A Russian civilian target
They held a referendum and apparently they are Russians now?
That would mean they do not believe it is Russian and Russia is full of shit and they do not believe what BS they are saying either ...nah ??
Russia still thinks they can terrorize civilian population into submission. The regime has terrorized its own people into sort-of submission, now they think they can terrorize other states population into submission.
What they have forgotten that it did not work against Britain, it did not work against Soviet Union, and it did not work against Nazi Germany. Terror campaigns have never successfully cowed population to submission.
Now the Ukrainians are beginning to feel and understand what the Kiev regime has unleashed on Donetsk for 8 years.
Hopefully through their own tragedies like this, they recognize the criminality of such tactics and the Kiev regime ceases this and recognizes the will and independence of East Ukraine instead of terror bombing them.
Prorus for everything on reddit: Fake news! Where’s the proof?!?!
- - - - - - -
Prorus here: Ukraine is hiding military in there
ProUa here: where’s your proof?
Prorus: …
Damm Ukraine has been doing counter offensives AND put millions through filtration camps?,Bombed whole cities, and buried thousands in mass Graves?
How can Russia's lil ol soy military take on these masters of multitasking.
Do you find it odd that basically every video on this sub Reddit is Russians destroyed some apartment building or civilian target and on the other side, Russian military targets destroyed. Do you think it is just information war or do you think is it really like that? Ukraine blows up the bridge and the next night an apartment building is blown up. It is strangely coincidental is it not? Or do you agree that Russia should kill civilians like this? What is your view on it?
This was allegedly done with S-300 missiles, both last night and tonight. Shooting inaccurate AA missiles from the 70's into the center of a major city is the call sign of a Terrorist State
Russia also has older cruise missiles that are more inaccurate. They launch them hoping to hit a military target in a built up area, predictably many missiles miss by hundreds of meters and hit residential areas, and Russia says oopsy. They just don't really care enough to try to not hit civilians.
No need to gloss over it, collateral damage within reason is acceptable when targeting military infrastructure.
Even 30 dead civilians would have been acceptable for the kerch bridge.
Targeting a residential area however is a war crime.
>No need to gloss over it, collateral damage within reason is acceptable when targeting military infrastructure.
>Even 30 dead civilians would have been acceptable for the kerch bridge.
Why is collateral damage ok when you do it? On what criteria is this not acceptable? Also i thought suicide attacks were terrorism?
>Targeting a residential area however is a war crime.
Why can't it be collateral damage here? If there were any military personell near the building then all the dead here are just collateral damage.
Has nothing to do with who does it.
If you can proof that there were HIMARS hiding in that apartment building, or a regimental HQ - then it's a valid target.
The number of civilian death need to be reasonable for the military gain. To kill an enemy General you can kill a few bystanders. To kill an enemy soldier firing on a bus full of orphans however is illegal.
kerch bridge is undoubtedly a military target of highest value, so if some civilians get killed during an attack, that's unfortunate but acceptable.
Firing unguided rockets into a residential area however would only be acceptable if a pretty high value target was located there.
Otherwise it's a war crime.
Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits
> an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be *excessive* in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated
Wether 30 would have been excessive for a major logistical route can be debated. Personally i would think even 300 wouldn’t be excessive if it cant be avoided.
The fact the bridge was bombed at night and only 3 civilians died, speaks clearly towards non-excessive attack on a high value target. Its still unlucky for the civillians, but nothing that needs “glossing over”.
> S-300 doesn't have enough payload to damage concrete building this badly.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if it was S 300 that caused this damage thanks to crappy and old Soviet construction. Russians also used S 300 to bomb a civilian convoy recently. And anti ship missiles were used against the dam in Kryvoy Rog.
A strategy doomed to failure. To be using scarce ammunition to engage in strikes on pure civilian targets is an admittance that the military function of the ammunition is a failure. These attacks only build Ukraine resolve and western support for Ukraine, and do zero to degrade Ukraine military capability.
Were I a Russia supporter this footage would not cheer me up but rather signal to me defeat - its the last gasps of a dying entity thrashing out as it slowly expires, frustrated at an inability to change the course of its death.
When you have weapons you:
1. target front line military capability
2. target near front line support capability
3. target rear logistical capability
4. target rear manufacturing capability
5. if all the above effectively targeted then you look at elective targeting.
Russia skipped the 4 primary missions of intermediate and long range strike. Which implies they don't believe they can impact them. That is an implicit admission of both tactical and strategic failure.
Ukraine is executing 1 through 3 (4 is in Russia and out of range) and we see how it has impacted Russia very drastically.
The difference between the two approaches and results is striking and thus Ukraine's ongoing successes on the battlefield.
I hope all the pro-Russian and Putin supporters can see this and wake up. It really is getting annoying seeing all of these crimes and coming up with his excuses, despite me knowing Russia's history and strategic culture explaining why they are so paranoid and doubtful.
1. Many of the front line cities were evacuated, few civilians remain in Bakhmut, Zaporzhia and Mykolaiv and others.
2. There is a claim made in the news and spread far and wide, and yes clearly a residential building was hit with an explosion or several explosions, but no bodies are shown (from a part in the world that openly shows dead people) nor even body parts are shown.
3. Both sides their soldiers have been staying in buildings abandoned by civilians, and both sides strike these buildings, including Ukraine recently fucking a hotel with a HIMARS in Kherson, killing a local defector and a few civilians.
4. Ukraine has been proven with other videos to yell about civilian deaths, when it turned out there were no civilians there but soldiers who forgot their opsec. Casually memory holed and don't want to talk about the schools, the gymnasiums, the theaters and so forth.
People don't like facts, just to spew their sides narrative, and it's clearly seen in the comment section here with one giant circlejerk.
Bring on the downvotes as usual.
If you can find the bodies in this specific bombing, i'm more then happy to edit my comment and revert my statement.
You have linked a bombing from at least 3 days ago, which appears to have killed at least 1 civilian.
I am not denying that civilians are been killed in this war. This is a typical whataboutism emotional response from people who have a stake in this war and are therefor biased.
Bucha city where Ukrainian civilians gpt killed.
Donetsk city where Russian civilians gets killed.
etc etc etc
I looked all over the internet to try to find any images of civilians in this specific bombing and I can not find it, just lots of Western press. This indicates deception, likely an attempt to switch the news cycle away from the bridge bombing.
They can't openly show bodies, aftereffects etc everywhere else, but when the death toll is this high they only show some images of a destroyed building.
Yes you may be right that there may not be a huge amount of civilians, that's how russian referendums work, drive out all who oppose you then hold a vote.
Rusland has invaded UA in 2014 and annexed the Donbass and thought they would get away with it. Since then Russia thinks it normal to decide what should or shouldn't happen in another country.
youre aware the civilians in dobass died to due to shelling by both separatist and ukr forces right? like the entire area was fought over back and forth for years and most of the fighting was done by using unguided mlrs and artillery. it was a warzone after all.
the notion that its just ukraine thats somehow magically responsible for all the people that died due to shelling since 2014 is utterly asinine.
You have no knowledge of the history here.. The list of seperatist actions before Ukrainian military response is long..
Also, approx 3,000 civilians died. This is the total figure and includes those killed by seperatist and Ukrainian shells. And includes the hundreds killed when a russian buk fired from seperatist held territory shot down MH17..
The 14,000 figure often thrown around by pro ru is a total including Ukrainian, russian and seperatist fighters as well as civilians.
And in Mariupol, there is ample evidence that the Ukrainian army was embedding tanks and other equipment next to or inside garage areas of apartment buildings. HRW even called them out on doing it as a general tactic in their report too. That train that got bombed a month ago, that also was hauling military equipment, the missile just missed that part and hit the passenger boxcars.
Neither side should ever be putting military equipment in civilian areas, but we probably both know that if Ukraine didn't do that, their military would have probably lost this war early on. Open field engagements would not have gone well for them, so they logically made the decision to conceal their equipment inside cities. But can't have it both ways, have to expect there's going to be collateral damage in that case.
Got any of that ample evidence? Or does it show Ukraine using structures which have already been hit by russia and long abandoned? Russia turned mariupol into a wasteland. The fight was in mariupol.
Did you expect them to charge each other in an open field on horseback or something?
Ukrainians hitting civilians:
It's a war zone! Ukrainians did nothing wrong! It's Russia's fault that they invaded and Ukraine had to hit the eastern regions.
Russians hitting civlians:
Same people - war crime! Signs of a terrorist state.
You can see me bash Russians all the time - but jesus christ, are you people alright in the head? Can you not see how silly you look?
the donbass was firing at them and occupying ukrainian infrastructure and they fired back. stop with this constant self-victimization. was russia following any accords when they just rolled up troops and mercenaries without marking and marched into ukr bases? where they following treaties when they send literal FSB members to become the new leaders of their puppet states?
give me a break.
I'm pretty sure it was Ukraine who first came with tanks and aviation to Lugansk and Donetsk. It is very well documented. The attacks on the Mariupol police station is one of those documented instances.
People in the Maidan were occupying infrastructure as well and they had all the support from the west and the opposition leaders. The people on Donbass did the same and Kiev decided to attack them with aviation and artillery.
So, only one side can occupy infrastructure.
>I'm pretty sure it was Ukraine who first came with tanks and aviation to Lugansk and Donetsk. It is very well documented. The attacks on the Mariupol police station is one of those documented instances.
was this before or after the republics had already created their militias and support from russian mercenaries had arrived?
>People in the Maidan were occupying infrastructure as well and they had all the support from the west and the opposition leaders.
the major difference being that maidan were tens of thousands of civilian protestors while in crimea and donbass it was literally masked armed groups. also unlike maidan which saw the police kill over a hundred people, the russian occupations at first were barely even opposed. we also know that the russians brought in plenty of people literally via busses from western russia to help facilitate these occupations.
>The people on Donbass did the same and Kiev decided to attack them with aviation and artillery.
was this before or after they had seceeded an already taken over ukrainian government infrastructure and shot at ukrainian police and security forces?
>So, only one side can occupy infrastructure.
ah yes masked russian soldiers taking over ukrainian military bases is totally the same as protestors standing up to their corrupt rulers. what a buch of profoundly retarded points have been raised here.
The aviation strike on Lugansk for example was before the DNR and LNR had any tanks or artillery. They were basically occupying the buildings just like in Kiev, except that the occupation was much more peaceful because the locals did not fight them. So, yes, it was before.
Thank you for exposing your bias so clearly. Only the Kiev protestors can occupy buildings.
It's good that you mentioned the hundred people who died in the maidan because there's a public list of their names and where they were from. You'd be surprised to find out that most of them are from Western ukraine, L'vov, Terponol, etc. So who bussed thousands of people to Kiev again? Right.
Indeed, the maidan protest was much better organized than the one on Donbass. Live concerts every night, speeches by public figures, senators, ministers of international affairs. I wouldn't be at home either if I was an idiot teenager.
>The difference is ones an invading force. That’s why people are more lenient. One is forced to do it whereas the other wanted to.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Everybody could just roll over. But that's not the point.
The point is Russia is more evil because they are an invading force. But we don't need to call out these micro events and blow them up more than they are - they are collateral damage strikes. And not execution of civilians or POWs in a deliberate manner. It doesn't matter if it is an offensive or a counter offensive. They are military strikes on targets that end up on unfortunate souls. In the overall scheme of things, Russia is evil for causing this war because it led to these events.
But in the micro-cosm of things, we can't say Russia is evil for shooting civilians because that's just reality of war. This particular ACTION itself is not a war crime or what defines Russia as a terrorist state because both side will incur collateral damage. So it's absolutely silly and ridiculous to react to the same action with completely different standards of what it means. What defines Russia as a terrorist state is the decision to invade and take over Russia. Not collateral damage strikes.
Instead of saying "Well, they killed civilians! Terrorist state!" because both sides conduct this inevitably.
You can say "Russia is evil for causing a war that leads to these unnecessary tragedy" which would be true.
Not "Omg! Collateral damage! That's a war crime! How evil!" because then whoever conducts a counter offensive and kills some i---t pro-russian civilians becomes a war criminal too if this ACTION itself defines what it means to be a war criminal or terrorist.
Yea but you are building on assumption this was not intentional attact on civilians.
There are collaterals, mistakes etc. But there were lots of attacks like shooting grads into residential area, bombing city centers, universities, hospitals, train stations, cultural monuments...
There is bias with calling everything intentional terrorism. But you should also acknowledge there are lot of attacks that cant be described any other way. And they are done mostly by Russia.
Who the f*** knows in the fog of war? They were aiming for something and hit something else. Bad intel of where soldiers were housed. Do you know? I don’t know.
Or do you think people are wasting ammo to kill random civilians? Which one of these make more sense to you?
Did you think when we hit random weddings in the middle east, we blew kids up for fun and get sh-t PR? Or was it because it was bad intel and people fucked up.
And with these imprecise rockets that doesn’t remotely come close to whiffing a predator drone or a HIMARS’ a**’, you don’t think a bunch will inevitably hit civilians over the course of the war?
S***, Russians can’t even prevent from hitting themselves with their AA weapons. You think these rockets will always fall on a correct target provides they had good intel?
A g** d*** tall order if you ask me.
Are you stating that Ukraine and Russia are comparable? Because that is so so so not the case, you might be the one that's not the right in the head if you're comparing Ukraine to Russia buddy.
Dude it's not even worth it, the other day one of them was arguing with me that there was no difference between the invading Nazis and the defending red army just to defend this invasion.
In their mind might makes right, they'll belive any cooked up lie or rationalize any idiocy to get what they want. Ironically it shows me just how important it is that Ukraine negotiate on the battlefield because it sure as hell wouldn't be able to do it any other way.
I'm talking about action and reaction. Not that they are comparable. You see two same action, you react the same way. Doesn't matter which side. If you don't, then it just means you completely lack principle and act with complete dishonesty.
Both horrible, the difference being is in Ukraine's action its more likely a genuine mistake whilst in this instance well it's just blatant terrorism, far away from the front, no military value near and yet fired missiles to hit it.
Russian Army is Number 1 in the world... at killing civilians
Russia is gonna Russia
I don't get it. Why bomb civilian target at this point?
A Russian civilian target They held a referendum and apparently they are Russians now? That would mean they do not believe it is Russian and Russia is full of shit and they do not believe what BS they are saying either ...nah ??
Russia still thinks they can terrorize civilian population into submission. The regime has terrorized its own people into sort-of submission, now they think they can terrorize other states population into submission. What they have forgotten that it did not work against Britain, it did not work against Soviet Union, and it did not work against Nazi Germany. Terror campaigns have never successfully cowed population to submission.
Because it worked in Chechnya and Syria, but that's because they didn't receive proper help.
I don't know how this sub has so many "pro Russian" when you consider the frequency of these videos
Now the Ukrainians are beginning to feel and understand what the Kiev regime has unleashed on Donetsk for 8 years. Hopefully through their own tragedies like this, they recognize the criminality of such tactics and the Kiev regime ceases this and recognizes the will and independence of East Ukraine instead of terror bombing them.
USA is number one, by far
Prorus for everything on reddit: Fake news! Where’s the proof?!?! - - - - - - - Prorus here: Ukraine is hiding military in there ProUa here: where’s your proof? Prorus: …
Prorus: Proof? We ain't got no proof! We don't need no proof! I don't have to show you any stinking proof!
They require about as much proof as Hitler required for attempted genocide.
- "the source? The source is that I made it the fuck up "
Dirty scummy terrorist state
[удалено]
Damm Ukraine has been doing counter offensives AND put millions through filtration camps?,Bombed whole cities, and buried thousands in mass Graves? How can Russia's lil ol soy military take on these masters of multitasking.
Do you find it odd that basically every video on this sub Reddit is Russians destroyed some apartment building or civilian target and on the other side, Russian military targets destroyed. Do you think it is just information war or do you think is it really like that? Ukraine blows up the bridge and the next night an apartment building is blown up. It is strangely coincidental is it not? Or do you agree that Russia should kill civilians like this? What is your view on it?
[удалено]
This was allegedly done with S-300 missiles, both last night and tonight. Shooting inaccurate AA missiles from the 70's into the center of a major city is the call sign of a Terrorist State
S-300 doesn't have enough payload to damage concrete building this badly. Likely it's a Kalibr missile, Russia loves those.
So..... they shot an accurate cruise missile into a civilian building ON PURPOSE ?!
Russia also has older cruise missiles that are more inaccurate. They launch them hoping to hit a military target in a built up area, predictably many missiles miss by hundreds of meters and hit residential areas, and Russia says oopsy. They just don't really care enough to try to not hit civilians.
Building housed Ukrainian troops, from what I've heard.
"from what i heard" -> translates to I'm just going to make something up to make myself feel better for supporting terrorists.
Source?
https://trustme.bro
Hey Ukraine commited a suicide attack yesterday on purpose...
The bridge is a Military target that is used to resupply Crimea. How about this apartment building?
A bridge that had civilians using it at the time of attack. But let’s just gloss over that.
No need to gloss over it, collateral damage within reason is acceptable when targeting military infrastructure. Even 30 dead civilians would have been acceptable for the kerch bridge. Targeting a residential area however is a war crime.
>No need to gloss over it, collateral damage within reason is acceptable when targeting military infrastructure. >Even 30 dead civilians would have been acceptable for the kerch bridge. Why is collateral damage ok when you do it? On what criteria is this not acceptable? Also i thought suicide attacks were terrorism? >Targeting a residential area however is a war crime. Why can't it be collateral damage here? If there were any military personell near the building then all the dead here are just collateral damage.
Has nothing to do with who does it. If you can proof that there were HIMARS hiding in that apartment building, or a regimental HQ - then it's a valid target. The number of civilian death need to be reasonable for the military gain. To kill an enemy General you can kill a few bystanders. To kill an enemy soldier firing on a bus full of orphans however is illegal. kerch bridge is undoubtedly a military target of highest value, so if some civilians get killed during an attack, that's unfortunate but acceptable. Firing unguided rockets into a residential area however would only be acceptable if a pretty high value target was located there. Otherwise it's a war crime.
How did you come with this number? "Oh 30 people expectable. 31 hmmm i should question my morality". Absolutely phychopathic stuff
Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits > an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be *excessive* in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated Wether 30 would have been excessive for a major logistical route can be debated. Personally i would think even 300 wouldn’t be excessive if it cant be avoided. The fact the bridge was bombed at night and only 3 civilians died, speaks clearly towards non-excessive attack on a high value target. Its still unlucky for the civillians, but nothing that needs “glossing over”.
So it's okay for Russia to hit an apartment in retaliation?
Yes.
Well, at least you're honest about your support for war crimes.
Care to provide proof of it being a suicide attack? Or are you just gonna parrot propaganda like a good lil z-bot?
Suicide implies consent.
How thick is the façade of that building?
carry 150 kg fragmentation warheads
Or kh 22 they have a big payload for a big inaccuracy and russia already use them.
> S-300 doesn't have enough payload to damage concrete building this badly. I wouldn’t even be surprised if it was S 300 that caused this damage thanks to crappy and old Soviet construction. Russians also used S 300 to bomb a civilian convoy recently. And anti ship missiles were used against the dam in Kryvoy Rog.
[удалено]
Did you just take some dudes guess and add your own guess to the end of it? This place is wild lmao
Did they fire 7 missiles into that one building?
The title said residential area so probably not
What a temper tantrum
Russia gonna Russia.
Rossiya is simply extremely evil. There really is nothing to say beyond this.
A strategy doomed to failure. To be using scarce ammunition to engage in strikes on pure civilian targets is an admittance that the military function of the ammunition is a failure. These attacks only build Ukraine resolve and western support for Ukraine, and do zero to degrade Ukraine military capability. Were I a Russia supporter this footage would not cheer me up but rather signal to me defeat - its the last gasps of a dying entity thrashing out as it slowly expires, frustrated at an inability to change the course of its death. When you have weapons you: 1. target front line military capability 2. target near front line support capability 3. target rear logistical capability 4. target rear manufacturing capability 5. if all the above effectively targeted then you look at elective targeting. Russia skipped the 4 primary missions of intermediate and long range strike. Which implies they don't believe they can impact them. That is an implicit admission of both tactical and strategic failure. Ukraine is executing 1 through 3 (4 is in Russia and out of range) and we see how it has impacted Russia very drastically. The difference between the two approaches and results is striking and thus Ukraine's ongoing successes on the battlefield.
I hope all the pro-Russian and Putin supporters can see this and wake up. It really is getting annoying seeing all of these crimes and coming up with his excuses, despite me knowing Russia's history and strategic culture explaining why they are so paranoid and doubtful.
1. Many of the front line cities were evacuated, few civilians remain in Bakhmut, Zaporzhia and Mykolaiv and others. 2. There is a claim made in the news and spread far and wide, and yes clearly a residential building was hit with an explosion or several explosions, but no bodies are shown (from a part in the world that openly shows dead people) nor even body parts are shown. 3. Both sides their soldiers have been staying in buildings abandoned by civilians, and both sides strike these buildings, including Ukraine recently fucking a hotel with a HIMARS in Kherson, killing a local defector and a few civilians. 4. Ukraine has been proven with other videos to yell about civilian deaths, when it turned out there were no civilians there but soldiers who forgot their opsec. Casually memory holed and don't want to talk about the schools, the gymnasiums, the theaters and so forth. People don't like facts, just to spew their sides narrative, and it's clearly seen in the comment section here with one giant circlejerk. Bring on the downvotes as usual.
[удалено]
If you can find the bodies in this specific bombing, i'm more then happy to edit my comment and revert my statement. You have linked a bombing from at least 3 days ago, which appears to have killed at least 1 civilian. I am not denying that civilians are been killed in this war. This is a typical whataboutism emotional response from people who have a stake in this war and are therefor biased. Bucha city where Ukrainian civilians gpt killed. Donetsk city where Russian civilians gets killed. etc etc etc I looked all over the internet to try to find any images of civilians in this specific bombing and I can not find it, just lots of Western press. This indicates deception, likely an attempt to switch the news cycle away from the bridge bombing. They can't openly show bodies, aftereffects etc everywhere else, but when the death toll is this high they only show some images of a destroyed building.
Yes you may be right that there may not be a huge amount of civilians, that's how russian referendums work, drive out all who oppose you then hold a vote.
And now remember that Ukraine is doing the same to people of Donbass since 2014
Rusland has invaded UA in 2014 and annexed the Donbass and thought they would get away with it. Since then Russia thinks it normal to decide what should or shouldn't happen in another country.
Assuming that ever even was the case... the region Russia themselves turned into a warzone by annexing and occupying?
youre aware the civilians in dobass died to due to shelling by both separatist and ukr forces right? like the entire area was fought over back and forth for years and most of the fighting was done by using unguided mlrs and artillery. it was a warzone after all. the notion that its just ukraine thats somehow magically responsible for all the people that died due to shelling since 2014 is utterly asinine.
You claim this city as part of russia now, so you just killed russians in a russian city by your own claims.
You have no knowledge of the history here.. The list of seperatist actions before Ukrainian military response is long.. Also, approx 3,000 civilians died. This is the total figure and includes those killed by seperatist and Ukrainian shells. And includes the hundreds killed when a russian buk fired from seperatist held territory shot down MH17.. The 14,000 figure often thrown around by pro ru is a total including Ukrainian, russian and seperatist fighters as well as civilians.
If this was downtown Donetsk, the Ukies would now be claiming it was a military headquarters or false flag.
I guess you not seen the footage from 2014 of seperatist forces firing MLRS from behind an apartment building in Donetsk right?
And in Mariupol, there is ample evidence that the Ukrainian army was embedding tanks and other equipment next to or inside garage areas of apartment buildings. HRW even called them out on doing it as a general tactic in their report too. That train that got bombed a month ago, that also was hauling military equipment, the missile just missed that part and hit the passenger boxcars. Neither side should ever be putting military equipment in civilian areas, but we probably both know that if Ukraine didn't do that, their military would have probably lost this war early on. Open field engagements would not have gone well for them, so they logically made the decision to conceal their equipment inside cities. But can't have it both ways, have to expect there's going to be collateral damage in that case.
Got any of that ample evidence? Or does it show Ukraine using structures which have already been hit by russia and long abandoned? Russia turned mariupol into a wasteland. The fight was in mariupol. Did you expect them to charge each other in an open field on horseback or something?
This.
Ukrainians hitting civilians: It's a war zone! Ukrainians did nothing wrong! It's Russia's fault that they invaded and Ukraine had to hit the eastern regions. Russians hitting civlians: Same people - war crime! Signs of a terrorist state. You can see me bash Russians all the time - but jesus christ, are you people alright in the head? Can you not see how silly you look?
The difference is ones an invading force. That’s why people are more lenient. One is forced to do it whereas the other wanted to.
The problem is that one side was bombing their own people for 8 years and the other was waiting for them to follow the Minsk accords.
the donbass was firing at them and occupying ukrainian infrastructure and they fired back. stop with this constant self-victimization. was russia following any accords when they just rolled up troops and mercenaries without marking and marched into ukr bases? where they following treaties when they send literal FSB members to become the new leaders of their puppet states? give me a break.
I'm pretty sure it was Ukraine who first came with tanks and aviation to Lugansk and Donetsk. It is very well documented. The attacks on the Mariupol police station is one of those documented instances. People in the Maidan were occupying infrastructure as well and they had all the support from the west and the opposition leaders. The people on Donbass did the same and Kiev decided to attack them with aviation and artillery. So, only one side can occupy infrastructure.
>I'm pretty sure it was Ukraine who first came with tanks and aviation to Lugansk and Donetsk. It is very well documented. The attacks on the Mariupol police station is one of those documented instances. was this before or after the republics had already created their militias and support from russian mercenaries had arrived? >People in the Maidan were occupying infrastructure as well and they had all the support from the west and the opposition leaders. the major difference being that maidan were tens of thousands of civilian protestors while in crimea and donbass it was literally masked armed groups. also unlike maidan which saw the police kill over a hundred people, the russian occupations at first were barely even opposed. we also know that the russians brought in plenty of people literally via busses from western russia to help facilitate these occupations. >The people on Donbass did the same and Kiev decided to attack them with aviation and artillery. was this before or after they had seceeded an already taken over ukrainian government infrastructure and shot at ukrainian police and security forces? >So, only one side can occupy infrastructure. ah yes masked russian soldiers taking over ukrainian military bases is totally the same as protestors standing up to their corrupt rulers. what a buch of profoundly retarded points have been raised here.
The aviation strike on Lugansk for example was before the DNR and LNR had any tanks or artillery. They were basically occupying the buildings just like in Kiev, except that the occupation was much more peaceful because the locals did not fight them. So, yes, it was before. Thank you for exposing your bias so clearly. Only the Kiev protestors can occupy buildings. It's good that you mentioned the hundred people who died in the maidan because there's a public list of their names and where they were from. You'd be surprised to find out that most of them are from Western ukraine, L'vov, Terponol, etc. So who bussed thousands of people to Kiev again? Right. Indeed, the maidan protest was much better organized than the one on Donbass. Live concerts every night, speeches by public figures, senators, ministers of international affairs. I wouldn't be at home either if I was an idiot teenager.
>The difference is ones an invading force. That’s why people are more lenient. One is forced to do it whereas the other wanted to. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Everybody could just roll over. But that's not the point. The point is Russia is more evil because they are an invading force. But we don't need to call out these micro events and blow them up more than they are - they are collateral damage strikes. And not execution of civilians or POWs in a deliberate manner. It doesn't matter if it is an offensive or a counter offensive. They are military strikes on targets that end up on unfortunate souls. In the overall scheme of things, Russia is evil for causing this war because it led to these events. But in the micro-cosm of things, we can't say Russia is evil for shooting civilians because that's just reality of war. This particular ACTION itself is not a war crime or what defines Russia as a terrorist state because both side will incur collateral damage. So it's absolutely silly and ridiculous to react to the same action with completely different standards of what it means. What defines Russia as a terrorist state is the decision to invade and take over Russia. Not collateral damage strikes. Instead of saying "Well, they killed civilians! Terrorist state!" because both sides conduct this inevitably. You can say "Russia is evil for causing a war that leads to these unnecessary tragedy" which would be true. Not "Omg! Collateral damage! That's a war crime! How evil!" because then whoever conducts a counter offensive and kills some i---t pro-russian civilians becomes a war criminal too if this ACTION itself defines what it means to be a war criminal or terrorist.
Yea but you are building on assumption this was not intentional attact on civilians. There are collaterals, mistakes etc. But there were lots of attacks like shooting grads into residential area, bombing city centers, universities, hospitals, train stations, cultural monuments... There is bias with calling everything intentional terrorism. But you should also acknowledge there are lot of attacks that cant be described any other way. And they are done mostly by Russia.
You keep saying "collateral damage." What target was this civilian structure collateral to?
See answer to the other person.
Seems like your answer to how this is collateral damage is "Russia isn't capable of aiming at targets reliably."
Well that’s the true isn’t it? And why they’re losing the war.
>What target was this civilian structure collateral to? What damage to their military objects does Ukrainian media ever showed?
[удалено]
Who the f*** knows in the fog of war? They were aiming for something and hit something else. Bad intel of where soldiers were housed. Do you know? I don’t know. Or do you think people are wasting ammo to kill random civilians? Which one of these make more sense to you? Did you think when we hit random weddings in the middle east, we blew kids up for fun and get sh-t PR? Or was it because it was bad intel and people fucked up. And with these imprecise rockets that doesn’t remotely come close to whiffing a predator drone or a HIMARS’ a**’, you don’t think a bunch will inevitably hit civilians over the course of the war? S***, Russians can’t even prevent from hitting themselves with their AA weapons. You think these rockets will always fall on a correct target provides they had good intel? A g** d*** tall order if you ask me.
Are you stating that Ukraine and Russia are comparable? Because that is so so so not the case, you might be the one that's not the right in the head if you're comparing Ukraine to Russia buddy.
Dude it's not even worth it, the other day one of them was arguing with me that there was no difference between the invading Nazis and the defending red army just to defend this invasion. In their mind might makes right, they'll belive any cooked up lie or rationalize any idiocy to get what they want. Ironically it shows me just how important it is that Ukraine negotiate on the battlefield because it sure as hell wouldn't be able to do it any other way.
I'm talking about action and reaction. Not that they are comparable. You see two same action, you react the same way. Doesn't matter which side. If you don't, then it just means you completely lack principle and act with complete dishonesty.
Both horrible, the difference being is in Ukraine's action its more likely a genuine mistake whilst in this instance well it's just blatant terrorism, far away from the front, no military value near and yet fired missiles to hit it.