The amount of pearl clutching and disinformation Russia does when ukraine does literally anything, means we have to point out the bs when we see it against ukraine. But yes it would be better if people weren’t killed.
Why would he need to be on a battlefield and take useless risk for that? If all his job is to publish propaganda dictated by the Kremlin he can do it remote working from his living room.
You people never stop to think before commenting holy shit. Please go back to reddit.
If they are fabricating propaganda, why would they go to the front line? Why risk their life when, according to you, they’re just going to make everything up and say what they want anyway? Seems like the easier, safer, and more effective propaganda would simply not involve going to the front line and instead sitting in a news room, with some CGI if they’re feeling fancy, or using old footage if they’re not, and propagating that?
Moreover, just because you don’t like what a journalist is reporting, you can’t condone killing journalists.
Are you also saying it’d be ok to kill Russian medics, since after all, they’re just saving the lives of “Russian war criminals”? Should we suddenly open up the rules of war to allow killing medics on the side we’re fighting? The logic you’re using to defend the killing of journalists, when applied evenly, would say yes, we should allow killing of enemy medics.
Fortunately though, the Geneva Convention disagrees with your faulty logic and recognizes that non-combat roles including medics and journalists can not be targeted and indeed care should be taken to not inadvertently kill them.
So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don’t have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: “yeah but Russia does bad”.
Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.
No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.
I guess you don’t understand how this works. I’m not building a strawman, as I’m literally describing the Geneva Convention’s justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I’m simply asking you to extend your “logic” to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.
You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?
I see that you don’t actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven’t mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven’t justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.
It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I’ve raised, that you’re content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia’s supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.
Why would they condemn Russia when the article that started this discussion identifies a potential war crime committed by Ukraine and facilitated by NATO. There’s lots to criticise Russia for but this ain’t it.
Do you honestly think western reporting on the war is honest?
Of all the gigs that journalists do, reporting on “war” is the toughest. Not because of the dangers – though these must not to be underestimated. But when reporting “war”, journalists face off against the world’s most powerful vested interests and compete with society’s deepest cultural mythologies.
At its best, the Fourth Estate uncovered the My Lai massacre, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the incestuous relations in the Bush era of retired military officers, the US Defence Department and the “defence” industry.
In this incarnation, the Fourth Estate frightened even Napoleon. In his words:
“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.”
But the military’s “reality” is powerful, insidious and covert. It is seductive.
And I, for one, am not speaking for Russia when I criticise peoples’ happiness over the fact that a journalist has been killed in a war zone, just because they were Russian.
Russia claims all manner of outlandish drivel. If a journalist is killed by munitions you’ve been using for over a year yourself in a warzone you created I bring out my tiny violin.
By that same logic, Russia should shed no tears if those munitions kill journalists who can simply be rebranded propagandists. Hence the need not to judge whether a journalist is a propagandist and to avoid killing civilians holding press cards.
(Aside: Russia would be right in saying that the West locks up it’s journalists, especially those who highlight war crimes, and could point to one resident of Belmarsh in particular as incontrovertible evidence.)
I don't think he cares about Wagner, he wants to see if NATO backs up Poland if Poland is attacked as a response to Poland "attacking" Belarus.
BTW: Poland doesn't have stellar reputation in the west, primarily because of politicians who attack west and strangely are warm towards Russia. One might say "what do you mean? Poland is very anti Russia" and this is true with most Poles, but the ruling party still continues fighting with the west, some even say that they don't know which enemy is worse, west or east, like WTF? Then there's a Konfederacja populist party by Russia which is fully against west and its leaders advocated to improve relations with Russia. Most members of course are less open and saying that we should give Russia what it wants or we get attacked.
That was also the only party that demanded our politicians to apologize when a protester splashed Russian ambassador with red paint at the beginning of the full invasion.
At what point are the western European countries going to start fighting back? The EU itself can’t really, because they let the problem spread and need unanimity for certain things.
We still have some where I live, but I haven’t been in years and they’re all dying. As an older dude, I really only went for games, shirts, and someplace social to walk around and see interesting or new stuff with my wife. Games are all online and I can get next day delivery from Amazon if I want the finest textiles China has to offer. (Not entirely negative, they’re the just not known for high quality, dat price tho.) Especially after covid, we generally don’t go out to public places for social interaction. Anymore, we just go to gatherings of friends and play different board games people have gotten recently
I meant not popular as in they don’t have as much foot traffic as they did a few decades ago. Many exist, but the number of malls that don’t feel “dead” is pretty low in my experience.
Yup. We have like 4 within 30 min driving distance (assuming we’re talking indoor malls), and they all feel pretty empty whenever I go. Granted, I don’t go very often, but it definitely seems a lot less popular than even 10 years ago.
Russia and Ukraine have both been using cluster bombs since the start of the war. The only difference is now Ukraine has American ones with lower dud rates.
Cue false outrage media circus, blah de fucking blah
I think after Poland ignored two Russian missiles, putin is thinking to use Wagner from Belarus to test and see what will happen if NATO country gets attacked. The normal answer would be that it would be war between Belarus and NATO. Which should be fairly quick. He is trying to tip the scale by saying Russia will be also back Belarus if attacked (BTW Hitler also stated WW2 claiming Poland attacked Nazi Germany), hoping that NATO won't back up Poland.
Nope, they didn’t. That’s what was the interesting thing about it.
NATO said they were Ukrainian. Ukrainians stayed adament they were russian. Ukraine didn’t even apologize to Poland for their (allgedly) missile killing two polish citizens.
That’s what made clear to me that it was indeed a russian missile, and NATO covered it up because they didn’t want to intervene. Which is also why they denied Ukrainain specialists access to the impact site for days.
I’m going off the deep end a bit here, but reports started off with two missiles. I thought it must have been a Ukrainian AA missile chasing a Russian cruise missile, with the Russian missile responsible for the deaths.
Then news suddenly shut up about the second missile, and started selling it as one Ukrainian missile.
I wouldn’t be surprised it was covered up so NATO didn’t get tested.
Thing is, every line Russia has drawn in the sand, accession to NATO, arms supplies to Ukraine etc have been proven to be empty words. Russia has backed off each time.
An attack on Poland from Belarus would quickly lead to an invasion from Poland. Securing Ukraine’s northern border would free up a lot of Ukrainian resources and would put NATO soldiers in another neighboring country to Russia.
It would be suicide for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Putin's been invading Ukraine since 2014. His 3-day special operation is going on for 514 days, had him running from a mutiny (I need a ride,not ammo!), has killed 241,330 Russians, has the Kerch bridge opening and closing like a fucking accordion, and is a global criminal. And all against a country with no nukes, no navy, barely an airforce, a tenth of Russia's defense budget, and 28 times smaller than Russia.
He's losing so badly, the whole world's laughing at him.
As I said earlier, Putin's standup act is very funny.
The 3-day myth was entirely a gaffe by the stupid general Milley. I’m not even going to address the other sci-fi numbers you blurted out as they are santa claus type of fantasy.
Oh no, I’m shaking in my boots. It sure would be a shame if the might of the Russian military invaded my country. They’re having trouble invading a small, neighboring nation by land, but I should totally fear them crossing an ocean to invade a nation that has an objectively superior military. Maybe if I defend him online, Putin will spare me. Notice me, Putin-san! uwu.
reuters.com
Newest