Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

Russia still isn’t hitting civilian targets, like the Ukrainians have tried to do through drone strikes etc.
That's why I posted the video of where Achi the cat was hit-a civilian apartment complex. There's no legitimate military target there, only civilian.

They couldn't do this forty years ago? They wait until I'm in my nineties? Fucking commissars.
Screenshot at 2024-03-15 23-27-39.png

Notable, as comrade Joseph Stalin would say:

“Russia 1” reports that Russian intelligence, 2 weeks before the enemy’s attack on the Belgorod region, knew about the enemy’s plans to attack the border regions and had an idea of where the enemy was going to attack. As part of the preparations, the group was strengthened, and conscripts, on Putin’s orders, began to be replaced with contract soldiers and special forces. Excellent intelligence work and good preparation for the "warm welcome". Link to TG post. Video; private TG chat link
 
As part of the preparations, the group was strengthened, and conscripts, on Putin’s orders, began to be replaced with contract soldiers and special forces. Excellent intelligence work and good preparation for the "warm welcome". Link to TG post. Video; private TG chat link
So there is a method to the madness. Ukraine can keep shelling Belgorod from its territory to force Russia to react and cause it to reallocate at least some of its forces, disrupting the already established plan for the spring/early summer offensive. Kiev is trying to force Moscow to play by their rules.
 
They couldn't do this forty years ago? They wait until I'm in my nineties? Fucking commissar
The fall of Berlin was 79 years ago, so even 18 year olds would be 97 now. Russia has very few GPW veterans left, no thanks to the neoliberal disaster of the nineties There were only 24,000 men above 95 in 2022 and many of them are probably dead by now.
It's a lot of love focused on a few heroes.
 
I'm not sure it helps lead to a lasting peace or a healthy partner country. If you think a weak and collapsing country is better to have on your borders than a healthy one, I think the history of the Middle East says strongly otherwise. If nothing else, its citizenry are then dependent on foreign global powers like the USA and serve as an eternal proxy for your enemies.

That's just replying on the practical level. On a moral level I think the tactics of deliberately wounding men and women and targeting rescuers is reprehensible.
I think that sort of reasoning would have worked in 2022, but it will not work in 2024.

Everyone has already made their choices long ago. Odessa has collectively decided to sit on their hands and wait to be "liberated", it seems. That's a perfectly reasonable decision, nobody should be expected to lay their life down for their freedom. The only issue is that helping AFU is counter-productive in that case.

The Russians have shown remarkable restraint about targeting civilians, so if Odessa civvies don't want missiles to land on their heads then they should stay the fuck away from AFU soldiers, especially the injured ones.
 
The USA used basically the same argument for why targeting first responders in the GWOT wasn't bad. We'd hit a site, then delay the second strike for when the first responders would show up, ensuring we mulched everyone who knew how to treat a wound.

The people they were trying to save were terrorists, see, and that made blasting first responders somehow different when we did it.
The difference is you were murdering civilians on purpose to establish your hegemony over a region that didn’t want you. Russia is fighting NATO-backed nazis on its own border in a war of self-preservation. Most Ukrainians desperately want to be rescued by Russians at this point, even the ones who used to buy the propaganda.
 
The fall of Berlin was 79 years ago, so even 18 year olds would be 97 now. Russia has very few GPW veterans left, no thanks to the neoliberal disaster of the nineties There were only 24,000 men above 95 in 2022 and many of them are probably dead by now.
It's a lot of love focused on a few heroes.
Is joke but the look on his face said "If I were a young man..."
As someone far away from the conflict and not involved in a combat way, my primary involvement is to counter untrue Western propaganda. Which I do. That propaganda not being true helps me in my task. What's really striking to me is the glee with which NAFO types or some in the Ukranian Defensive War thread greet any sign of a Russian atrocity. If they were motivated by compassion, Russia dropping a bomb on a school (or appearing to) would be a cause for sadness in such people. But instead what I see often enough is great satisfaction in having one more tool to use. Like your example of Bucha - shaky evidence but received gleefully by the NAFO types who don't care about the victims but love having something to wave around. I don't like giving them the satisfaction.
You're a bong, right? (apologies if not, but bear with me) I have a hypothetical: imagine if that, in the early 21st century it became known France and Spain had, for decades, infiltrated and poisoned the Scots against England. The Scots harassed Anglicans and Presbyterians, and outlawed its worship and only Roman Catholics were permitted to hold services. Scots Gaelic became the official language and the use of English was outlawed in government, schools and in public. The Scots have been surreptitiously arming and training, with anti-English militias who declared they wanted the expulsion of all English, and the deaths of those that refused to leave. Mel Gibson Robert the Bruce was the Scots national hero, and Scots sang ballads extolling the death and dismemberment of the English. The community of English Protestants on the border declares independence and expresses its desire for unification with England. The Scots, armed and and flush with French and Spanish money, declare an anti-terrorist action against that community, and it later turns out they planned an offensive to liberate their fellow Celts, the Welsh and foment deep divisions within England with the goal of causing the North, Middle and Southern English counties to separate and declare their independence from the Crown; in other words, to use the West's own terminology, "de-colonize" Great Britain.

Britain decides to go in, protect the English on the Scots border and stamp out the current Scots anti-British government, which by that point is now allied and supplied by Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc, as well as Russia (lol). Britain is successful but its a slog, and the Scots are not showing signs of a willingness to negotiate, let alone surrender. Indeed, the anti-British sentiment increased by a factor of 10, and Glasglow demands England's total, unconditional surrender as well millions of pounds in reparations, and the abdication/exile of the Windsors. Those are ridiculous demands but Scottish anti-English rhetoric becomes much worse, and even more belligerent.

Should Britain treat the Scots with kid gloves in this scenario? Show mercy? Restrain itself in the face of virulent hatred from Scots men, women and children singing songs glorifying the agonizing death and suffering of all Britons? Would Britons have compassion, and show restrain at all times?

This isn't an attack on you @Overly Serious or anyone else here. I just want people to ask themselves if they were in a similar position, like Russia and Russians, what their true and honest reaction would be to a people who have said, time and over again, that they want you to die an agonizing death as they dance on your dying and broken body, and have vowed to destroy you, your people and everything you hold dear, or die trying. And the Western world supported such a people and their goals.

For me, its not that Russia wants to genocide the Ukrainians so much as the Ukrainians want to genocide the Russians, and the people of the Russian Federation (and with the support of my country; distaste doesn't even come close to what I feel).

It's horrifying to envision such a scenario but what's even worse is facing what you would need to do if it should come to pass within your own borders.
 
Last edited:
So, since 5 pages have been spent on the moral issue of the Odessa strike, may I ask how many people died, who these people are, and is there any video or photo material?

The Russian Ministry of Defense described it in their report as follows:
Operative-tactical aviation, unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops, and artillery of the groups of troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation hit: the assembly shop of unmanned aerial vehicles in the area of Konotop, Sumy region; temporary deployment points of militants of the national formations "Lyut" and "Tsunami" in the area of the city of Odessa; four control points of unmanned aerial vehicles of the AFU; as well as enemy manpower and military equipment in 149 areas.
https://t.me/mod_russia/36676

And we know about 3 confirmed deaths of Tsunami battalion members out of 20 deaths named by Zelensky. Also, the Ukrainian authorities spoke about the death of one unnamed paramedic and rescuer. Who are the other 12 people? The fact that they are not even called civilians by mainstream media and that the only source they quote is Zelensky raises a lot of questions for me.

P.S. Stop being troglodytes; celebrating the deaths of paramedics and rescue workers whose only job is to keep people from dying is the lot of ghouls.
 
Last edited:
You're a bong, right? (apologies if not, but bear with me) I have a hypothetical: imagine if that, in the early 21st century it became known France and Spain had, for decades, infiltrated and poisoned the Scots against England
I'm a bong, and we've been at war with France for most of the last thousand years.

Especially since they helped the burger colonies with their independence.

Stop over-complicating things. We want to nuke them, they want to nuke us.

Edit: even the scots hate the scots, that's not even a challenge.
 
I'm a bong, and we've been at war with France for most of the last thousand years.

Especially since they helped the burger colonies with their independence.

Stop over-complicating things. We want to nuke them, they want to nuke us.
Well, I said Spain too. Don't worry, you'd still get to go to Ibiza, its neutral.
 
You're a bong, right? (apologies if not, but bear with me) I have a hypothetical: imagine if that, in the early 21st century it became known France and Spain had, for decades, infiltrated and poisoned the Scots against England.
No need to imagine because the Jocks and Frogs were at precisely this sort of thing for about 500 years until we finally put it to bed at Culloden. Skirt wearing, garlic smelling Jacobites get rekt.
 
To be fair our veterans of that war would've tried to kill that guy (and vice versa). You'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the NS larp circle honoring Wehrmacht veterans. It would be healthy to do so tho'.
Allow me to introduce you to the Canadian parliament....
 
For the people mad there isn't video proof of every death in Odessa so it must not have happened, it's a civilian city buddy and an attack on a city is going to look bad. Doesn't matter if you're bombing a military target, there's potential to hit a civilian. Even if a civilian didn't die in the attack it's directly putting them in danger.

In my opinion both sides have lost the ability to complain about the other killing civilians. Russia doesn't seem to care how they're perceived, for good or ill. Ukraine grifts off the imagery of evil Russian barbarians killing their babies, while grabbing any man they can to conscript and sending drones into Russia to attack towns. I don't need video or pics to know what Ukraine did was fucked up.
 
@White_N Thanks for bringing some real data to this. It may well be a hypothetical we're debating and I still strongly doubt the second strike was deliberately timed at all for injuring responders to the extent it even may have done. It's good to keep that in mind.

He's plenty of medals and was a soldier in his prime. Don't worry - I'm sure he got some and at this point is happy to enjoy the view.

You're a bong, right? (apologies if not, but bear with me)
More or less. But a travelled one with some acquired broader perspective.

Regards the rest, respectfully I don't feel it's a lack of knowledge or even understanding on my part. Our difference is one of conclusions and moral acceptability. Can I say with certainty what my feelings would be if this were on my doorstep? Not with 100% certainty but I've enough experiences in life to say that I think in all probability if I were a medic or doctor and someone were rolled into my hospital or I attended a scene and I could save their life I believe I would. For a start, what do I really know of some stranger's life story and for a second, what do I know what they will become? I was enough of an idiot when I was 18/19 should I have been killed for the beliefs I was brought up in and never had the chance to find a different path for myself? This is again assuming I know the stories of each person who needs my help and wanted to make judgement. And every person who dies leaves behind a grieving partner, parent or child. A child that grows up missing a father who was killed by "the Russians", or the Scottish in your example, is just going to perpetuate the war through another generation. A child with a father is less likely to even if that father is unrepentant (kids often disagree with their parents) or if his father is. In short, I am willing to take chances on people and reluctant to play judge, jury and execution. Aside from I would be failing my job as a medic to be doing so.

You see, I'm not opposed to nationalism. I would fight for my country and its borders. The issue is one of manipulation, created narratives and TPTB capitalising on people's desperation that has led to this. I'm imagine you'll be reading my post in a somewhat binary way as a bleeding heart who would turn a blind eye to aggressors but it's not so. I would fight (have gotten into fights and lost jobs to my significant personal cost over moral principles, in fact), I would and could kill someone if necessary. I'm not even opposed to the death penalty and quite in favour of it in some cases. But I'm not reading a scenario in which I attend a scene find a wounded person as some kind of trolley dilemma where I choose between their life or the lives of people they would go onto kill. I have nowhere like that certainty and the most likely outcome anyway would be for that not to happen. In your extended analogy, maybe that Scotsman or Welshman who found his life saved by an Englishman would have a different view later. And even if not, their mother or their sibling or their kid might do. You bring about peace through such means more than you do killing an injured person. Or seeing an injured person it's in your power to save but choosing to let them die which is of little difference to me and most people.

I'm present in this thread not because I'm "pro-Russia" exactly, but because the other thread is filled with howling morons wallowing in self-delusion. (And some of them, I presume, are good people). This thread is far, far more useful and interesting and informative. I am "pro-Russia" in so far as what I really want is a lasting peace with healthy countries. And Russians in Russian land being able to rejoin Russia seems to be a far better basis for that than continued division and de facto ethnic cleansing by Kiev on its own population. I don't cheerlead for one side or the other because countries are an abstraction. Russia less so - being a "real" and long-standing country that aligns with a culture. Ukraine being much more so being a recent invention and grouping together antagonistic cultures in one border. But ultimately, any country is an abstraction and what matters is the people. In the most basic terms I don't usually see things in terms of country vs. country as much as I see it as Peoples. vs. Authorities. What matters it to someone in Odessa if they're paying taxes to the Russian Federation than to the Kiev government (with elections suspended I can probably switch to the term regime now)? It's just a question of benefit and efficiency more than it is identity. And if it is a question of identity then that's still Russia. So go ahead and switch who runs that territory. Ukraine is an artificial country. This may seem like rambling but it's kind of close to the reasoning in what I'm saying. Aside from the most basic moral question of doing my job and saving a life, a life I have no idea where it will go, to me the whole notion of Ukraine vs. Russia is a tragic fiction created by Western powers to cause people to kill each other who have little reason to. Most of the people fighting for Ukraine I'm certain don't want to be. If there are ultranationalists who want that in amongst them (there are) then they're more effectively weeded out from the rest when the general populace doesn't think like them but thinks differently. And you get that by being better than those Nazis, not by being like them.

Maybe this does all sound a little soft and starry-eyed to you. I doubt I'd strike you that way in person, but regardless, I think that's why you wrote the long example to try and help me relate to the bad situation over there so that it would click and I'd escape from naive view to some small degree. But whilst I'm emotive on the subject, it's not emotive reasoning - for the most part. So whilst I sympathise and I appreciate you writing it all, I don't think it will change my position. I think my moral position would be the same even in these circumstances. As went into Christian positions I'll tell you that the biblical figure I feel I can most relate to is Barrabus. The (probably fictional) dude who didn't deserve to get a second chance and then unexpectedly suddenly got one and had to figure out how to be someone else. Maybe that influences my reluctance to say "this person I could save I wont because they're my enemy". But as you do tend to bring up Christianity in your discussion a lot, I'd say saving that life is also the Christian thing to do.

If I'm a medic or a doctor, then my part in all this narrative is to the healing, aid reconciliations and work towards peace. There needs to be such people in society and it would be a shame if someone dropped a bomb on my head for applying that principle to someone they thought didn't deserve it.

The Scots harassed Anglicans
To be fair, I'm only 50/50 on whether the Church of England even believes in God.

This isn't an attack on you @Overly Serious or anyone else here.
Not taken as such and happy to leave this as an agree to disagree. I respect your viewpoint. If my moral position isn't one you agree with though, I'd say I elsewhere given what I think are some quite practical reasons as well, though they're a secondary argument for me.
 
Well @Overly Serious it's something that came to me as an American, as part of the Anglosphere. Scottish nationalism has been bubbling under the surface for some time but its not been violent in its present form; however, I imagine with enough time, money and determination it could be. If a third party believed it was in its best interest to cultivate and exploit a nationalism movement to destabilize a country, it could easily do so.

It is not just Britain. Ireland could experience a resurgence of the unification movement; Australia may see conflicts between the native peoples and Anglos, New Zealand to lesser degree. And of course the US has already seen troubles between blacks and whites, which I suspect was leveraged to further a political agenda. All of this could be exploited by a malicious third party.

And there would be very little any of us could do about it

The West has experienced an unparalleled era of peace after WW2, so none of us have had to face real war, death and destruction in our lives. Or on our soil. That has not been the case in Eastern Europe. I think some of us (not you) are so very detached from war and its consequences. Thinking how a minor political issue could spiral out of control and begat a war so quickly is something all of should be aware of. It's not so much a moral position as it is a matter of survival. We are not people but things to our respective overlords, who would not have any problem, moral or otherwise, in ordering us to die over something so banal as a border's location. And all while mouthing pithy patriotic slogans to stir up the masses.
 
Back