Russian telegram channels reported without proof the death may be attributed to the way they conduct a documentation.
They group up with multiple other people, including soldiers, and stay as a group continuously. This is to control that nothing gets shown which should not be visible and have a tight control.
Apart from the lacking proof I am sceptical this would be required as this news agency is under full Kremlin control, but rational reasoning isn’t required for this authoritarian government.
It’s called ‘embedding’ journalists. It’s a real problem.
Edit: struggling to understand why this would be down voted. I’m not making any kind of value claim. It’s a matter of law that journalists who ride with soldiers are ‘embedded’ and the advice is not to do it because it’s dangerous and makes things more dangerous for other journalists.
There might be downvote bots etc. Never bother too much about the vote count on pages like these. Some communities in total, but at least certain discussions can quickly circle jerk. I’m reading also downvoted comments, because it could be a valuable perspective, even if it went against the flow.
CNN* is an obvious US propaganda channel and yet we were all outraged when WikiLeaks revealed that US helicopter pilots gunned down fucking journalists in Iraq.
There are few rules in war.
You do not attack hospitals, first aid responders and journalists, for fucks sake. I don’t give a fuck whose “side” this journalist belongs to. They are there to provide information of a battle field that would otherwise be lost.
When Russia attacked a hospital some time in 2022 after the war started, I was disgusted.
What has happened to you people. wtf.
this is an example. I am not trying to bring a “muh but US is doing propaganda too” bullshit take in here.
I’m fairly certain the same people would be outraged at reports of Russia killing civilians. Apparently Russian civilians, and journalists at that, don’t count.
Then they pretend shock when it is highlighted that dehumanising humans is part and parcel of fascism.
One could be forgiven for thinking that outrage over Russian war crimes is disguised happiness at yet another ‘justification’ for prolonging the war; it’s clearly not motivated by a wish for ending the suffering.
Apparently Russian civilians, and journalists at that, don’t count.
Disgustingly, I have definitely heard people make that case with a straight face, look at all the people celebrating a Russian civilian being killed by a shark. They only care about warcrimes from The Other Team.
Rules in war? This entire war is already illegal. Russia shouldn't even be in Ukraine in the first place. And yes, if you're a frontline reporter, then it might happen that you end up in the crossfire, especially from artillery fire. Or do you think Ukraine saw some reporter through their drones and decided to target them? Stop being an apologist for Russia's aggression.
Edit: Also, Russia does not even have a free press, and with that they don't actually have reporters, but propagandists.
The entire pretext within the Donbass region that Russia was propagating. And you seem to misunderstand. Not me, but he himself called it BS during his little march towards Moscow, that it was all a lie. He should also know since he's the one who owns the troll farms that spread this bullshit throughout the internet.
Sorry I think you’re right that I might be misunderstanding you. You mean the shelling of civilian centers, including with cluster munitions, by the Ukrainian armed forces was BS? That is a verifiable fact though. That’s why I thought you must be referring to something else.
It was reported on by the UN Human Rights Council and the NYT back in 2014/2015, back when such stories could still be printed, not exactly famed Russian-biased propaganda outlets or questionable internet sources.
And I’m talking about desensitized comments almost cheering for and ridiculing the death of a Russian journalist (or evil propagandis, which makes it a-ok). Journalists know what they’re signing up for when reporting out of war zones. It happens.
You still don’t need to fucking be glib about it. That’s all. I’m out of this discussion. You’re all lost.
“You’re not allowed to attack us if we have a journalist with us. That’s the rules. Now don’t mind us while we use civilians as target practice.” - Russia
Reporters in Russia are propagandists. There is no press freedom in that country, so if you work as a reporter, you are not fulfilling the role of a journalist, but a state sanctioned propagandist.
A Russian reporter in Ukraine might as well be a part of the armed forces.
You realise that Russians could say the same thing about Western/Ukrainian reporters, right? I’m not making any claim here about whether any particular journalists are propagandists. I’m pointing out that your argument could apply universally. Hence the need for universal rules against killing journalists.
Man, the ability to individually block any and all traffic from whole lemmy instances can’t come soon enough. The fewer authoritarian regime apologists oozing out of the cesspool of lemmygrad I have to yet manually block the better.
Another one who completely misunderstands my point. Did you gloss over the part where I said that I wasn’t calling any western journalist a propagandist? Only that Russian apologists could claim that and therefore ‘justify’ the killing of civilians (journalists). (Not that being a propagandist justifies the killing of a journalist, to be clear.)
You decided to shut off your brain. It’s illegal to criticize the war as a Russian. That isn’t true of Ukraine or it’s supporters. So you’re making a false comparison.
Are you just saying that russia could lie about western journalists? They can do that new, or whenever, or always. They’re dishonest about that kind of thing all the time, and they have broken so many international laws with this war that being worried that this could be their big opening to start breaking the law is just silly. So silly that I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.
I’ll try to make this point even more directly: killing journalists is a war crime.
There are some occasions when this war crime is excused. For example, when there is no other choice and the the killing is proportionate to the achievement of some other legitimate aim but only if the civilians have been warned effectively. That exception does not appear to apply in the instant circumstances because the victims (one died, three were injured) were all journalists.
Facts that do not alter this conclusion:
The journalist being a propagandist;
Having one’s ‘own side’ commit the same or other war crimes;
The legality of the war;
The proximity of actual soldiers;
The extent to which this law is enforced or enforceable.
The reason I am talking about the killing of a Russian journalist is because he is the subject of the linked article in the post.
End of main point.
If the accusation of being a propagandist justified the killing of journalists, it would also negate the criminal aspect of any such killings by Russia. Russia could simply claim that western journalists are propagandists. It is irrelevant that you think all Russian journalists are propagandists because they will same the same in reverse. Westerners are not entitled to be the sole arbiters of which side is right. Further, there’s no ‘if’ because being a propagandist does not justify the killing of journalists, according to international law.
On another occasion, I would enjoy talking through the state of western and Russian media but for now it is a red herring and is obfuscating the main point.
At the top of your post, you said some things that would take time to verify. At the bottom, you repeated your same absurd argument where you aren’t willing to accept that Russian journalists are propagandists even though it is illegal for them to be critical of the war. And you assert that western journalists are just as likely to be propagandists even though they are actually free to report what they want. You are arguing in bad faith.
I’m begging you to re-read what I said but read it carefully. I chose my words with care and they mean almost the exact opposite of what you think they mean.
You didn’t read what I wrote. If you did, then you’d know I was responding directly to the point you’re trying to make. It doesn’t matter if Ukraine or it’s supporters give Russia justification to start committing war crimes. They already are and have been from the beginning.
I’m unsure if you’re unwilling to understand or unable to understand. Either way, we’re not going to make much progress. I must make a final cla[r]ification lest other readers assume that your (inaccurate) interpretation of my words is correct.
you repeated your same absurd argument where you aren’t willing to accept that Russian journalists are propagandists even though it is illegal for them to be critical of the war.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter whether the Russian journalist was making propaganda. Being a propagandist does not count as direct participation in war under international law. That means that even propagandists are counted as civilians. Therefore it is illegal to kill them.
I also told you that the propaganda point was a red herring. I’m not making any claim as to who is or who is not a propagandist. It is irrelevant.
And you assert that western journalists are just as likely to be propagandists even though they are actually free to report what they want.
No, I do not. I’m saying that Russia could claim that, and that westerners do not have a monopoly on truth. So if the propaganda point was germane (it’s not), it would apply to both sides and grant carte blanche to commit war crimes.
You are arguing in bad faith.
You have said this before and then attributed claims to me that I have not made. That is almost the definition of bad faith, but I am willing to put it down to simple confusion. I’m going to call it a day here because I can’t work on improving your comprehension while you think I’m saying things (which I am not saying) that clearly upset you.
Russia bombs hospitals and schools and homes. Also Russia: how dare you kill journalists that are embedded with our troops using cluster bombs similar to the ones we’ve killed many of your civilians with while trying to subjugate you all!
You’re being dishonest and trying to steer the subject in a new direction because your profit comments on this matter are absurd.
Your argument reduces to solipsism. There are very obviously differences in how press freedoms are handled in Russia versus the west. Your comment clearly implies that you want to bypass that conversation.
Poland won't, but according to Hitler in September 1st, 1939, Nazi Germany was defending itself from Polish attacks.
I think putin is thinking of forcing Belarus with Wagner to attack Poland and see how NATO will react when the threat would be war with Russia (if NATO will respond, which I hope it will, I think Belarus will get the same help as Armenia).
I think NATOs response would have to be a strong, decisive one. No NATO member wants the Alliance to look weak. Nobody wants World War III, either, but I think they’d conclude that showing weakness is riskier than calling Putin’s bluff.
Poland is a major supply hub and has lost plenty of boots on the ground. Art 5 isn’t automatic. US won’t risk nuking for expendables. All Europe is expendable.
Europe has nukes, and an industrial capacity that dwarfs Russia multiple times over and is roughly equal to the US.
Russia has about as much chance attacking Europe as Japan would attacking China on their own.
Also without Europe, the US has no capacity to develop semiconductors better than what Russia has. In the extremely unlikely event Europe falls to Russia, the US will not be far behind.
Russia has no interest in attacking Europe. US/NATO is the executive arm of longterm geopolitical interests that strive for total global dominance. They utilize sophisticated multipronged longterm strategies attempting to bring the rest of the planet under their control. Russia is a small part of that parcel.
The ultima ratio regum part of it considers some geographies more expendable than others. Egress of core industries from the EU is deliberate part of the strategy. Vassals are ruled by compradors, so populations are captive. It’s direct oligarch control on the other side, so it’s simpler.
MAD still applies. Both sides go to great lengths to avoid it, since the outcome is deterministic and global. Which is why the US would be a second target, if not already part of first strategic strike.
Wars are confusing places, so potential for fatal mistakes is exponentiated.
If you think you understand the conflict, you are not understanding the conflict. I have spent decades and lately far too much time on sources inaccessible to most, and I still feel underinformed.
I noticed I commented on world news. My mistake. Lemmy keeps dropping the subscribed filter.
Enlighten me, what are the attacks on Russians neighbours if not war? Please tell me how the Nato forced Russia to attack Georgia or Ukraine? Maybe you should question your “unaccessible to most” (lol) sources if your result is, that Russias not at fault here.
Europe does not have an industrial capacity that comes anywhere close to Russia as is clearly evidenced by the fact that Europe can’t even produce basic things like artillery shells at this point. Furthermore, European industrial capacity needs energy to function and the cost of that has gone up significantly. All of this is well documented in mainstream western media, so it’s kind of shocking that somebody could be this misinformed archive.ph/61ruk
Just read the first line of that article you linked below the title.
Defense contractors are under pressure to ramp up production but want long term government guarantees of sales
It’s not that the West has run out of artillery shells. It’s that the West’s MIC is not willing to ramp up production, since we are not at war, and there is no guarantee that additional manufacturing capacity will pay off for weapons manufacturers once the war ends and there is no need for it any longer.
The EU, particularly Germany has gone through a massive disarmament since the Cold War. It still spends twice as much on its military in absolute terms as Russia. If we are talking total industrial capacity, the EU has 8 times the GDP of Russia.
Just on artillery shells, the 5th biggest artillery force in the world just joined NATO. Do you expect their reserves to be empty?
Uh yeah welcome to capitalist economic relations. Companies aren’t going to build giant factories to pump out weapons and ammunition unless they make their money back. Given that EU is now going into a recession and the standard of living is dropping rapidly, gonna be hard to justify all the government subsidies needed to convince your capitalists to start manufacturing weapons.
Meanwhile, GDP overall doesn’t mean shit. It’s the industrial that actually matters. Most of EU GDP comes from ephemeral things like tourism and service industry. The only major industrial power left in EU is Germany, and it’s becoming rapidly deindustrailized as we speak.
Just on artillery shells, the 5th biggest artillery force in the world just joined NATO. Do you expect their reserves to be empty?
Yeah I do, because if they weren’t empty US wouldn’t be sending cluster munitions to Ukraine right now. US even forced South Korea to send them shells before that happened. NATO lacks industrial capacity to produce weapons at the rate they’re being expanded, and anybody who’s been paying attention can see it.
On the other hand, Russia inherited the military industrial complex from USSR days and unlike the west it never privatized or dismantled it. Now it’s been ramped up and to a capacity that NATO can only dream of.
There’s a reasonable argument to be made that if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, we use similarly sized nuclear weapons on Belarus. It’s the only non-escalatory, tit-for-tat response we have.
If retaliatory nuclear weapons are on the table, why would we launch them at Belarus instead of at Moscow? Not saying we should use nukes, btw. I would think that a better response to Putin nuking Ukraine would be a more precise attack against Putin himself and senior officers involved in greenlighting a nuclear attack on Ukraine. We can’t just go eye for an eye when it comes to tens of thousands of civilians. We need to ensure no more dead innocents, not give them the same number of dead innocents. Especially because people like Putin just straight up don’t give a shit about civilians, including the ones on his side. He’s a sociopath who cares only about what benefits him personally, so nuking Belarus accomplishes nothing.
Attacking Russia mainland or Russian leadership is an instant ticket to global nuclear annihilation.
We need an option that shows we are not afraid to use nuclear weapons, but nor are we willing to escalate. A proportional response in the only option we have, unless we believe we’ve reached the end-game, in which case there can be no precision strike or small escalation; then go all in, launch everything now, all at once.
So, what options do we have that mirrors what Russia might do in Ukraine. Can’t be North Korea, they are nuclear-armed themselves and would mean pulling Japan or South Korea into the exchange.
The only ally Russia have that are semi-implicated in the war, with Russian assets that at the same time aren’t full-bloodied Russian state-troops, are Wagner in Belarus.
So, two nukes in Ukraine from Russia = two nukes on Wagner in Belarus.
Why do you think nuking Russia would be unacceptable in the hypothetical situation of Russia instigating by launching a nuclear attack against Ukraine first? Why do you think that only we are responsible for being mindful of mutually assured destruction in the event that Russia is the first to use a nuclear strike in this war?
Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Belarus? Why do you think Putin gives a shit about Wagner, a group that recently planned to march on Moscow to engage in a coup? What am I missing here?
Do you understand that a nuclear strike on Ukraine means nuclear fallout kicked up into the atmosphere? And that wind will definitely carry that fallout into NATO airspace? And that this would be recognized as an attack upon NATO which would trigger article 5?
Russia is making incredibly stupid decisions, but I don’t think even they are dumb enough to launch a nuke at Ukraine. At a time when they already appear to be villainous weaklings, this would just invite direct action to ensure complete destruction of Russia. So far in this campaign, they’ve only seen the results of a few allies donating weapons, ammunition, and training to Ukraine to use in defense; imagine all branches of militaries of the west directly involved in an offensive with the goal of showing the world what happens when you nuke our ally without cause.
If they launch a nuke in this war, it should be viewed for what it is: the frustrated whimpering of a dying nation, desperately gasping for breath while its lungs fill with blood.
I don’t think nuking Russia is unacceptable. I think the step beyond even a single nuke landing inside Russian borders will lead to doomsday annihilation for all. So if you’re going down that route, go 110% all out. There’s no point thinking we can contain Russia’s response. They will then respond by nuking a western NATO ally, or America itself. After that we’re in, feet first. So if we go down that route I’m saying we might as well start where we end up as that will maximise our chances of having some/any population surviving the exchange.
My suggestion to respond with a nuclear attack on Belarus is based on reciprocal response if Russia uses a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine. They bomb an ally of ours. We bomb an ally of theirs. Same yield, same count, same distance to Russian border to bring about same consequences on Russia.
The aim in this case would be to show that we will follow Russia up the nuclear ladder but that we don’t intend to START a nuclear holocaust.
reuters.com
Hot