Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[Craig4]

Russia has an official policy of not targeting civilians in this current conflict.

The same cannot be said about the U.S. and U.K. at the end of WWII (think about Hiroshima, for example).

You are a liar. Russia does have a policy of targeting civilians. How many humanitarian convoys came under Russian fire early in the war? Lots.

 

[Michel H]

And yet Russia has targeted hospitals, shopping malls, theatres and apartment buildings.

Russian publicly stated 'official policy' is a lie

It's actually not so simple, I think:

Fascinating claimed intercepted call from Russian officer near Mykolaiv to superiors in Russia. He says:
- This is worse than Chechnya
- 50% of troops have frostbite
- They can’t evacuate the dead
- Don’t have enough tents
...
- Troops don’t have body armor. When one complained to commander was told “son, be strong”
- This special operation is a “madhouse”
- Being told not to destroy buildings - it’s insanity. Unless we destroy everything and turn into dirt along with the civilians, nothing can happen

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13764095#post13764095).
So, it seems that this order of not destroying buildings was really given, it is more than just a Russian official claim.

Of course, we know that Ukrainian civilian infrastructure has been hit many times, and I suspect many of these hits have been deliberate, or partly deliberate (by ignoring well known risks for civilians).

But the damage could probably have been a lot worse if Russian official policy had been stating that attacks on Ukrainian cities are allowed. The U.S. nuked Hiroshima with no real Jepanese threat, and is generally proud of it:

In the spring of 1953, the city of North Las Vegas chose Paula Harris as Miss North Las Vegas of 1953 and gave her the nickname "Miss A-Bomb".

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Atomic_(pageants)#The_five_"Miss_Atomics").
But Moscow did not nuke Kiev, even though it has the technical ability to do it. Russia could (technically) do it, and destroy the office where president Zelensky makes his phone calls to many world leaders, but it (fortunately) doesn't, in spite of all the "sanctions" against them.

WWII ended nearly 80 years ago. Decisions made by long dead leaders in that conflict, for good or ill, are irrelevant to Russia's current, unprovoked invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

Oh no, I think WWII is still hugely influential. UK leaders have still an unfortunate tendency to base their decisions on their understanding and conclusions about this war, with unfortunately terrible consequences for their citizens who have to pay their energy bills.

 

[Craig4]

Russian claims don't matter. It only matters what they do and what they are doing is targeting civilians. Why do you keep mentioning what Russians say? What Russians say doesn't count for anything.

 

[Michel H]

Russian claims don't matter. It only matters what they do and what they are doing is targeting civilians. Why do you keep mentioning what Russians say? What Russians say doesn't count for anything.

Don't be a racist, show some respect.

It is important to study what the Russians say (publicly or secretly) in order to understand their psychology, what they do and what they will probably do.

 

[Craig4]

Don't be a racist, show some respect.

It is important to study what the Russians say (publicly or secretly) in order to understand their psychology, what they do and what they will probably do.

When did the scum earn respect? You've seen what those pigs are doing in Ukraine. The only good Russian soldier is a dead Russian soldier. Their demonstrated depravity tells us all we need to know about their psychology.

 

[Michel H]

When did they earn respect? (the Russians)

Perhaps when they decided to not target "officially" civilians in Ukraine, or when they decided to retreat from the vicinity of Kiev in April.

Or when Russian soldiers acted to restore the supply of fresh water to Crimea: https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...dam-that-blocked-water-crimea-ria-2022-02-26/.

Or when Russia decided to create Russia Today, providing information in English free of charge for all (with a possibility of posting comments, which is something which is generally not possible on BBC News, the Guardian, or the New York Times for example).

The Russians who dared to criticize the invasion of Ukraine, in spite of the great risks for them personally, may also deserve respect.

 

[Craig4]

Perhaps when they decided to not target "officially" civilians in Ukraine, or when they decided to retreat from the vicinity of Kiev in April.

Or when they decided to create Russia Today, providing information in English free of charge for all (with a possibility of posting comments, which is something which is generally not possible on BBC News, the Guardian, or the New York Times for example).

The Russians who dared to criticize the invasion of Ukraine, in spite of the great risks for them personally, may also deserve respect.

The bastards did target civilians just today. Free yak vomit is still yak vomit so no respect because of Russia today.

Russians who oppose the war and its attendant genocide do deserve respect.

Apologists for Russia's genocide don't; even when they claim to be against it.

 

[dudalb]

And yet Russia has targeted hospitals, shopping malls, theatres and apartment buildings.

Russian publicly stated 'official policy' is a lie

WWII ended nearly 80 years ago. Decisions made by long dead leaders in that conflict, for good or ill, are irrelevant to Russia's current, unprovoked invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

You missed the most evil example of all..those mass graves found on the outskirts of Kiev.

 

[Myriad]

Don't be a racist, show some respect.

It is important to study what the Russians say (publicly or secretly) in order to understand their psychology, what they do and what they will probably do.

We have studied what the Russians say, as well as what they do. That's how we know what they're lying about.

 

[junkshop]

Russia has an official policy of not targeting civilians in this current conflict.

The same cannot be said about the U.S. and U.K. at the end of WWII (think about Hiroshima, for example).

And yet Russia has targeted hospitals, shopping malls, theatres and apartment buildings.

Russian publicly stated 'official policy' is a lie

WWII ended nearly 80 years ago. Decisions made by long dead leaders in that conflict, for good or ill, are irrelevant to Russia's current, unprovoked invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

It's actually not so simple, I think:

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13764095#post13764095).
So, it seems that this order of not destroying buildings was really given, it is more than just a Russian official claim.

An unverified claim on Twitter of an intercepteted Russian 'phone call is your evidence for Russian orders?
ETA: As dudalb pointed out, I forgot to mention the mass graves of butchered civilians that these righteous Russian defenders have left in their wake, like the great liberators that they are.

Of course, we know that Ukrainian civilian infrastructure has been hit many times, and I suspect many of these hits have been deliberate, or partly deliberate (by ignoring well known risks for civilians).

But the damage could probably have been a lot worse if Russian official policy had been stating that attacks on Ukrainian cities are allowed

Which would suggest that either the 'official policy' is bollocks, or that the Russian command has lost control of their troops.

The U.S. nuked Hiroshima with no real Jepanese threat, and is generally proud of it:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Atomic_(pageants)#The_five_"Miss_Atomics").

Utterly irrelevant. Are the USA or Japan combatants in this conflict, that is happening now, in this century? No, no they are not.

As regards the highlighted and your link, you have only shown that Las Vegas promoters thought this would be popular in the early to mid 1950s (60 odd years ago).

But Moscow did not nuke Kiev, even though it has the technical ability to do it. Russia could (technically) do it...

Well, thank **** for that. At present there are limits to their ******* barbarity.

...and destroy the office where president Zelensky makes his phone calls to many world leaders, but it (fortunately) doesn't, in spite of all the "sanctions" against them.

My god,! How dare he speak to other heads of state! Burn nuke the witch!

Oh no, I think WWII is still hugely influential. UK leaders have still an unfortunate tendency to base their decisions on their understanding and conclusions about this war...

Citation needed.

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong about this bit, but maybe you could provide a relevant example? IMO our recent (and awful) PMs' have more of a tendency to hark back to the days of Empire, when three-quarters of the globe was pink, and all was well with the world, because Johnny Foreigner knew his place, damnit!

 

[Aridas]

You are a liar. Russia does have a policy of targeting civilians. How many humanitarian convoys came under Russian fire early in the war? Lots.

He may also be a liar, but it's also important to pay attention to details. Russia probably does have an official policy not to target civilians, which some Russians do follow. Russia fairly certainly also has official armed forces policy regarding, well, not being horribly corrupt, not raping fellow soldiers, what the chain of command should be... having official policy doesn't mean all that much if it's not enforced properly, but that unofficial actually followed policy is different doesn't make someone pointing out what official policy is a liar. A dissembler or deceiver, perhaps, but that's slightly different.

Either way, when it comes to targeting civilians, I think that the Russian civilians that Russia targets in Russia should absolutely be kept in mind, not just the Ukrainian civilians, when it comes to the more general claim that Russia isn't targeting civilians. The targeting may be a little different in nature, but it's also quite serious in nature.

 

[Wildy]

I have a general question to Michel H before going into this. Do you actually read the articles properly when you cite them or do you stop when you find the bit you want?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Aftermath)

Controversies surrounding the legality of the (1954) transfer remained a sore point in relations between Ukraine and Russia for the first few years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in particular in the internal politics of Crimea.

And if you read the rest of the section you'll see that it talks about Russia accepting the status of Crimea under the Belovezh accords.

That accord states:

The High Contracting Parties acknowledge and respect each other's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders within the Commonwealth

(Side note: Commonwealth here refers to the CIS, which was created in this treaty)

Your Wikipedia link also states:

In 1994, a Russian nationalist administration under Yuriy Meshkov took over in Crimea with the promise to return Crimea to Russia, although these plans were later shelved. However, in a 1997 treaty between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, Russia recognized Ukraine's borders, and accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. The treaty expired on 31 March 2019.

Wondering why the treaty expired in 2019? Because Ukraine chose not to renew it because a certain party to the treaty with a red white and blue tricolour flag decided that Article 2 of the treaty respecting the boundaries didn't matter and annexed part of Ukraine.

Now these aren't the only treaties that Russia entered in to respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Article 1 of the Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons states:

[Russia], [the UK], and [the US], reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

(Highlighting mine, full names of countries changed)

Besides, you don't even go into the reason why Russia started claiming that the transfer was illegal. It has absolutely nothing to do with self-determination or the rights of Russians in Ukrainian territory. It's entirely down to control of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet which was stationed in Sevastopol. Russia of course wanted the fleet, but the naval facilities were officially part of Ukraine. What they wanted was to control the fleet and the facilities. Instead what happened was the two countries signed the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet giving Russia most of the fleet and allowing them to rent the facilities for a period of 20 years until 2017, which was increased to 2042 after the Kharkiv Accord in 2010.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination)

The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law

Also from that article:

The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between peoples should be—nor what constitutes a people. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.

According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence.

Note it says, the latter, meaning territorial integrity takes precedence over self-determination.

Since it's been determined under multiple treaties that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, you have to show how the secession of Crimea is legal under Ukrainian law. Good luck with that since the Ukrainian courts have already deemed it illegal under their laws.

 

[Aridas]

Just to poke at something worthy of an eye roll...

Meanwhile on Russian state TV: "But how come Hunter Biden is getting away with everything?"

 

[Craig4]

Russia Today exists to give talking points to their international, scummy, pro-genocide apologists who for their own depraved reasons, back a regime under which it's unlikely they'd want to live.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It would be nice, which leaves me wondering why you don't support that idea. At no point have you suggested that, rather than invade, Russia ask for a referendum in the regions of Ukraine it is currently occupying, to see what the people there actually want.
Presumably, you should also insist that Russia conduct similar referendums in such regions as Chechnya, which have expressed quite a strong desire to become independent.

Referendums have actually already taken place in 2014, in Crimea, and the two Donbass republics (Donetsk and Luhansk).

You missed the highlighted part. If Russia was genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of the citizens of the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, they could have pressured for referendums, e.g. through the UN.
They didn't. They invaded, thus causing death and suffering for the very people they supposedly want to protect.
If, on the other hand, the invasions were more about imperialism and military prestige, then it makes more sense to invade first and set up post hoc justifications (i.e. rigged referendums) after.
So, Michel H: can you explain why Russia did not try to organise referendums first, rather than employing military means first?

 

[jimbob]

Cross quoting because it is entirely relevant here as well as the original thread.

Great article from Foreign Affairs about Putin's real motivation for the war. Well worth reading in its entirety.

Vladimir Putin is determined to shape the future to look like his version of the past. Russia’s president invaded Ukraine not because he felt threatened by NATO expansion or by Western “provocations.” He ordered his “special military operation” because he believes that it is Russia’s divine right to rule Ukraine, to wipe out the country’s national identity, and to integrate its people into a Greater Russia.

He laid out this mission in a 5,000-word treatise, published in July 2021, entitled, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” In it, Putin insisted that Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians are all descendants of the Rus, an ancient people who settled the lands between the Black and Baltic Seas. He asserted that they are bound together by a common territory and language and the Orthodox Christian faith. In his version of history, Ukraine has never been sovereign, except for a few historical interludes when it tried—and failed—to become an independent state. Putin wrote that “Russia was robbed” of core territory when the Bolsheviks created the Soviet Union in 1922 and established a Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In his telling, since the Soviet collapse, the West has used Ukraine as a platform to threaten Russia, and it has supported the rise of “neo-Nazis” there. Putin’s essay, which every soldier sent to Ukraine is supposed to carry, ends by asserting that Ukraine can only be sovereign in partnership with Russia. “We are one people,” Putin declares.​

The hilited somehow reminds me of another famous irredentist.

 

[ginjawarrior]

https://mobile.twitter.com/den_kazansky/status/1563753741697916928

 

[theprestige]

I'm impressed with how clean that skull looks, for something that was attached to a healthy torso just a couple months back. Makes me wonder how come the Russian troops apparently have carcass butchering and cleaning service deployed with them.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'm impressed with how clean that skull looks, for something that was attached to a healthy torso just a couple months back. Makes me wonder how come the Russian troops apparently have carcass butchering and cleaning service deployed with them.

Wat?

 

[theprestige]

Wat?

"I'm impressed with how clean that skull looks, for something that was attached to a healthy torso just a couple months back. Makes me wonder how come the Russian troops apparently have carcass butchering and cleaning service deployed with them."

Was there something specific about the phrasing or the concepts presented that is confusing to you?