Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[MattTheTall77]

"ashamed"? what do you expect the west to do? the whole world has given them ammo, arms, and vehicles over the past couple of years. Theres not really much else the west can do unless they are prepared to escalate the war into a WW3 scenario .

We have given arms, ammo and vehicles, but we were slow doing so, not enough so far, and not quick enough given the way Russia throw numbers at them.

Ukraine are still at a numbers disadvantage on all aspects, in vehicles and ammunition. It is not an equal fight and we could do more to help.

Edit: The result of our slow response and commitment to supply what is needed costs lives.

Really the biggest failure in hindsight was back in 2014, a response then to show it is not acceptable may have prevented much of this.

 

[esmozz]

It’s really not. NATO is to ensure peace and prosperity globally and deter nations from perusing programs of weapons of mass destruction.

Nope, NATO's mission is to ensure peace and prosperity of it's members.

 

[Washout]

My point I made earlier and a year ago and longer.....if the powers that be knows a compromise is the end result then both sides are completely and utterly morally bankrupt at all the people that now and will cease to exist.

If they fell victory was possible then thsts fair enough....but I haven't heard of many paths to this…

First of all, assuming support from the west, Ukraine believes it can win. So there’s one path.

Secondly, and as everyone keeps pointing out: Russia can’t be trusted to keep to any agreement. They’re openly saying all of Ukraine belongs to Russia.

I’m not British but their predicament during ww2 was far more precarious - your assessment, using your logic, is that their leadership was also utterly morally bankrupt for fighting on?

I’ll tell you what though, it takes a certain kind of character to give equivalent scorn to both countries leadership as being morally bankrupt when one side initiated the full invasion, killed god knows how many, flattened dozens of villages, towns and cities pretty much out of existence, kidnapped thousands of children and committed a plethora of war crimes.
The other side is defended itself, admirably too and didn’t flee when things looked bleakest.
At which point should this morally bankrupt government have effectively surrendered, ceding their territory and abandoning their citizens? Before or after they took back pretty much all the land north of Kyiv? Before or after they regained pretty much all the land around Kharkiv? Or before or after they took back Kherson? If you could clear that up that would be great.

 

[jigger]

Nope, NATO's mission is to ensure peace and prosperity of its members.

Isn’t that what I said?

 

[esmozz]

It’s really not. NATO is to ensure peace and prosperity globally and deter nations from perusing programs of weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Roar87]

Initial reports following the blast said that repair works would not be completed until July 2023. This week Russia deputy prime minister Marat Khusnullin has said: “Despite the terrorist attack, traffic was restored over the bridge in 57 days. Under normal conditions, it would take about a year to do such work.

I know you don't like facts.

Lets have a little quiz...
So hit it every month and it would be functioning how often?

I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.

Truly amazing. All the stuff Russia has done and yet you come up with this.

"WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?​

The 1949 Geneva Conventions on humanitarian conduct in war and their protocols prohibit attacks on sites considered essential for civilians: "In no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
They explicitly prohibit attacks on "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works...""


They make a clarification between three things, military targets, combined use targets, and civilian only targets.
Of course many are shared, like for example a bridge or a road. Unless they are actively being used for civilians only then they are deemed acceptable if there is a military usage taking place.

I cant find you a quick quote in regards bridges, but for example in regards energy infrastructure
"

WHAT ABOUT ENERGY FACILITIES?​

Civilian power infrastructure has long been considered a valid military objective as long as it also supports an enemy army’s activities, military law expert Michael Schmitt wrote in the Articles of War blog run by the Lieber Institute at the U.S. West Point military academy.
International law professor Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading wrote in a blog that the main issue in assessing the military validity of the attack on the Nova Kakhovka dam's hydroelectric power station was whether it was making an "effective contribution" to military action."

 

[Stretch]

I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.

If it being used to transport military hardware/personal it’s a legitimate military target.

Stop being such a propaganda victim,

 

[Orangeade]

First of all, assuming support from the west, Ukraine believes it can win. So there’s one path.

Secondly, and as everyone keeps pointing out: Russia can’t be trusted to keep to any agreement. They’re openly saying all of Ukraine belongs to Russia.

I’m not British but their predicament during ww2 was far more precarious - your assessment, using your logic, is that their leadership was also utterly morally bankrupt for fighting on?

I’ll tell you what though, it takes a certain kind of character to give equivalent scorn to both countries leadership as being morally bankrupt when one side initiated the full invasion, killed god knows how many, flattened dozens of villages, towns and cities pretty much out of existence, kidnapped thousands of children and committed a plethora of war crimes.
The other side is defended itself, admirably too and didn’t flee when things looked bleakest.
At which point should this morally bankrupt government have effectively surrendered, ceding their territory and abandoning their citizens? Before or after they took back pretty much all the land north of Kyiv? Before or after they regained pretty much all the land around Kharkiv? Or before or after they took back Kherson? If you could clear that up that would be great.

That's a big word soup for saying very little. Your first sentence answers the question and which my previous answer had agreed with. If the leadership believe they can win then grind it out, fine!

My point was that if they recognise at some point that they cannot achieve their stated victory then not negotiating is immoral. Not sure why that's hard to understand. I'm not implying there was previously or even if now that point was reached.

I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?

 

[Rroff]

I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.

On the one hand Russia voids part of that protection when they use the bridge to transport military equipment or supplies, on the other hand it is not critical to humanitarian concerns because no one is going to starve or suffer medically because of its destruction.

You really should look beyond the headline whatever sources you use for information are feeding you.

 

[Sankari]

"ashamed"? what do you expect the west to do? the whole world has given them ammo, arms, and vehicles over the past couple of years.

We haven't given them the long range weapons they need. We haven't given them the amount of ammunition we promised. We haven't given them enough vehicles. We've slow walked and trickle fed our support while Ukraine bleeds out.

Theres not really much else the west can do unless they are prepared to escalate the war into a WW3 scenario .

Nonsense. We can help Ukraine win this war without direct involvement, but even if we did get directly involved, Russia would never dare to strike a NATO force.

 

[jigger]

NATO’s goals are global, or if you prefer NATO goals are to maintain international peacekeeping and support UN charters and International law.

 

[Rroff]

I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?

There was a plan to fight for every corner of it, including people sequestered in hideaways in the ground with supplies whose mission was to do as much damage behind enemy lines as possible - including instructions to kill anyone civilian who might be aware of their whereabouts before the area was overrun...

Auxiliary Units - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Minstadave]

I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.

Mind numbing drivel.

 

[Grim5]

I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?

Once again no clue, the Brits were preparing to fight tooth and nail in the streets, there was no surrender plan, it was victory or death

 

[delta0]

That's a big word soup for saying very little. Your first sentence answers the question and which my previous answer had agreed with. If the leadership believe they can win then grind it out, fine!

My point was that if they recognise at some point that they cannot achieve their stated victory then not negotiating is immoral. Not sure why that's hard to understand. I'm not implying there was previously or even if now that point was reached.

I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?

There’s some pretty cool hidden fortifications. Like the fortifications next to horse guards parade in London. There’s loads of these structures all over the UK. We were going to fight to the end.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?

Jerry is up to something. He's been awfully quiet for 80 years.

 

[Allnamestaken]

I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.

What about the other times that Russia attacked civilian infrastructure? Which is pretty much every day or other day cince the beginning of the special operation?

So quick to recontextualise everything to make russia look like a victim who struck back rofl.

 

[chaparral]

I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.

cough cough But it ok for russian to destroy whole citys & towns

Mariupol before and after: updated Google maps reveal destruction in Ukraine city

New satellite images offer a window into the aftermath of prolonged Russian shelling

www.theguardian.com

 

[Mr Badger]

I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?

There was a plan to fight for every corner of it, including people sequestered in hideaways in the ground with supplies whose mission was to do as much damage behind enemy lines as possible - including instructions to kill anyone civilian who might be aware of their whereabouts before the area was overrun...

Auxiliary Units - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once again no clue, the Brits were preparing to fight tooth and nail in the streets, there was no surrender plan, it was victory or death

There’s some pretty cool hidden fortifications. Like the fortifications next to horse guards parade in London. There’s loads of these structures all over the UK. We were going to fight to the end.

I'm not disputing any of the responses, but I have long questioned whether Germany was serious about occupying the UK. Of course Hitler wanted us out of the war (and if he hadn't proved to be untrustworthy maybe a deal might have been done) but even if they could have pulled off Operation Sealion it would have cost them dearly and spread their forces even thinner. Successfully invading across the channel would be quite some feat with the Royal Navy there to stop you and Hitler's main strategic goals were to his east.