re not comfortable with.
I’m very confident that the Ukrainians will not forget the Russian war crimes in Bucha – I’m at a loss as to why Robert would think they might or how this would work to the advantage of the view Robert has.
Will the parents of all the kids killed in Iraq by “the West” forget those war crimes by “the West”?
Probably not – especially not since they are no longer occupied by the US and hence free to learn the version of history that their nation choses to go with or that their nation allows their parents to tell.
Sorry, I thought you were up to date on it.
I’m up to date on what the Ukrainians believe happened – are you?
Old Bear only knows his side of the story.
You don’t know what I believe. I only state what I think are valid arguments, hopefully based on documented history.
Your comments never cite history – only your personal moral views.
Next time try making your arguments based on what has happened in the region going back to the end of the cold war.
Seriously, you nearly always make some kind of moralistic argument. Nothing could be more irrelevant when discussing the actions taken during war.
There is no single official document citing how to engage in warfare, what tactics to use, what weapons to use (for example the US’s first strike option in its pursuit of war). There are however, military documents which address proper tactics and strategies and their relevance to the Geneva Convention (cf UCMJ).
Shorter, the point of war really is to win – whatever that means – another whole subject area.
You just proved my statement.
It’s your side of the story.
You disagree with me even when I present facts, sources, and/or supporting data.
I have yet to see you quote facts, sources (aside from media reports) or data.
In case you are not up to date, here is what people currently believe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
How about quoting the bible? There are a lot of people who believe what’s in it.
I’ll remember this next time you share a source.
I’m not sure I remember him ever sharing a source. For anything.
Well we were here talking about what the Ukrainians believe so… are you proposing that they believe the Russian variation on the story?
Obviously the Ukrainians who support Zelensky will believe Zelensky’s version.
What the truth is, who knows?
What matters is what motivates the ones that fight to fight on. Are we back in school and do I need to explain even the simplest concepts of war?
Depends what portion of the former Ukraine you are referring to.
The portion that matters i.e. the one that Putin needs to accept terms – how was this not obvious???
There’s no evidence of starting “new norm” of Russia annexing territory, beyond insuring Ukraine doesn’t turn into a NATO arsenal with nukes a short distance from Moscow.
Starting a new norm will be the effective implication if we (primarily the west) doe not make this action be a substantial economic fault – simply because others will copy it if there are not severe consequences – I’m not proposing that this is or was Putin’s intend only that it will be the consequence if we do not sanction it.
What others, besides Washington? Be specific.
You could start with China taking Taiwan, follow it up with the already started Azerbaijan attacks on Armenia. Do you really need a list of all the countries that believe they have border issues with their neighbors – because if I remember correctly you have problems with long replies.
Has China already taken Taiwan? I hadn’t heard that.
Yeah I guess our statements that we had no fight in the territorial dispute between Kuwait/Iraq, did lead to the bombings/embargos/sanctions/invasions of Iraq, and then sho nuff, like a domino falling that started a cascade, we had to get involved in Libya and Syria, and Ukraine. I guess it remains to be seen if Russia (or others) will follow our example, but on that point we set the standard.
The US interventions id many countries around the world has led to very few countries seeing this as a great path to follow – as they would stand to make much more losses by doing so than economic gains – so no there is no incentive for any non super power to copy the actions of the US.
By annexing the territory they have taken by conquest Russia if not sanctioned very hard, have opened a path to considerable financial gain, that would work for a very large number of countries – regardless of their power status – as long as they are more powerful than the ones they attack.
Progressively/exponentially? That Hispanic Supreme Court Justice just got two legal terms half-assed backwards in arguments regarding discrimination at Universities. Any first year student at a law school know what “de jure” means, but she doesn’t.
“Russia Launches More Strikes on Ukrainian Infrastructure After Crimea Drone Attack Ukraine’s PM said the strikes targeted 10 regions”
General Winter will be there soon along with the grim reaper!
So actually hoping that Putin can freeze enough Ukrainian civilians to death that the Ukrainians will have to sue for peace, unbelievable!
The alternative is continued war and possibly World War 3.
Or it could be that Putin is ousted, that the Russians realize that they do not need the Ukrainian territories at the cost that they come.
If the Ukrainians are forced through genocidal murder of their civilians to sue for peace the West will only augment their sanctions on Russia.
WW3 gets a hell of a lot more likely if the west does not do this so the costs in human lives is only likely to be higher if this is how Putin wins.
You do realize that the most likely successor to Putin would be much more aggressive than Putin, right?.
As far as sanctions go? Obviously those have damaged the EU. Russia? Not so much.
The comment on WW3 is ridiculous.
I do, however if he is then he very likely will not last long – as it is not for lack of aggressiveness that Putin is failing to bring the SMO to a conclusion.
Sure, which is why Russia is demanding their inclusion in all talks and the west is dialing them up.
The Chinese are following this closely if not deterred they will take Taiwan back – if that comes to pass other nations will also make a grab for neighboring territory they believe belong to them and nearly all nations with even a chance of developing nukes will do so to avoid having parts of their territory annexed by larger and more powerful neighbors.
What is your argument for this scenario being ridiculous?
“The Chinese are following this closely if not deterred they will take Taiwan back”
The CCP regime cannot take Taiwan “back,” because it has never ruled Taiwan.
I agree, but I think they will phrase it like that i.e. that they are not invading a foreign nation but unifying a split nation.
Kinda like Vietnam and Germany.
The RNC never ruled the Confederacy either, until they “took it back”.
The current DPP and DNC regimes might try to avert that by China.
I think that Putin is indeed preparing to bring the SMO to its conclusion.
The Chinese didn’t intend to take Taiwan until decades from now. That may have changed because of incompetent and bellicose DC involvement. It is possible that the situation between Taiwan would have resolved itself by then.
Likewise, If the US and NATO hadn’t involved itself in Ukraine, the Ukrainians and Russians wouldn’t be killing each other. You blame Putin and Russia. The fact is it the DC foreign policy establishment that caused this war. You are looking for Ukraine to be saved by the very establishment that is responsible for the destruction of Ukraine.
The US/NATO/EU leaders don’t care about Ukraine or Ukrainians. This is about US hegemonic control over the planet. Truth is the same bunch of Psychopaths that control the USA don’t care about Americans either.
Sure he has been for at least 7 months so far.
You guys cant even say what Putin’s strategy is in Ukraine and yet you seem to be sure that China has no goals for Taiwan for decades – like Putin was not going to invade Ukraine I guess.
If there are no serious consequences for Putin invading Ukraine, there is no basis for believing that China will face consequences for taking back Taiwan, the Chinese will execute on that plan when it is the least risky for them that would almost certainly be at the time when the West has shown itself so weak that they are not even willing to apply sanctions to a much smaller and less important threat like Putin.
If you are proposing that the Ukrainians are not really interested in fighting for their independence, then try to explain why so few Ukrainians are surrendering or deserting.
Yes we caused this war by sticking to the Budapest memorandum and respecting the Ukrainians as sovereign i.e. allowing them to freedom to decide their own policies and vote for what international collaborations they wanted to take part in or join. Putin wanted us to refuse them to join NATO – so clearly we started this!
Yes Ukraine is not deeply essential to this, really this is just standing up to any war of territorial conquest, that it happens to be Ukraine is really just beyond our control. Or to put it a different way if Russia had annexed Georgia, or Kazakhstan we would have supported them as best we could if they were willing to fight for their independence.
So really this is about standing up to tyrants – that it happens to further the US hegemony is incidental to this for most of us in the wider west.
Although Putin hasn’t rescinded the “partial mobilization” decree, the Russian Ministry of Defence says that the “partial mobilization” is “complete.”
And the Russian occupation forces/quislings have expanded their [take your pick of words — “evacuation” or “forcible deportiation”] of civilians in the Kherson area to the east bank of the Dnieper. The question is whether that means they’re surging forces into the area for a last-ditch defense, or whether they’re preparing for withdrawal to the LPR/DPR lines so that Putin can declare “victory” and offer a ceasefire that Zelenskyy would probably be deposed for refusing.
Interesting proposition – i.e. what terms would actually make the Ukrainians angry at Zelenskyy if he was to turn them down?
I would have thought that they would have been happy at status quo ante bellum, but the only sources I have (and they are controlled by the Ukrainians so…) suggest that such a peace would only be acceptable if it did not involve yielding on the claims on Crimea.
That is all very well to say when terms even approaching this is not on offer so even if not manipulated may still not reflect how they would actually react.
While Zelenskyy might accept such terms (or be forced to) I’m much less certain that the Russians would be content as these terms would if accepted by the Ukrainians not entail lifting of western sanctions.
So even though I would be happy if this was the development I am not at all confident that this will lead to a real peace deal let alone a lasting one.
After eight years of lower intensity war unsuccessfully trying to re-conquer those two seceded oblasts, and after several months of high-intensity war defending the rest of Ukraine, I suspect that most Ukrainians would say “screw it, let the secessionists go,” if Russian forces established a defensible line of control there and Putin said “I declare victory and a unilateral ceasefire — take it or leave it.”
Going from “defense of Ukraine” to “offensive war for the purpose of reconquering territory that we haven’t controlled since 2014 and aren’t likely to ever control again” would be a very hard sell.
It’s also worth asking how popular Zelenskyy really is even as a “defensive wartime president.” He outlawed political opposition and seized control of national media, which makes it hard to tell, and he did that after ordering the enslavement of every male between 18 and 60 years of age. Any popularity he enjoys is unlikely to last long after the war stops being an actual emergency.
I would like to think you are right – and after some months of trying to achieve a different result I think that it might very well be the result.
The question is more one of would Putin really offer this with no hope of having sanctions lifted?
Not sanctions. NATO.
With all respect, you leave out the elephant in the room. I understand the thrust of your argument and believe it makes sense, but I doubt the US government is going to be content with such an outcome. In addition, there is the issue of NATO and that is not addressed by you or Michael. NATO is by far the biggest problem. AFAICT , all Putin apparently cares about (based on his public pronouncements) are the safety of the Russian-speaking easterners and the NATO issue.
It’s hard to imagine NATO being any happier than it is right now.
It’s adding Sweden and Finland as de jure member states, and the status of Ukraine as a de facto member state, if it was ever in question, is now set in concrete.
Its military industrial complexes got a nice “buy a bunch of weapons” shot in the arm. That turned out to be temporary — now that the European NATO states have realized that the Russian bear i instead a tiger (a paper one), they probably won’t go ahead with long-term increases in military spending — but NATO follows the US, which is always capable of manufacturing a new Enemy of the Week on demand.
At last someone with a brain , correct on every level , excellent post.
Tell Israel to stop doing that and return the Golan Heights to Syria.
And tell the USA to rescind its approval of the annexation!
I am at every opportunity I get to do so – but I also acknowledge that this Israeli action was not a war started by Israel with the purpose of annexing Syrian territory – but the result of several conflicts forced upon Israel by among others Syria – so not the same at all (while still illegal) as it is certainly not a case that others can follow – unless they can convince their neighbors to declare war on them repeatedly.
That’s not exactly true. Forgot which one it was, but either 67 or 73 hostilities were started by Israel.
Hardcore military men in Russia wanted Putin to go full “shock and awe”. Level everything.
No chance of President Putin being replaced. Over 80% of Russians support his war in Ukraine and if anything they are not happy that he didn’t go into Ukraine with more forces to begin with.
As for genocide there are the 15,000 murdered Russian Ukrainians since 2014 who would disagree with you myopic analysis.
So how are sanctions working so far against Russia. America running out of diesel fuel, the EU running out of energy and industry shutting down, cold showers, cold homes, and cold food in Germany.
Open your eyes and think about it!
“As for genocide there are the 15,000 murdered Russian Ukrainians since 2014 who would disagree with you myopic analysis.”
If you’re referring to the seceded Donbas republics, there’s no reason to believe that anywhere near all of them were “Russian Ukrainians.” Many of them were Ukrainian troops fighting against the secessionists.
Separatists. After the U.S. influenced coup in Ukraine in 2014, it was open season on Russian speaking Ukraine citizens. The Russian language was outlawed. Other measures were instituted. The shelling began. Separatists, like the ones incinerated by the Azov guys.
And your version is always the right one.
Not always but most of the time and far more correct than your versions.
Young and competent Russians leaving Russia in droves.
Energy prices in the world back to pre war levels.
Sure we will have some problems but these will pale compared to the cost of the alternative on offer – so open your eyes and look at the actual facts and the political developments.
“Energy prices….back to prewar levels” ?!
Where the f*ck do YOU live?!
Yup. The educated , the successful, and the wealthy are the ones leaving, because they’re the ones with the means to do so. It is going to be a massive brain drain for Russia with repercussions that are going to last for a verrrrry long time, most likely.
IF Putin were to be ousted, the fear is that the replacement(s) would be more hard core. That is my fear.
It is very likely that the replacement will be more hardcore – however a more hardcore replacement will have no options for improving Russia’s position, therefore that replacement will himself face replacement by someone with an other proposal for how to improve things – that will continue until someone who realizes that in order for Russia to gain a more lucrative position they will have to make peace on terms more to Ukraine’s favor.
fairy tales don’t always come true.
Not bloody likely.
I’m inclined to agree…
The electricity grid is dual purpose. And Putin has been all along excruciatingly careful of Ukrainian civilians. Their misery arises from being a pawn in Washington’s game, a player with vast experience in the slaughter and immiseration of populations across the planet.
Sure. So careful! https://wapo.st/3NDTlJv
The Ukrainians will with the blessing of their population prioritize the defense of the country remember that to them they are being offered the choice between risking freezing to death or being shot in a forest outside town.
You can say that this is propaganda, but I think that it is what they believe. If they are in doubt they can always check RT:
Putin should be hitting the weapons supply lines , there shouldn`t be a port , air port , or rail line in use at this point .
Most of their rail is electric.
Should Ukraine reciprocate?
Obviously they already have.
Russia on Monday launched more missile barrages against Ukrainian energy infrastructure after it said Ukraine launched a drone attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea using the Unprotected Civilian Corridor for Ukraine wheat exports…
Corrected…No Charge…!
You are repeating Russian propaganda. Just look at a map.. Grain ships sail SouthWest while drones would’ve have to go SouthEast. Two different points of origin.
https://russian.rt.com/ussr/news/1068578-klichko-vodo-i-elektrosnabzheniye
Klitschko announced the restoration of water and electricity in Kyiv.
I’ve little doubt that Russia will continue hitting the same targets so Ukraine President Zelensky and Mayor Klitschko will appreciate deja vu.
“Klitschko announced the restoration of water and electricity in Kyiv.”
Could be war propaganda too.
Attacks on electricity infrastructure are not “war crimes.”
https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2022/10/27/is-attacking-the-electricity-infrastructure-used-by-civilians-always-a-war-crime/
And it is hypocritical for anyone connected to the US government to say they are.
US Department of “Defense” War Manual:
The military advantage from an attack may result from harm to the morale of enemy forces. Diminishing the morale of the civilian population and their support for the war effort does not provide a definite military advantage.
However, attacks that are otherwise lawful are not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale.187
187 For example, Judith A. Miller, Commentary, 78 U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDIES 107, 110 (2002) (“I will readily admit that, aside from directly damaging the military electrical power infrastructure, NATO wanted the civilian population to experience discomfort, so that the population would pressure Milosevic and
the Serbian leadership to accede to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, but the intended effects on the civilian population were secondary to the military advantage gained by attacking the electrical power infrastructure.”).
*********************************************************
5.6.8 Examples of Objects Often Regarded as Military Objectives. The following types of objects generally have met the definition of “military objective” in past conflicts, but may not be military objectives in all circumstances: (1) leadership facilities; (2) communications objects;
(3) transportation objects; (4) places of military significance; and (5) economic objects associated with military operations or with war-supporting or war-sustaining industries. This list of examples is not exclusive (i.e., an object could fall in more than one category in this list), and this list is not exhaustive (i.e., an object outside these categories may nonetheless
meet the definition of military objective). Lastly, this list is not conclusive, i.e., whether an example is, in fact, a military objective, must be assessed according to the definition of military objective….
5.6.8.5 Examples of Military Objectives – Economic Objects Associated With
Military Operations. Economic objects associated with military operations or with war supporting or war-sustaining industries have been regarded as military objectives. Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts.197
[Footnote 197 makes it clear that for an electricity generating facility to be “off limits” it must be “segregated from a general power grid and…limited to supplying power for humanitarian purposes, such as medical facilities, or other uses that could have no effect on the State’s ability to wage war.”]
******************************************************
397…..While a single target may be significant because of its own characteristics, the target’s real importance lies in its relationship to other targets within an operational system. A target system is most often considered as a collection of assets directed to perform a specific function or series of functions…While target systems are intra-dependent to perform a
specific function, they are also interdependent in support of adversary capabilities (e.g., the electric power system may provide energy to run the adversary’s railroads that are a key component of their military logistic system). System level target development links these multiple target systems and their components to reflect both their intra and interdependency that, in aggregate, contribute to the adversary capabilities. JIPOE helps target developers prioritize an adversary’s target systems based on how much each contributes to the adversary’s ability to wage war.”)
[The Ukraine relies on electricity to run its railroads, which are the main supplier of war material to the fronts.]
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190
It would be more correct to say that they need not be war crimes – I’m sure a layer would know.
If the reason that a country is doing it is however as given here – then it is a war crime.
These propagandists have become Putin’s personal advisors. Turns out, lately, everything they suggest Putin should do, Putin does. Hmm.
Pfft.
Check the archives in YouTube. They have basically called the shots. This is the equivalent to the GOP FoxNews. When Tucker Carlson or Hannity speak, the base and GOP leaders follow almost instantaneously.
Sorry, bro, but the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs speak for official Kremlin policy. Not some dude on TV.
Just today, the Defense Minister explained the obvious legality of the strikes in relation to their effect on the Ukraine’s military.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-defense-minister-insists-ukraine-infrastructure-is-military-target/ar-AA13CKJ6
“Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday that Russia is targeting critical civilian infrastructure in Ukraine to reduce the country’s military capacity — rebuffing accusations that Moscow is committing war crimes by trying to leave people without power or heat during winter.
“‘With precision-guided strikes, we continue to effectively hit military infrastructure facilities, as well as facilities that affect the reduction of Ukraine’s military potential,’ Shoigu said during a defense ministry conference call, according to Russian media.”
Maybe Russia should use Western logic when hitting civilian infrastructure, to wit: Rise up Ukrainians and overthrow the Dictator and restore democracy and peace with your Russian brethren.
GOP isn’t in charge of the government. Seek shelter there’s a red wave coming in.
Hahahaha. Sure, bud.
Like 95% of the actions by the Western “coalition” directed by Langley.
Nope. It is clearly the “dual effect” of the military implications (the railroads, the banking systems, industry, the computers, etc) along with the “collateral damage” that is also inflicted on the civilian population that is being discussed here.
And as, stated above, with the full backing of the US government:
…..attacks that are otherwise lawful are not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale…..I will readily admit that, aside from directly damaging the military electrical power infrastructure, NATO wanted the civilian population to experience discomfort, so that the population would pressure Milosevic and the Serbian leadership to accede to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, but the intended effects on the civilian population were secondary to the military advantage gained by attacking the electrical power infrastructure.
Merely “wanting” the civilians to suffer along with the military implications does not convert a lawful attack into a “war crime.”
And as a lawyer, I look to authorities and precedent. I have provided authority, backed by the US government, for my view (“Electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport, and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts….” and such attacks are only off limits if the facility is “segregated from a general power grid and…limited to supplying power for humanitarian purposes, such as medical facilities, or other uses that could have no effect on the State’s ability to wage war.”) Can you provide any precedent in which any competent tribunal has concluded that an attack on an enemy’s electrical grid constituted a “war crime?” I’ll wait.
Clearly so, if the civilians are just collateral ‘damage’ but if as very much suggested by the video it is the industry and the transport sectors that are the collateral damage then this is a war crime.
It has been debated several times on Russian state tv and it is fairly clear that it is the civilians who are the intended target – the thing you are now debating is whether they can be convicted of it – that is an entirely different question – you may know that the others have committed many war crimes and yet been convicted of few if any.
The speaker in the clip you presented leads off with the military implications, does discuss the civilian effects, but then circles back to the military implications. So, even based on your own presentation, you are wrong. Also, I would like you to present an authoritative statement of the Russian government, not your account of what it is “debated on Russian TV,” nor even the scattered statements of various “Russian lawmakers,” as to the main purpose of the attacks. The US reserves the right to judge its own attacks on electricity grids based on such strict, legal, authorized statements, not on extraneous comments on TV nor even on what some war hawk might say in Congress.
And, never mind convictions of individuals, show me a case where a competent commission or other tribunal has even condemned such an attack, in general. Looking at the DOD manual, I see several cases in which such attacks, even when not committed by the USA, have been held to be lawful. See the footnote 197, referenced above, “Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims, Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-13, 14, 21, 25 & 26, ¶117 (Dec. 19, 2005) (‘The Commission agrees with Ethiopia that electric power stations are generally recognized to be of sufficient importance to a State’s capacity to meet its wartime needs of communication, transport and industry so as usually to qualify as military objectives during armed conflicts….’)”
Again, attacks on electrical grids are “generally” lawful. For them to be unlawful, there has to be a stand alone facility, dedicated solely to humanitarian purposes, like a hospital generator, as the target. And merely “wanting” civilian damage along with the military implications does nothing to make an attack on the grid illegal.
Again focusing on whether there will be a conviction – a war crime can have been committed even if there is no conviction – surely a layer should know this!
Second point being that what I said is not that this is a war crime but that it may be it depends on the reasoning – and again the only thing you do is to say that the person (who is not alone in proposing this be done to freeze the Ukrainians into submission) is talking about this policy in terms that frames it as a war crime.
Just to be clear I’m not arguing that it is a war crime, just that it could be and it would be if the purpose was to freeze the Ukrainian people into submission.
Gobbledygook.
It’s not a war crime. Period. There is ample, objective evidence that the electricity grid in the Ukraine is a completely legitimate target. Under both the USA’s understanding of the law, and the citation I provided to you of the Eritrean tribunal. And seventy years of precedent. (From the linked article…”Indeed, attacks on electrical systems have long been a part of modern war. As one commentator put it, ‘electrical systems have been a favorite target of air attacks since the 1930s.’”) Funny, in all that time, not only have there been no convictions for the “war crime” of attacking the grid, but, again, AFAICT, no tribunal of any kind has ruled that such attacks are war crimes at all. It’s not just the difficulty of individual war crime prosecution and conviction that is at play here.
And sure, there are always going to be “loose canons” out there, saying, “Bomb them into the Stone Age,” blah, blah, blah. But they don’t actually speak for the country involved. I’m sure Russia’s MoD and Ministry of Foreign Affairs could provide you with a nice, legal, authoritative statement of how the attacks on the electrical grid are authorized under international law. Just like the US DoD and DoS can do the same for the USA’s conduct in Iraq and Serbia.
Nonsense. Evil if they do it, permissible if we do it. See Yemen. See Libya. See Iraq. See Afghanistan. See Vietnam. See Syria.
Where did you get the notion that it is permissible if the US does it?
I believe OB is being facetious…
Do the Western war crimes criminals ever get held to acount?
I think it does happen, but then usually in their domestic courts and they get away with strong words or a slap on the wrist.
So you read your Russian policy from TV debates?
Only when it predicted later actual Russian policies – the origin of ideas can sometimes be traced in that way.
Russia is to be judged by what the most hawkish person on Russian TV says; the US is to be judged, if at all, according to the sober, reasoned, well-researched legal justifications put forth by the State Department and the Department of Defense. That’s just basic Chomsky.
Strawman argument and whataboutery in one short comment! – I have not excused the US – and that the US has done somthing does not make it OK for others to do it too.
Exactly – sadly we seem to go with the advice of Bonkers Bolton most of the time.
One question.
Were you protesting similar actions by the United Snakes when performed against other nations?
During the Korean “police action” we bombed dams, causing flooding which ruined crops, reduced safe drinking water. The actions killed civilians. We also leveled nearly every city in North Korea.
So because we did it in the past, we must allow anybody to do it and never hold anyone accountable for it? Basically, we as human should not evolve and stay in the primitive stages of evolution. F ck it, Let’s go back to medieval times.
Again, with this “we” BS. The USA’s policy, right now, not merely in the past, as articulated in its own, publically available manuals, is that attacks on infrastructure, specfically including the electricity grid, are legal attacks, not war crimes. The USA made such attacks not merely in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, but in the Balkans and Iraq as well. So, please. The USA has no standing to criticize these attacks. Nor does any NATO country. Whether you do or not is simply neither here nor there. Nobody, at all, cares about your alleged consistency.
So let’s attack civilians from now on and do nothing about it because the US has done it many times in the past.
Again, who is “us?” The USA has done and will continue to do so. Which makes the USA’s claims that such conduct is evil when done by others, etc, hypocritical and morally bankrupt. It’s really not that hard a distinction to understand. What is at issue is the policy and the statements and the rationales of the USA. NOT what, in the abstract, in an ideal world, according to you or me, the rules should be. Rules for thee but not for me is the stance of the USA. THAT’s what I object
and will in the future.
Your first sentence is ridiculous. There is no level you won’t stoop to to paint the Russian side as illegitimate. The truth is consistently the first victim of many of your posts. Come on, cut the kindergarten debating stuff. It’s on a level with my dad can beat up your dad.
Such verbosity… ;-{
Right and the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal had not yet occurred?
Americans did it not only in North Korea. In Vietnam civilians were killed massively by the chemical weapon. They used chemical weapon in Iraq as well. Some towns in Iraq were leveled. No one counted the number of dead civilians in Iraq; hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. The corporate media doesn’t care about that. They prefer to accuse Russia despite the fact that Russia always avoids targeting civilians.
Ukraine is calling these war crimes because they think it will help them obtain more military and economic aid. The US is being less vocal because it doesn’t want to draw comparisons with the “shock and awe” phase of the war in Iraq. Moreover, Ukraine didn’t advance their cause by doing exactly the same thing in Belgorod, Russia last month.
I think that everyone realizes by now that as long as NATO countries are willing to up the ante by providing such things as satellite intelligence, advanced weaponry, and other military advantages to Ukraine, Russia is going to respond. The surprise, in my view, is that it has taken so long to make the decision, and that they have not hit harder. Instead of targeting equipment that can be quickly replaced, they could have hit the power plants themselves.
The Ukies stopped laughing about the people killed on the Crimean bridge pretty quickly. When Russia responded, then attacking infrastruture with dual use was suddenly forbidden, and all the media play along.
When Washington invaded Iraq they bombed every power station around Baghdad. Practically no one knows that as the media hide it.
There were very few people killed on the Crimean bridge, so that was never what the Ukrainians were laughing about – but never let facts disturb your narrative.
Isn’t one civilian death, one too many? The terrorists had no idea how many would die on that bridge. Could have been a busload of innocent school children or Ukrainian POWs.
I would like to agree that one death is one to many, but then that is just not going to ‘work’ – so civilian deaths have to be minimized to the extend it is possible is more likely to get the ball moving – and that was what the Ukrainians (if it was them) did by bowing up the bridge at the time of night that it happened.
I do not call the Russian bombing of the electrical power infrastructure, the dams or the cities terrorist, I only suggest that it may be if the motivation is to freeze the civilians – you call bombing of a vital military supply bridge terrorist – take not of that.
“War crime” and “terrorism” are two different, but overlapping, categories.
“War crimes” are defined in various international agreements (e.g. the Geneva Conventions) and case law. They are specific actions.
“Terrorism” is about intent to “terrorize” non-combatants, presumptively to cause populations to lean on the targeted side’s political establishments to negotiate or give in.
Generally if a target is military in nature, or if it is part of the support infrastructure for an opposing military force, it’s considered a legit target with some exceptions (hospitals, for example). That would apply to both the Crimea bridge and the Ukrainian electric grid. It’s not a “war crime” to attack such targets — but it could be “terrorism” if the intent is to terrorize civilians rather than e.g. impede Russian military traffic across the bridge or impede Ukrainian military traffic via electric rail.
Exactly vital for vital supplies to reach the populace of Crimea – therefore a war crime following the logic of some.
Seeing as they could get the vital supplies every year up until it was built that does not compute.
Russia is so concerned about attacks on the dam at Kathovka that it is forcibly evacuating areas in a 9 mile swath on either side of the Dnipro river downstream from the dam. The purpose of the attack would be to send a wall of water into Kherson to kill Russia soldiers there. But the water would do damage to anyone in its path, and could reduce the water available for cooling the fuel rods at the reactor at Enerhoda/Zaporizhzhia.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/grain-ships-sail-ukraine-ports-russian-missiles-knock-out-power-across-country-2022-10-31/
In other words Chernobyl II.
Why would Ukrainians destroy and flood the very city they will soon retake? That will ruin their follow on plans. Is this another Dangerous Azov Battalion conspiracy?
Russia has all the reasons to blow it up, not Ukraine. Ukraine needs the left bank of the river as dry as possible if they are considering pushing forward.
Both banks of the river are being evacuated, and Russia is not going to drown its own soldiers. But it is conceivable that Russia would destroy the dam if Ukraine forces overran Russian forces in Kherson.
That said, Ukraine has launched significant attacks against the front at Kherson every day for the last 2 weeks. None of these have gained territory and have cost numerous casualties. Yesterday alone, Kyev lost 70 soldiers and 13 armored vehicles.
Yes, Ukrainians are dying but at least they have the will to fight and die for their cause. Russian soldiers are also dying and surrendering. Just couple days ago they lost over 600 troops in one day. It’s war and a counteroffensive doesn’t mean it will take back territory within days. This could take days or months or even reach a stalemate.
We should all should avoid citing statistics about what is happening in this war. None of it is reliable – none.
If all you have is what you read, then all you end up doing is parroting what someone else has written, and even you should realize that the media has been captured by the same forces they gave into in the 2002 Iraq invasion – 95% WOW! DID YOU SEE WHAT THAT CRUISE MISSILE DID??? (camera zooms in on a building – possibly a laundromat)
Sound advice OB, sound advice.
Are you saying you have never cited Kremlin statistics?
Or does it only apply to those statistics you disagree with?
Your post don’t disappear here. They just go on archives.
I don’t cite Kremlin statistics re war casualties or
other statistics re individual battles.
I have no way of knowing how many tanks, ships, missiles have been used, nor how many destroyed, or how many dead, missing, wounded there are on either side.
The only Kremlin announcements I recall citing are those related to troop levels raised via call ups. I don’t recall having mentioned how many people have been wounded or killed in any battles, nor which weapons were used or destroyed.
I have, however, openly questioned the voluminous announcements cited by some here citing the thousands killed and/or wounded in individual battles or how many tanks, etc were destroyed, etc.
The dam is strong enough. Ukrainians bombed it many times and it is still standing. The flood will do no damage to the militaries, only to the civilians. The flood wouldn’t reach Kherson town itself.
I have reviewed a simulation of the flood, which seems to show that Kherson itself would indeed be spared. Most of the damage would occur on the east bank. This suggest that the object would be to prevent Russia from reinforcing its forces at Kherson.
Still, Russia has been evacuating civilians from Kherson for several days. Can you explain why they would do that?
flood simulation:
https://youtu.be/b587ZUKlZsI
They don’t want risk the lives of thousands of civilians. If it is possible to evacuate them, they should be evacuated. From Kherson too, because Kherson is under regular artillery attacks.
When Washington invaded Iraq they bombed every power station around Baghdad.
Funny how no journos or politicians mention that now, isn’t it? It’s a lie by omission, so they can claim that Russia is doing something they’d NEEEVAH do or support.
All the major power plant substations and major step down transformers are toast and those things cannot be backordered probably for another six months to a year. Ukraine is done. Soon they won’t be able to murder people in Donbass by shelling apartment buildings anymore, even though they use artillery ammo to do that even now.
Recall the French reporter in Kherson who witnessed their criminal daily attacks on apartment buildings. (And then the studio cut her off, and removed that part from their web version of the broadcast.)
Perhaps it was because no tv pundits in the US proposed to do this to freeze the people of Iraq to death – but hey do not let small inconvenient facts like that confuse you.
As if tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians didn’t die from the lack of electricity, leading to loss of water, transport and communications facilites, and the like. And as if it were not entirely predictable. During Desert Storm:
There is little doubt…of the impact of the loss of power in
Iraq on the civilian population. The civilian effects from the loss of power were quite severe, including the loss of power to hospitals, the breakdown of water purification systems, and damage to sewage systems, which then contaminated the water supply. One report attributed 70,000 deaths to this
indirect collateral damage caused by a lack of electricity.60
60. The figure of 70,000 is used by William K. Arkin of Greenpeace International who, by all accounts, has presented the most unbiased, though critical, review of the strategic bombing in Iraq, see “Tactical Bombing of Iraqi Forces Outstripped Value of Strategic Hits, Analyst Contends,” Aviation Week & Space Technology 136, no. 4 (27 January 1992), 62–63. …Some estimates are given as high as 170,000
casualties….
https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001861964/-1/-1/0/T_GRIFFITH_STRATEGIC_ATTACK.PDF
What “TV pundits” say doesn’t matter. The truth is the USA routinely bombs “civilian infrastruture,” knows that doing so kills civilians, and claims, to this day, that it is legally justified in doing so. Your attempts to muddy the waters with extraneous BS are unavailing.
I recall when Slick Willie had a pharmaceutical facility bombed in an attempt to distract the Amerikkkan public from his little “thing “ with Lewinsky…
(Who keeps a dress with jiz on it?)
Seeing as they were then under US occupation, this was not done to ‘thirst’ them into submission, but a crime of not providing for an occupied territory’s population. So not as such a war crime and the act not done to yield submission/surrender by killing civilians through denying them drink.
And yes still very much a crime – but an entirely different type of crime – and as with any crime intent matters – jeez one would have thought a layer knew this!
Can I float this idea?
Maybe ZelBoy would favorably respond to calls for diplomacy if we sent him more high heels and a new piano 😁