Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[temporal1]

I picked up a copy of the Plain Communities "extra" (post office trash) and read the article that is probably the one referred to earlier in this thread (as having been published in the 'Plain News'). There are a lot of details included in the accounting of recent history of the relationship between The Russian Federation and Ukraine, lots of things I did not know, in fact. But I do not see how any examination of this can be considered remotely complete or accurate w/o starting at least back as far as the years immediately following the fall of the Russian Empire - the fact that the developing Soviet "empire" invaded Ukraine, and put down the Republic of Ukraine that had formed at that time. They were not 'partners' - the Soviets SUBJUGATED the Ukrainians. And then the Holodomor (Stalin, 1930's) was also completely passed over. <I Will Remember Them.>

One more comment:
The author also repeated the Kremlin's line about promises made to 'Russia' during the final year or so of the USSR.
When the new Russian government was formed (under Yeltsin, as I recall) extensive measures were taken to prevent a return to communism.

The USSR and The Russian Federation are not the one and same country.
Same ethnicity to a large degree (since Russia was the core of the USSR), much the same land, but not the same government.
If China took over Taiwan, would the USA be expected to keep promises they made to the no longer existing Taiwan, defending China instead? Rather doubtful.

Thanks, Neto.
When i say i hope current talks “focus on the present” - i’d like to add, NOT in ignorance or denial of history!
Those tasked with these important talks need to be well-educated in history as a foundation for these talks!
To know history, but not be obsessed with it. To not be crippled by it.

It’s important to understand where the other party is coming from, or, any agreement is likely to be superficial and probably not enduring.

i always hope other countries emphasize history much more than the U.S., which is heavily “me” and “now” centered.

[temporal1]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220401180 ... yskih.html
This is interesting, the mayor seems to be saying they mined a confectionary plant and poisoned the cookies.
Makes no mention of other atrocities. Another page there applauds the civilians for being sneaky and poisoning the Russians with pies. Maybe the mines were revenge for the pies.

This video was removed later and is no longer available except with the wayback machine.

i viewed. i do not understand the language.
lots of destruction of motor vehicles and buildings.

i do not understand why these types of videos do not show lots of blood remaining in vehicles, on the street?
does this indicate they were not occupied when destroyed? (i hope so.)

destruction of property is bad enough. but is the intended message that people were killed when they were not?
i don’t know.

When a vehicle was obviously consumed in flames, of course, no visible blood will remain. There could be skeletal remains.

There were several images of vehicles badly hit/demolished, where car seats remained intact, not burned.
They appear to have been occupied when damaged? Maybe. Maybe not. But, “no blood” or other signs of human life.

It’s just something i wonder about.

“A picture paints a thousand words.” But pictures don’t reveal all facts.

[nett]

Okay, I get it. You are invested in this. Can you produce a picture of the area in high resolution from this open source satellite imaging? Seems to me there isn't any way to verify the images as what a commoner like myself can access is low resolution images of Bucha. My point is you have to trust that a pro-Ukrainian news source isn't fudging data.

As for the image of the Russian vehicles, how do you know those are Russian tanks and not Ukrainian tanks? because the media says so?

I’m not going to buy the satellite data myself. But if the NYT and BBC got it wrong I would expect the Russians and their allies to be all over it. Because these reports are affecting world opinion and sanctions. So it is high stakes. But they are not. Instead crickets.

They are all over it. Vassily Nebenzia addressed the report in a press briefing, and he pointed out some major problems with the narrative, mainly regarding communication by the mayor of Bucha around the time this event was supposedly happening.

I think it's interesting that the UK prevented him from presenting this at the UN Security Council. Seems to be those without anything to hide wouldn't be afraid of what he has to say? After all, how often were Muslim leaders allowed to get up and spews untruths (supposedly) about the United States?

[temporal1]

They are all over it.
Vassily Nebenzia addressed the report in a press briefing, and he pointed out some major problems with the narrative, mainly regarding communication by the mayor of Bucha around the time this event was supposedly happening.

I think it's interesting that the UK prevented him from presenting this at the UN Security Council.

Seems to be those without anything to hide wouldn't be afraid of what he has to say?
After all, how often were Muslim leaders allowed to get up and spews untruths (supposedly) about the United States?

Awkward. Esp with Russia as a permanent member of UN Security Council.
A time for caution.

[Soloist]

I’m not going to buy the satellite data myself. But if the NYT and BBC got it wrong I would expect the Russians and their allies to be all over it. Because these reports are affecting world opinion and sanctions. So it is high stakes. But they are not. Instead crickets.

yes and the vast majority of people will accept what they are told without question. When counterpoints from Russia come out and are dismissed as lies based on the unverifiable proof presented earlier and then you claim Russia is being silent on these claims...

Russia isn't silent and you know that. Does it mean they are telling the truth? I'm not claiming that, but so far the proof shown doesn't show that Russia did it as the single piece of supporting evidence is a fuzzy satellite image showing what appears to be bodies. No evidence as to who killed them, the time stamp was added to the satellite image https://api.discover.digitalglobe.com/s ... 003FDC5000 one of their raw pictures without the time stamp.

Our governments supposedly are able to produce an image capable of detecting a baby foot print, we are very likely to have satellites frequently on these locations and the chances are we actually saw in our satellites who actually killed them and when. There is no smoking gun that the Russians did this or even definitive proof that they left bodies on the ground. Assuming they did leave the bodies on the road, if they had buried them we would be calling them out on the mass grave full of civilians.
Lets assume they did kill them in a fit of rage over the poison pies they got given... Doesn't justify killing in our views but at least that could explain that it wasn't just what the west is trying to claim. Also there are claims floating around that Russia executed all the young males in the village yet nothing was said by the mayor about that nor was there enough bodies even found to support that claim.
My point is that the west and Russia are engaged in a huge propaganda war and both sides are attempting to claim things that can't be proven to justify many things. The pro-war sentiment is rising every time the west releases more "war crimes" committed by Russia and people in the west are calling for nuclear war despite the fact that most of these people are completely clueless as to what that would mean.

[temporal1]

Soloist:
.. My point is that the west and Russia are engaged in a huge propaganda war and both sides are attempting to claim things that can't be proven to justify many things.

The pro-war sentiment is rising every time the west releases more "war crimes" committed by Russia
and people in the west are calling for nuclear war
despite the fact that most of these people are completely clueless as to what that would mean.

i appreciate your tenor and reserve.
i believe these kinds of responses are common throughout history, even in ancient times, writings reflect a correlation between enthusiasm for war and lack of experience with war.

the internet is just so good at presenting views quickly. it’s not inherently different, just faster. more volume.

do you see a connection with video games as far as enthusiasm for war? i have almost no exposure. but i’m aware it’s a major industry, based primarily on violence/fantasy violence/fantasy aggression. the industry lobbies against any such connection.

[Soloist]

i appreciate your tenor and reserve.
i believe these kinds of responses are common throughout history, even in ancient times, writings reflect a correlation between enthusiasm for war and lack of experience with war.

the internet is just so good at presenting views quickly. it’s not inherently different, just faster. more volume.

do you see a connection with video games as far as enthusiasm for war? i have almost no exposure. but i’m aware it’s a major industry, based primarily on violence/fantasy violence/fantasy aggression. the industry lobbies against any such connection.

Civil war they called it seeing the elephant. Some broke and ran despite their bluster, others became killers.
In ancient times often war was part of their very culture and highly praised with war games being part of children as a normal thing. Now days we pretend we are more civilized yet we are only a step away from gladiator games being normal with what is on tv.
I play a lot of strategy war games and I enjoy them but I don't enjoy the games where you are actively shooting at another human figure. We are pushing the boundary of realism in games https://ektovr.com this allows you to walk normally but it shifts you back to center. We are not far off of truly immersive game play. At that point reality and game blend and the closer we get to normalizing violence in those sort of settings the harder it would be to not see a very clear connection. At the same time, learning to kill does not make you a murderer by society standards.
The games gloss over the cost of war or use it purely as a way to make someone look like a bad guy, just like tv stereotypes predominate... when in actuality the truth is more complex then stereotypical idea's.
I think its good to have a divide between play killing and what we should do as play killing is no different then a girl playing mommy with her dolls. Both are teaching or practicing how to do something.

[Ken]

i appreciate your tenor and reserve.
i believe these kinds of responses are common throughout history, even in ancient times, writings reflect a correlation between enthusiasm for war and lack of experience with war.

the internet is just so good at presenting views quickly. it’s not inherently different, just faster. more volume.

do you see a connection with video games as far as enthusiasm for war? i have almost no exposure. but i’m aware it’s a major industry, based primarily on violence/fantasy violence/fantasy aggression. the industry lobbies against any such connection.

Civil war they called it seeing the elephant. Some broke and ran despite their bluster, others became killers.
In ancient times often war was part of their very culture and highly praised with war games being part of children as a normal thing. Now days we pretend we are more civilized yet we are only a step away from gladiator games being normal with what is on tv.
I play a lot of strategy war games and I enjoy them but I don't enjoy the games where you are actively shooting at another human figure. We are pushing the boundary of realism in games https://ektovr.com this allows you to walk normally but it shifts you back to center. We are not far off of truly immersive game play. At that point reality and game blend and the closer we get to normalizing violence in those sort of settings the harder it would be to not see a very clear connection. At the same time, learning to kill does not make you a murderer by society standards.
The games gloss over the cost of war or use it purely as a way to make someone look like a bad guy, just like tv stereotypes predominate... when in actuality the truth is more complex then stereotypical idea's.
I think its good to have a divide between play killing and what we should do as play killing is no different then a girl playing mommy with her dolls. Both are teaching or practicing how to do something.

The third largest video game market in the world is Japan where gaming is immensely popular. Yet the level of societal violence in Japan is a tiny fraction of what it is in the US. And it remains a largely pacifist country. So I would be reluctant to draw a direct link between video games and violence or violent tendencies.

War is a brutal physical business, even in the 21st century. I would argue that spending too much time in front of a computer screen probably makes one less equipped for real war that most other activities like getting outside and playing soccer to exhaustion. Or physical things like working on cars or engines.

I don't think what makes a modern army effective has much to do with the reticence or willingness of troops to pull a trigger. I think it has much more to do with things like logistics, initiative, training, and leadership.

[Soloist]

The third largest video game market in the world is Japan where gaming is immensely popular. Yet the level of societal violence in Japan is a tiny fraction of what it is in the US. And it remains a largely pacifist country. So I would be reluctant to draw a direct link between video games and violence or violent tendencies.

Yes Japan plays quite a lot of games but have you looked at their popular titles and compared them to US games? quite a few fantasy games compared to quite a few fps games. There is a major difference in style and audience compared to the USA and suggesting that Japan is non-violent and that means games don't have a connection... you likely haven't played many of the fantasy games or the fps.

War is a brutal physical business, even in the 21st century. I would argue that spending too much time in front of a computer screen probably makes one less equipped for real war that most other activities like getting outside and playing soccer to exhaustion. Or physical things like working on cars or engines.

Yes and no. As you've pointed out a number of times, we don't want muscle to be bullet sponges, we need well trained high tech forces in our military and its only going to increase as our advances continue.

I don't think what makes a modern army effective has much to do with the reticence or willingness of troops to pull a trigger. I think it has much more to do with things like logistics, initiative, training, and leadership.

Used to be a serious problem but its easy to drop a bomb from the sky and be detached from the killing. Logistics have killed many military forces and an effective leader has to be able to calculate that too. We have never fought a serious engagement in modern history and when we invaded Iraq our troops were a day away from running out supplies because our software and people miscalculated how far they could advance.

[mike]