Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[DaveCinzano]

View attachment 378917

She sent him guided missiles
And he received them with a strange delight
Just like
His wife
But how she was before the wars
And how she was before the HIMARS flew by
And how she was when she was beautiful
She signed the treaty
All yours
Matryoshka, matryoshka, matryoshka ya-yaiiii
All yours
Matryoshka, matryoshka, matryoshka ya-yaiiii

 

[B.I.G]

How nice that the Putin-apologists have had their moment in the sun.

 

[Pickman's model]

the Putin-apologists

There's always a plus one somewhere in your posts

 

[WouldBe]

To those that claim russian targeting if civilian buildings was accidental then how come they can manage to hit a smaller moving tank accurately.

 

[DownwardDog]

The stench of malice that hangs over the breaching of the dam is what makes me suspect the hand of vlad. As for the west, I think they're waiting to see how far Ukraine gets with the offensive - and they're agnostic at best about the chances of that offensive. I suspect that if it gets "thus far and no further", there will be a "quiet word" in Zelensky's ear, telling him to be a good boy and accept the de facto partition of Ukraine.

Which I doubt he'll accept.

He wouldn’t have any choice would he? Ukraine is on economic and military life support from the US. If Zelensky won't do as he's told then there will be a minor administrative skirmish between the CIA and State Dept. to see whose boy gets to replace him.

 

[strung out]

Anyway, looks like after a while since the last one of these, Ukraine have taken out another Russian general. Presumably with a UK supplied Storm Shadow missile.

 

[Ax^]

no hospital window for once

 

[teqniq]

Im wondering about the reluctance of western nations to outright pin the blame on russia for the dam breach - (this just in - it was russia). Is it becasue they would then have to do something about it and are not prepated to go any further in the escalation stakes (i.e. internatioanl humanitarian intervention - with the backing of force to stop shit like russia shelling the disaster area)? What Russia has done is not far off setting off a nuke in the destruction stakes.

this article is pretty nail on the head, at least for me except for the last part which entirely misses your point:

What lies behind Russia’s acts of extreme violence? Freudian analysis offers an answer | Peter Pomerantsev

The blowing up of a Ukrainian dam echoes a traditional cycle of destruction and self-destruction marking the country’s history

www.theguardian.com

more on the scale of the death toll:

Russians drowned hundreds of Ukrainians in the occupied Kherson oblast left bank

It is difficult to write this post because at this moment the water is taking the lives and homes of my acquaintances, friends, and relatives in the city of

ukrainefrontlines.com

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Russia boasting about taking out another Leopard...






I'm no engineer, but....

 

[kebabking]

The reluctance seems, to me, to have a very obvious reason.

If we say that a) it was Russia, and b) that it was deliberate, we implicitly say there should be consequences for this event, and consequences for any further event.

We, the west, are simply not prepared to lay ourselves open to being hostages to such fortune. This is a 'Red Lines' thing - it's very obvious that there are NATO/US red lines, that Putin understands, and steers well clear of - regarding things like incursions into NATO territory, and use of CBRN in Ukraine, but I'm not clear that a concessusis presently there about the threatened (and deliverable) consequences of things like blowing up dams.

I would say it's a work in progress - and that just as the 'rules' of a year ago are not the rules of today, the rules of today are not necessarily going to be the rules in two months or whatever.

There a dicotomy: the weaker Russia becomes and is shown to be, the more it's Red Lines, and threats can be ignored - OTOH, the more it's threats and red lines are ignored and trampled on, the more panicked it becomes, and more likely to lash out to show how powerful/formidable/whatever it is.

 

[The39thStep]

this article is pretty nail on the head, at least for me except for the last part which entirely misses your point:

What lies behind Russia’s acts of extreme violence? Freudian analysis offers an answer | Peter Pomerantsev

The blowing up of a Ukrainian dam echoes a traditional cycle of destruction and self-destruction marking the country’s history

www.theguardian.com

View attachment 378942
more on the scale of the death toll:

Russians drowned hundreds of Ukrainians in the occupied Kherson oblast left bank

It is difficult to write this post because at this moment the water is taking the lives and homes of my acquaintances, friends, and relatives in the city of

ukrainefrontlines.com

The UK has sent £16m worth of support regarding the dam

• UK funding will assist aid organisations with their response and includes £10 million to the Red Cross Movement, £5 million to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and £1 million to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM)

EU states have sent equipment like water filters, pumps, and generators through its Civil Protection Mechanism

 

[Gerry1time]

Russia boasting about taking out another Leopard...

I'm no engineer, but....

View attachment 378945

Are those car tyres on that thing? German engineering really is overhyped.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

The reluctance seems, to me, to have a very obvious reason.

If we say that a) it was Russia, and b) that it was deliberate, we implicitly say there should be consequences for this event, and consequences for any further event.

We, the west, are simply not prepared to lay ourselves open to being hostages to such fortune. This is a 'Red Lines' thing - it's very obvious that there are NATO/US red lines, that Putin understands, and steers well clear of - regarding things like incursions into NATO territory, and use of CBRN in Ukraine, but I'm not clear that a concessusis presently there about the threatened (and deliverable) consequences of things like blowing up dams.

I would say it's a work in progress - and that just as the 'rules' of a year ago are not the rules of today, the rules of today are not necessarily going to be the rules in two months or whatever.

There a dicotomy: the weaker Russia becomes and is shown to be, the more it's Red Lines, and threats can be ignored - OTOH, the more it's threats and red lines are ignored and trampled on, the more panicked it becomes, and more likely to lash out to show how powerful/formidable/whatever it is.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for that explanation. Because a equivalent response to such an atrocity would have to be devastating and we don't want to go there.

 

[Idris2002]

He wouldn’t have any choice would he? Ukraine is on economic and military life support from the US. If Zelensky won't do as he's told then there will be a minor administrative skirmish between the CIA and State Dept. to see whose boy gets to replace him.

You're not wrong there. The state department people were very nice to me, the one time I dropped in on them, but if your skirmish does happen, my money's on The Cousins.

 

[WouldBe]

no hospital window for once

Not very aerodynamic to be fired long distance.

 

[Pickman's model]

The reluctance seems, to me, to have a very obvious reason.

If we say that a) it was Russia, and b) that it was deliberate, we implicitly say there should be consequences for this event, and consequences for any further event.

We, the west, are simply not prepared to lay ourselves open to being hostages to such fortune. This is a 'Red Lines' thing - it's very obvious that there are NATO/US red lines, that Putin understands, and steers well clear of - regarding things like incursions into NATO territory, and use of CBRN in Ukraine, but I'm not clear that a concessusis presently there about the threatened (and deliverable) consequences of things like blowing up dams.

I would say it's a work in progress - and that just as the 'rules' of a year ago are not the rules of today, the rules of today are not necessarily going to be the rules in two months or whatever.

There a dicotomy: the weaker Russia becomes and is shown to be, the more it's Red Lines, and threats can be ignored - OTOH, the more it's threats and red lines are ignored and trampled on, the more panicked it becomes, and more likely to lash out to show how powerful/formidable/whatever it is.

so on the one hand it's fine to say the russians deliberately committed atrocities in mariupol and on the other not so fine to say the russians deliberately breached the dam. what consequences will there be for the former behaviour?

 

[existentialist]

so on the one hand it's fine to say the russians deliberately committed atrocities in mariupol and on the other not so fine to say the russians deliberately breached the dam. what consequences will there be for the former behaviour?

It's a bit topsy-turvy, but...

Accusing someone of deliberately razing a city to the ground, which is arguably worse, is to accuse them of an offence with a little more nuance than to accuse them of deliberately destroying a major piece of civilian infrastructure.

Cities get bombed in wars. Everyone ends up doing it - it shouldn't happen if there's no military purpose to it, but it does. And it's pretty easy to gussy up some kind of threat to warrant doing it. Not only that, but we (NATO?) have let Russia cross that red line dozens of times in the last 30 years, with no comeback - it'd be a bit late in the day to suddenly start having a fit of the vapours over Mariupol. Bombing a dam, OTOH, is somehow qualititatively different - I guess it's a bit like the way we get tremendously upset about an airliner crashing and killing 200 people, while remaining fairly sanguine about the fact that, worldwide, the daily death toll on the roads far exceeds it.

But the West has to decide if this is the particular hill on which they want to draw a Big Red Line. I can understand the reluctance - my suspicion is that they're husbanding their Red Line Paint for something in particular, almost certainly the use of CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) weapons in Ukraine.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's a bit topsy-turvy, but...

Accusing someone of deliberately razing a city to the ground, which is arguably worse, is to accuse them of an offence with a little more nuance than to accuse them of deliberately destroying a major piece of civilian infrastructure.

Cities get bombed in wars. Everyone ends up doing it - it shouldn't happen if there's no military purpose to it, but it does. And it's pretty easy to gussy up some kind of threat to warrant doing it. Not only that, but we (NATO?) have let Russia cross that red line dozens of times in the last 30 years, with no comeback - it'd be a bit late in the day to suddenly start having a fit of the vapours over Mariupol. Bombing a dam, OTOH, is somehow qualititatively different - I guess it's a bit like the way we get tremendously upset about an airliner crashing and killing 200 people, while remaining fairly sanguine about the fact that, worldwide, the daily death toll on the roads far exceeds it.

But the West has to decide if this is the particular hill on which they want to draw a Big Red Line. I can understand the reluctance - my suspicion is that they're husbanding their Red Line Paint for something in particular, almost certainly the use of CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) weapons in Ukraine.

if i was ukrainian i would feel that there are a lot of poltroons in the chancelleries of western europe and north america. so much for the 'never again' rhetoric about genocide.

 

[LDC]

if i was ukrainian i would feel that there are a lot of poltroons in the chancelleries of western europe and north america

10/10, poltroon is a word I haven't heard since being called it by a teacher many years ago.

 

[existentialist]

if i was ukrainian i would feel that there are a lot of poltroons in the chancelleries of western europe and north america. so much for the 'never again' rhetoric about genocide.

And I think they'd be largely right. But then, people always say "never again" about genocide. And a lot of other things besides. Because it's easy to say, and sounds like the right thing to say at the time. Actually doing something about it is another proposition.

 

[existentialist]

10/10, poltroon is a word I haven't heard since being called it by a teacher many years ago.

Pickman's model's posts are a lesson unto themselves

 

[Pickman's model]

And I think they'd be largely right. But then, people always say "never again" about genocide. And a lot of other things besides. Because it's easy to say, and sounds like the right thing to say at the time. Actually doing something about it is another proposition.

quite, as samantha power points out in her 'a problem from hell'

 

[The39thStep]

10/10, poltroon is a word I haven't heard since being called it by a teacher many years ago.

I've never heard of it. Thought it might be a bird

 

[LDC]

I've never heard of it. Thought it might be a bird

Think does have same root as poultry. I think my teacher was using it incorrectly, he was meaning I was lazy or an idiot rather than a coward I expect.

 

[maomao]

10/10, poltroon is a word I haven't heard since being called it by a teacher many years ago.

makes note

The trick to insulting kids to their faces is to use words they don't understand.

 

[Flavour]

Russians drowned hundreds of Ukrainians in the occupied Kherson oblast left bank

It is difficult to write this post because at this moment the water is taking the lives and homes of my acquaintances, friends, and relatives in the city of

ukrainefrontlines.com

No news in several days from my friends family in oleshky.

 

[A380]

I've never heard of it. Thought it might be a bird

Don’t be silly, it’s a kind of floating bridge….

 

[Artaxerxes]

It's a bit topsy-turvy, but...

Accusing someone of deliberately razing a city to the ground, which is arguably worse, is to accuse them of an offence with a little more nuance than to accuse them of deliberately destroying a major piece of civilian infrastructure.

Cities get bombed in wars. Everyone ends up doing it - it shouldn't happen if there's no military purpose to it, but it does. And it's pretty easy to gussy up some kind of threat to warrant doing it. Not only that, but we (NATO?) have let Russia cross that red line dozens of times in the last 30 years, with no comeback - it'd be a bit late in the day to suddenly start having a fit of the vapours over Mariupol. Bombing a dam, OTOH, is somehow qualititatively different - I guess it's a bit like the way we get tremendously upset about an airliner crashing and killing 200 people, while remaining fairly sanguine about the fact that, worldwide, the daily death toll on the roads far exceeds it.

But the West has to decide if this is the particular hill on which they want to draw a Big Red Line. I can understand the reluctance - my suspicion is that they're husbanding their Red Line Paint for something in particular, almost certainly the use of CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) weapons in Ukraine.

Every day Putin has a new red line so it makes sense to only use it sparingly instead of going all out

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I've never heard of it. Thought it might be a bird

I wasn’t called that, but Mr Lewis called me a yellow-bellied fool. I muttered back that it’s better than being a minging old cunt, he heard and asked what I had just said. ‘Nothing, sir’ would have been good at this stage, instead I said loudly, ‘better than being a minging old cunt, sir.’ This lesson ended as well as you could expect, really.

 

[Dystopiary]

Bad news in Kryvyi Rih, central Ukraine.



Popular Front on twitter

28 people were injured according to the Guardian.

Russian missile strike on Kryvyi Rih