Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[Michel H]

For Michel H's benefit, here's an example of how much Ukrainians are eager to become Russian:



https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-6

You can just feel the love.

I actually do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I think it's a tragedy which was partly caused by the very serious mistakes done by Ukraine and its Western unconditional supporters (somewhat like the West supports Israel even if it invades and occupy Palestinian land): it was a mistake to massively punish Russia (through economic sanctions, not a military invasion like Russia is doing now) because it annexed Crimea and recognized the two Donbass republics, because these Russian decisions were logical results of mostly legitimate, democratic processes.

Your link mentions the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, it seems fairly clear to me that this plant has recently been shelled by the Ukrainians: the Russians are not going to shell their own men (for more details, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Note that Ukraine refuses a visit by U.N. nuclear officials, while Russia accepts it:

Ukraine's state nuclear company Energoatom opposed an IAEA visit because "any visit would legitimise Russia's presence there". Occupation official Yevhen Balytskyi invited IAEA to visit to show how the Russians were guarding the facility while Ukrainians were allegedly attacking it.[30]

 

[Wildy]

I actually do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine...

Except of course for your support of Russia's earlier invasion. Or is it that that one was good because it was sneaky, but this one is bad because it isn't?

 

[Michel H]

Except of course for your support of Russia's earlier invasion. Or is it that that one was good because it was sneaky, but this one is bad because it isn't?

The thing I believe in, and which seems important for me, is democracy, respecting (whenever it's possible) the wishes of the local people (this is also valid for Taiwan and Kosovo, it's apolitical in a sense).

It is quite possible that, if the Russians had not sent some men in Crimea and Donbass, your Ukrainian friends (who seem to love shelling their own nuclear power plants and shelling their own bridges) would have promptly crushed any insurgency.

 

[arthwollipot]

[accent="Russian"]

Of course a majority of population approves of my rule. The ones who don't, I have had killed.

[/accent]

 

[Michel H]

[accent="Russian"]

Of course a majority of population approves of my rule. The ones who don't, I have had killed.

[/accent]

You remind me that I made a spelling mistake in a previous post:

I actually do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I think it's a tragedy which was partly caused by the very serious mistakes done by Ukraine and its Western unconditional supporters (somewhat like the West supports Israel even if it invades and occupyies Palestinian land)

I hope you have watched (and listened to) the first two minutes of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOPpUQKDbQ.

Also good to know (though already posted): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls.

 

[Wildy]

The thing I believe in, and which seems important for me, is democracy, respecting (whenever it's possible) the wishes of the local people (this is also valid for Taiwan and Kosovo, it's apolitical in a sense).

Mate, you love democracy in the same way Palpatine does.

(who seem to love shelling their own nuclear power plants and shelling their own bridges)

If Russia are so worried about the safety of the plant, perhaps they shouldn't be using it as a military base. Then again I don't see any evidence that they "love shelling" those plants. Each side is accusing the other of doing that.

When it comes to bridges, what possible reason do you think could they have to want to destroy a bridge?

It is quite possible that, if the Russians had not sent some men in Crimea and Donbass, your Ukrainian friends [...] would have promptly crushed any insurgency.

Do you consider the wants of an insurgency to be the legitimate views of the population in which they are acting? Does an insurgency mean that a government should automatically acquiesce to the demands of the insurgent group? And when do you believe an outside actor can intervene?

 

[Michel H]

Mate, you love democracy in the same way Palpatine does.



If Russia are so worried about the safety of the plant, perhaps they shouldn't be using it as a military base. Then again I don't see any evidence that they "love shelling" those plants. Each side is accusing the other of doing that.

When it comes to bridges, what possible reason do you think could they have to want to destroy a bridge?



Do you consider the wants of an insurgency to be the legitimate views of the population in which they are acting? Does an insurgency mean that a government should automatically acquiesce to the demands of the insurgent group? And when do you believe an outside actor can intervene?

When it comes to bridges, what possible reason do you think could they have to want to destroy a bridge?

Their goal is to disrupt supply routes used by Russia (see https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...ssia-war-kherson-bridge-donbas/9661658918966/). It's part of the "total war" financed and equipped by the U.S. (and some European countries). They're destroying their own country, but they don't care. They think others will pay the bills.

Do you consider the wants of an insurgency to be the legitimate views of the population in which they are acting? Does an insurgency mean that a government should automatically acquiesce to the demands of the insurgent group? And when do you believe an outside actor can intervene?

I could certainly imagine an insurgency which doesn't have real popular support, by reasonable people (I can perhaps think about some jihadist groups in Africa for example).
But, in this case, we know there are some real pro-Russian sentiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls). The facts these regions speak Russian is probably an important factor.

 

[Craig4]

I actually do not support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I think it's a tragedy which was partly caused by the very serious mistakes done by Ukraine and its Western unconditional supporters (somewhat like the West supports Israel even if it invades and occupy Palestinian land): it was a mistake to massively punish Russia (through economic sanctions, not a military invasion like Russia is doing now) because it annexed Crimea and recognized the two Donbass republics, because these Russian decisions were logical results of mostly legitimate, democratic processes.

Your link mentions the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, it seems fairly clear to me that this plant has recently been shelled by the Ukrainians: the Russians are not going to shell their own men (for more details, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Note that Ukraine refuses a visit by U.N. nuclear officials, while Russia accepts it:

The Russians said Zaporizhzhia was shelled by Ukrainians. No one else has made that claim. That doesn't mean that's what happened.

 

[Craig4]

Their goal is to disrupt supply routes used by Russia (see https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-...ssia-war-kherson-bridge-donbas/9661658918966/). It's part of the "total war" financed and equipped by the U.S. (and some European countries). They're destroying their own country, but they don't care. They think others will pay the bills.

I could certainly imagine an insurgency which doesn't have real popular support, by reasonable people (I can perhaps think about some jihadist groups in Africa for example).
But, in this case, we know there are some real pro-Russian sentiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls). The facts these regions speak Russian is probably an important factor.

Ukraine thinks Russia will pay the bills in the form of frozen assets in NATO countries that will likely be provided to pay for Russia's reparations to Ukraine.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Your link mentions the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, it seems fairly clear to me that this plant has recently been shelled by the Ukrainians: the Russians are not going to shell their own men (for more details, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Note that Ukraine refuses a visit by U.N. nuclear officials, while Russia accepts it:

There is nothing in that link to support your wild claim that the Ukrainians have shelled the nuclear power station.

 

[Michel H]

The Russians said Zaporizhzhia was shelled by Ukrainians. No one else has made that claim. That doesn't mean that's what happened.

The Ukrainians have already attacked the nuclear plant before:

On 5 July 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that Russian forces arranged a military base in the complex by deploying heavy self-propelled multiple rocket launcher BM-30 Smerch.[27] On 19 July 2022, three Ukrainian suicide drones attacked Russian equipment and tents at the site. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense said that three Russian occupiers were killed and twelve injured.[28] The occupation administration was reported as saying that at least eleven employees were injured. An occupation official said the reactors were not damaged and it was unlikely they were the target.[29]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)

They probably wanted to attack Russian troops and equipment there. I don't see what could be the Russian motivation for attacking a nuclear plant in an area they occupy, with Russian military personnel present on the site. For their propaganda, it is more interesting to be able to say:"When we are in charge, everything is going well" (even if it's actually not true).

 

[Craig4]

The Ukrainians have already attacked the nuclear plant before:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)

They probably wanted to attack Russian troops and equipment there. I don't see what could be the Russian motivation for attacking a nuclear plant in an area they occupy, with Russian military personnel present on the site. For their propaganda, it is more interesting to be able to say:"When we are in charge, everything is going well" (even if it's actually not true).

Stupidity, poor explosives handling, short rounds, an attempt to impact western support for Ukraine all come to mind as motivations for Russian to stage shelling. We have amply evidence that Russians don't value the lives of their soldiers. The stupid **** commanding the plant even said so.

 

[Michel H]

Stupidity, poor explosives handling, short rounds, an attempt to impact western support for Ukraine all come to mind as motivations for Russian to stage shelling. We have amply evidence that Russians don't value the lives of their soldiers. The stupid **** commanding the plant even said so.

The stupid **** commanding the plant even said so.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

If they've attacked the plant once, they can attack it twice.

One other thing to take into account is that, in the West, there are lots of passionate Ukraine supporters and Russia haters, who will be ready to buy any Ukrainian lie, provided it sounds anti-Russian.

 

[Craig4]

I don't know what you are talking about here.

If they've attacked the plant once, they can attack it twice.

One other thing to take into account is that, in the West, there are lots of passionate Ukraine supporters and Russia haters, who will be ready to buy any Ukrainian lie, provided it sounds anti-Russian.

The difference being the Ukraine allows journalists from many countries and news outlets in the country. Much of the reporting about what's going on in Ukraine does not come from their government. This is not true of Russia where reports are jailed for reporting the truth.

As far as hating the Russians, they've earned it. It's okay to hate the Russians. To avoid that, all they have to do is stay contained to their borders. It's a feat nearly every other country on earth manages without too much trouble.

By the way, did you hear the good news from yesterday? Ukraine shelled the bridge near Kherson again, preventing its reopening and conducted HIMARS strikes on Russian troop concentrations killing many, wounding more and destroying Russian military equipment. An excellent start to the week.

 

[eerok]

Russia prepares to take another "vote" for annexation.

The Ukrainian Mayor of Melitopol, Zaporizhia Oblast, Ivan Fedorov, reported on August 7 that resistance among Ukrainian residents has forced Russian authorities to “constantly” change their plans for a referendum. Fedorov claimed that occupation authorities had planned a single day of voting but are now considering seven days of “voting from home” in which armed Russian military personnel will go house to house and “interview” Melitopol residents.[1] Fedorov claimed that only about 10% of the civilians remaining in Melitopol support Russia’s occupation and warned that Russian soldiers will threaten to shoot residents who do not vote for annexation.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-7

Yeah, feel the love as Russia "liberates" Ukraine.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't know what you are talking about here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13872518&postcount=2896

"Russian commander admits that Russia has mined the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant and will destroy it rather than allow it to be recaptured"

 

[erwinl]

Russia prepares to take another "vote" for annexation.



https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-7

Yeah, feel the love as Russia "liberates" Ukraine.

Well.
If you shoot enough of the people, who vote pro Ukraine, you can simply discard all the other pro-ukraine votes, as it can be simply said that Ukraine is so desperate to influence this vote, that they even let the dead vote!
I mean. Proof is there for all to see. Bodies are right there!

Which makes the end result a 100% vote for annexation and yet another triumph for democracy for certain personas to tout about.

 

[Wildy]

Their goal is to disrupt supply routes used by Russia.

And why are they trying to disrupt Russian supply routes? And do you believe there are any legitimate reasons for them to do such a thing?

It's part of the "total war" financed and equipped by the U.S. (and some European countries). They're destroying their own country, but they don't care. They think others will pay the bills.

Could there be any reason at all that the Ukrainians feel like they need to do this? For example, has anyone said anything that would suggest to them that they need to aggressively defend themselves?

I could certainly imagine an insurgency which doesn't have real popular support, by reasonable people (I can perhaps think about some jihadist groups in Africa for example).

And the answer to the rest of my questions there?

But, in this case, we know there are some real pro-Russian sentiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls). The facts these regions speak Russian is probably an important factor.

And yet, in your very article you seem to ignore the pre-invasion poll from May 2013 that found a majority of the population wanted things to continue as they were, or surveys that found that a majority of Crimeans considered Ukraine to be their motherland.

The Ukrainians have already attacked the nuclear plant before:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)

They probably wanted to attack Russian troops and equipment there. I don't see what could be the Russian motivation for attacking a nuclear plant in an area they occupy, with Russian military personnel present on the site. For their propaganda, it is more interesting to be able to say:"When we are in charge, everything is going well" (even if it's actually not true).

Because they would want to blame it on the Ukrainians in an attempt to portray them as irresponsible in order to cause Western countries to lower or even remove their support for Ukraine. It also works for domestic purposes since such a portrayal of Ukraine helps to legitimise the actions of Russia there because they can say that they're protecting Russians from an "irrational" Ukraine.

Of course neither of those instances would explain the main issue, which is why Russia is using a nuclear plant as a military base.

 

[Craig4]

Russia prepares to take another "vote" for annexation.



https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-7

Yeah, feel the love as Russia "liberates" Ukraine.

Every time a Russian soldiers dies in Ukraine an angel gets their wings. At the start of the invasion, I felt bad for Russian soldiers. Now, the more occupiers the Ukrainians kill the safer the world is. They really are the orcs the Ukrainians say they are.

 

[Michel H]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13872518&postcount=2896

"Russian commander admits that Russia has mined the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant and will destroy it rather than allow it to be recaptured"

But Craig4 said:

Stupidity, poor explosives handling, short rounds, an attempt to impact western support for Ukraine all come to mind as motivations for Russian to stage shelling. We have amply evidence that Russians don't value the lives of their soldiers. The stupid **** commanding the plant even said so.

He talked about not valuing soldiers' lives, not about destroying the nuclear plant. Technically, it is probably possible to destroy a nuclear plant without causing much radioactive release, it would have to be blown up when it is shut down. When the chain reaction is stopped, and there is no core meltdown, it may not be very dangerous.

Nevertheless, I think the Russians should not be in Zaporizhzhia, where they came uninvited, and they should not cause more damage by destroying the plant.

Ukraine is also guilty, in my opinion, because:

Ukraine's state nuclear company Energoatom opposed an IAEA visit because "any visit would legitimise Russia's presence there". Occupation official Yevhen Balytskyi invited IAEA to visit to show how the Russians were guarding the facility while Ukrainians were attacking it.[30]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant#2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine)

It remains to be seen if the destruction order (in case of a forced withdrawal) really comes from the top (in Russia).

Stout just posted:

ETA: The Reddit thread involving the mining of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant has been closed due to the information coming from a "a non-credible source and/or the source has not been linked from a top-level comment". Looks like we'll have to wait and see if this develops into anything significant or whether it gets tossed in the fake news bin. As to just who shelled the power plant, that's looking like more wait and see as well. I'm kind of skeptical that the Russians would attack a facility they've controlled for quite some time.