I'd not support Ukraine indiscriminately killing women and children, but luckily it seems like Ukraine is more interested in military targets and infrastructure.
Russia, on the other hand, seems to be directly targeting women and children. Which, to my mind, makes them a terrorist state.
“Yes it is - Russia peacefully took the land back in 2014 and now Ukraine and NATO are the bloodythirsty aggressors who have started a war there” - comments on lemmygrad, probably.
“This woman stabbed me with a knife while I was trying to push her down! Why does she get a pass while I’m the evil one for trying to force myself on her!?”
Uhm, no, based on your definition not even the official 9/11 story’s Al-Quaida would be considered terrorists because they supposedly admitted to what they were doing:
FBI’s terrorism definitions:
International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.
Al Queda was a non-state actor with state support. You bolded “nations”, but that whole line says “designated foreign terrorist … nations”. The Ukrainians are not trying to instil fear, they’re cutting a major logistical line with military uses.
I also bolded nations (state-sponsored), political organizations, state institutions such as armies and intelligence services.
Exactly for that reason. Ukraine is openly and clandestinely attacking* Russia, most likely with help from Western governments. The goal is to instill fear in the Russian population in order to reduce the russian population’s willingness to support or accept the ongoing SMO/war against Ukraine/NATO expansion.
Not to forget the Nordstream pipelines (though I’m sure the US was heavily involved).
Come on man, there are no good people in war. Stop the “Russian talking points” line while simultaneously regurgitating Western talking points. It’s quite tiresome.
“No good people in the war that Russia started and is perpetuating.”
Ukraine’s options for ending the war here are either continue fighting (in its own territory, even) or lay down and die. Are you seriously recommending it do the latter?
If you want better results, you should spend your time convincing Russia to end their war of aggression, instead of bitching about the lengths Ukraine must go to if it wants to not die.
And leave everyone exposed to one-sided Western propaganda that’s already all over the media? Nah, pass. I did my own research into the whole Ukraine/Russia/maidan coup story years ago after stumbling upon some people critical of the Western narrative. You and people like you can downvote and keep on repeating the same NATO talking points all you want, I’m not here for the clout/karma/whatever. :)
So because Western news exists you’ve decided to suck down one-sided Russian propaganda? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard. There is actually a true story here, despite attempts by willing idiots like you to apologize for Russian atrocities and hide the truth in Ukraine. You should consider that the next time you decide to shill on the Internet for imperialistic dictators.
You keep on repeating yourself and it’s quite obvious you’re not acting in good faith and that you’re incapable of accepting that people may actually form opinions that aren’t your own. I’m out. If you all you see is Russian propagandists, have fun living in that reality.
I’ll grant you Darya’s assassination is suspect, but like you admit, there’s no confirmation. As for the drones, that’s a ridiculous false equivalence given those drones were targeting military assets and no civilians were hurt by them, unlike Russias pattern of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure.
I’ve seen no credible evidence that anyone other than Russia was behind the Nordstream attacks, but feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
I might add my grandparents were great when they fought off the fascist Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Russia is wholly in the wrong for this war and did so only under the false assumption they’d be able to take over quickly and with acceptable repercussions.
You’re the one bringing up “Russian talking points”; the views I present are my own.
You’re the one bringing up “Russian talking points”; the views I present are my own.
He said, she said - we’re going in circles here. Either we’re both able to accept that we have our own views, hopefully based on research of somewhat neutral or at least sources of both sides or we’ll keep throwing mud at each other for no reason.
I’ve seen no credible evidence that anyone other than Russia was behind the Nordstream attacks, but feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Sure thing, see:
After months of accusations by Western states that Russia carried out the attack against itself, the narrative about Russian “ghost ships” began to crumble. On May 21, the Swedish paper, Expressen, wrote that “the Russian ships have been able to be excluded from the investigation” because “their positions have been mapped and the conclusion must be that they have not been in such a place that they could have carried out the deed.” […] In a June 7 article, the Washington Post cited intelligence gleaned from the Discord Files to assert that the Ukrainian military had secretly orchestrated the Nord Stream sabotage. “All those involved reported directly to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer,” the Post claimed, “who was put in charge so that the nation’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, wouldn’t know about the operation, the intelligence report said."
I’m aware TGZ is suspect to many (I can already hear the “tanki tankie!!!11” crowd) and I don’t take anything they write at face value either, but seriously, this is solid reporting on the matter, a good summary of the various narratives that have been put into play so far, it’s well sourced and based on data collected by Erik Andersson who lead an independent diving expedition to the blast sites. You can also check out his Substack if you absolutely don’t want to read TGZ.
If you’re still convinced it was Russia, I don’t know what to tell you.
If the goal were to instill fear in Russian citizens, they'd be attacking Russian citizens.
They are not.
They are attacking a Russian supply line to hamper their offensive efforts.
When you give bad faith actors the benefit of the doubt, you look like a bad faith actor yourself. Stop parroting Russian talking points as if there's a way for Ukraine to have their approval without capitulating.
Office buildings are not military targets, nor was the plane used to strike the Pentagon (getting ahead of that potential rebuttal). The Kerch bridge is as it’s used to transport military goods to the front line.
There’s a reason I quoted multiple definitions. The 9/11 example is also clearly a response to the comment I’m replying to because the author claimed that terrorism requires that the perpetrators are hiding their involvement.
None of your definitions match Ukraine, which attacks military targets during an active war started by a nation that invaded them.
Now, Russia actively bombing civilian targets to generate a climate of fear in a population to bring a particular political objective, seems to awfully match that definition.
What’s so interesting to me is that from much of what I’ve read - bombing civilian populations as a way to end a war has basically never worked. It was pushed heavily in WWII due to I think LeMay theories, but basically strengthened morale to stand up to the enemy instead.
Of course, not saying the Russians, or really anyone who gets into a war is necessarily behaving rationally, but this is sadly very destructive with very little history saying it’ll help anyone achieve any goal.
Yeah, in case of Ukrainians they know that if they surrender it still won't be over, the next thing will be killing them and moving them to far east until the Ukrainian identity is completely erased.
Yeah, in case of Ukrainians they know that if they surrender it still won’t be over, the next thing will be killing them
The constant refrain of “Russia wants to kill every Ukrainian”. It’s never made sense. There has never been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukrainians.
Can you lay out exactly why you think that Russia will kill Ukrainians once the war is over? Can you lay out why you think the goal is to kill Ukrainians?
The stated goal is killing the Ukrainian identity, a.k.a. genocide.
Is it? Can you point me to anywhere that that’s the stated goal?
That has never been part of the stated goal. The stated goal has included de-Nazificiation and NATO pushback/response to security threats. Never has the stated goal included wanting to genocide Ukrainians.
‘“What Russia Should Do with Ukraine” (Russian: Что Россия должна сделать с Украиной, romanized: Chto Rossiya dolzhna sdelat’ s Ukrainoy), is an article written by Timofey Sergeytsev and published by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti. The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state, as well as the full destruction of the Ukrainian national identity in accordance with Russia’s aim to accomplish the “denazification” of the latter.’
Pretty genocidal if you ask me. And before you say articles on state-owned media don’t count, let’s take a minute to remember what Russia did to Chechenya:
Putin was never hiding that in his opinion Ukraine has no particular cultural significance or uniqueness
If you watch interviews of Muscovies they want to exterminate Ukrainians some people didn't even have problem with saying that Ukrainian children should be murdered
there are already brutal attacks on Ukrainian civilians and many documented war crimes
nearly a million of Ukrainian kids were kidnapped and sent to Muscovies, that's basically a textbook example of genocide
Do you believe things will get better if they have full control over Ukraine?
The purpose of felling the two towers was to cause terror and change amaricans political views.
The purpose of felling the Kerch bridge is to stop russian bringing military resources into the Ukraine.
What maybe a difficult point is something like the bombing of ww2 cities like Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima. Many there were making munitions for Japan so was it.civilian or moltrry
Of course an AI can’t replace spies. Spies infiltrate organizations and governments to gain intelligence on that group. You can’t replace a spy something that can’t get access.
Yes. As long as the reason is not a race sex etc. (I think protected category is a US term but the same idea applies)
His argument is that he was allowed with low value in the past. And somehow the fact that his Business plan is failing is a political choice. If your business is politics. Well no desision cant be classed as a political choice.
Worth noting, he is talking to the press. Rather than a court. This is just a desperate attempt to use politics to make his business valid again.
Why would they agree to a grain deal who mostly goes to europe when they are not in good relationship? Simply because fuck yes european overlords take the grain
No it doesn’t it goes mostly to China, and China will be okay without this, then, after this, it goes mainly to Europe. Don’t come with this bullshit you give two fucks about African people now.
The amount of grain still going to Africa is very significant, not to mention whatever processing then export of secondary products eventually goes to developing countries. And grain is a global commodity. Without the grain deal, Ukraine doesn’t have any other viable option to export at volume that can compete with sea exports, given that the European rail gauges are different and the physical logistics of transporting it are cost prohibitive and limited by capacity. That raises the price of Ukrainian grain which raises the price of grain globally since it all competes in the same global market. And those who would be most affected are countries who are both food importers and poor, where Africa and the Middle East are top of the list.
Rising grain prices sparked the Arab spring, were part contributor to the political and economic collapse of Sri Lanka, and in general higher food prices have a very disproportionate effect on the poor everywhere.
Costa Rica (stick with me here) is world-renowned for it's coffee, which makes up 15% of the GDP of the entire country. And years ago, when I visited a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, they told me how they make decaffeinated coffee - and that, while decaffeinated coffee was a product in demand in Costa Rica, there wasn't a single de-cacfeinating plant in the entire country. It was cheaper for them to ship the coffee to Germany to be decaffeinated, then shipped back to Costa Rica for more processing before being sold. Why is this relevant?
not to mention whatever processing then export of secondary products eventually goes to developing countries.
Because it's entirely possible that they're processing the base grain into more refined products before it heads to it's final destination.
Because it’s entirely possible that they’re processing the base grain into more refined products before it heads to it’s final destination.
And, as with any speculation, just because something is possible does not guarantee it is happening. As with any speculation, it helps to try to back up your claims.
64% of the wheat exported through the Black Sea Grain Initiative reached developing countries. Maize has been exported almost equally to developed and developing countries.
and
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP – the largest humanitarian organisation in the world) has also shipped wheat from Black Sea ports. Before the war, the programme bought half of its grain stock from Ukraine. Since the start of the initiative in August 2022 over 725 000 tonnes of wheat have left Ukrainian ports to Ethiopia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya and Djibouti.
47% goes to Europe, so 53% goes to other countries. So I am technically correct here. African countries will unfortunately feel the biggest impact, even though the numbers maybe aren’t that high.
My point was that it doesn‘t go mostly to Europe. Which is correct. But yes, I didn’t write it. Also Africans suffer the most because of it, not Europe (which makes this whole debate completely senseless)
lol people are making complete fools of themselves parroting this shit. Of course most of the grain goes to Turkey to travel further from there. Instead of sending ships to fucking Kenya from Ukraine it is much more sensible to get as much as you can out of Ukraine to the next safe harbour - which is Turkey. Apparently these basics are too clever for you lot.
Ah goold old “show me proof” that you won’t accept anyways. Here’s a question for you: if all the grain vanished into Europe as you say, why have there been no complaints from Africa? Where are the famines that were to happen if Ukraine did not surrender so that Russia allows exports again?
The only complaints from Africa we hear is that Russia’s exit from the deal is a stab in the back. Never did we hear “well the grain never reached Africa anyways” before but now we hear it from the usual useful idiots.
y vos te pensas que que, que la mierda que publican uds tiene algun tipo de magia democratica que la hace verdad? anda a hacerte ortear pedazo de garca
lol won’t even bother to put that into a translation machine because it’ll be worthless garbage. Whining in your native tongue hoping others won’t understand it is always a sign of strength and bravery, right?
So wait, they’re saying the chemicals to make fentanyl are smuggled from the United States to Mexico and then the fentanyl is smuggled from Mexico back to the United States? Because I’m seeing an unnecessary step or two in this process.
reuters.com
Newest