Did you get hit in the head recently? You never used to be as disconnected and impulsive as Carmine. Now it's DOA means Momentarily Paused, and Appeaser means whatever behavior you think this "ISW" outfit was exhibiting last week. I'll be sure not to refer to whoever they are for military double-speak, if that's what you are getting at.
(Weren't the cowardly Russian retreats from Kyiv and Kharkiv called "strategic repositioning"? If I find the time, maybe I'll try and find instances where someone here, perhaps you, referred to the Russian retreats from Kyiv and Kharkiv as something like that.)
I don't recall making any comment whatsoever with regard to Russian withdrawals from Northern Ukraine.
It's shocking you don't know who "ISW" is.
"Russian withdrawals from Northern Ukraine" are more properly characterized as "cowardly Russian retreats from the Russian targeted Ukrainian cities of Kyiv and Kharkiv." Your mischaracterization is noted. That, and any other mischaracterizations, including "strategic repositioning," are DOA. DOA means DOA.
Who in the name of R. Orthodox Christ is ISW? If I knew who there were, I'd be shocked if I didn't. But since I don't know who they are, it isn't shocking that I don't. Shocking is DOA.
These "stoic" defences had PR value and, sadly, the huge Ukraine losses incurred were useful in enlisting more foreign military aid, such as HIMARS and self-propelled Howitzers.
Why is it sad that Ukraine is getting more weapons to defend its people and territory?
The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.
Ukraine Military Brass contradicts claims from President Zelenskyy (etc.):
"Brigadier General Oleksii Hromov told a news conference on Thursday that Russia was trying to hit military and critical infrastructure, but that the use of old Soviet-era missiles that are less accurate was leading to significant loss of civilian life.
The brigadier general said 202 missiles had been fired on Ukraine in the second half of June, an increase of 120 from the first half of the month. He estimated that 68 civilian sites had been hit in the second half of this month.
His analysis diverged from that of some Ukrainian politicians who accuse Russia of deliberately striking civilians to sow panic.
“The enemy’s targets remain military facilities, critical infrastructure and industry, transport networks. At the same time, the civilian population is suffering significant losses due to [poorly targeted] strikes,” Hromov said.
Ukraine Military Brass contradicts claims from President Zelenskyy (etc.):
"Brigadier General Oleksii Hromov told a news conference on Thursday that Russia was trying to hit military and critical infrastructure, but that the use of old Soviet-era missiles that are less accurate was leading to significant loss of civilian life.
The brigadier general said 202 missiles had been fired on Ukraine in the second half of June, an increase of 120 from the first half of the month. He estimated that 68 civilian sites had been hit in the second half of this month.
His analysis diverged from that of some Ukrainian politicians who accuse Russia of deliberately striking civilians to sow panic.
“The enemy’s targets remain military facilities, critical infrastructure and industry, transport networks. At the same time, the civilian population is suffering significant losses due to [poorly targeted] strikes,” Hromov said.
So your defense of Russia killing so many civilians is they're not doing it on purpose, they're just choosing to use weapons that they know will kill a lot of civilians.
This is the war that Putin chose. And this is the war you chose to cheerleed for.
I didn't say you weren't reading ISW, I said you weren't reading them for understanding of tactics. That's an observation, not an insult. Claiming insult is a tactic.
The "propaganda" tactic by your telling got Ukraine HIMARS and Howitzers. How is this different from buying time to allow "Ukraine's armament being upgraded" which is fundamental to defending eastern Ukraine?
The Russian withdraw from Snake Island would indicate that the Russians have tacitly conceded that capturing Odessa is no longer a viable objective and that Black Sea naval operations will necessarily be constrained.
I misread your post thought you were labelling me "another reservoir for rhetorical BS" and took that as insult. But I see this refers to how I might be viewing ISW and no direct insult was intended. Congratulations, you got me to admit I was wrong.
Pretty much everyone agrees Severodonetsk has minimal strategic value. As with Snake Island, both Ukraine and Russia focused disproportionate resources there for political/propaganda purposes.
The Ukraine side could have "bought time" as or more effectively consolidating in Lysychansk sooner rather than continuing a costly and untenable defense of Severodonetsk.
Acknowledgement and quantifying of casualties by Ukraine was near unheard of until Severodonetsk. Zelenskyy saw value in admitting to heavy casualties in order to obtain and add urgency to new weapon shipments - which worked.
I expect Russia still aims to take Mykolaiv and Odessa, though I am doubtful they possess ability to take it in the short or medium term - or at all depending on when/how hostilities wind down.
These "stoic" defences had PR value and, sadly, the huge Ukraine losses incurred were useful in enlisting more foreign military aid, such as HIMARS and self-propelled Howitzers.
Why is it sad that Ukraine is getting more weapons to defend its people and territory?
So your defense of Russia killing so many civilians is they're not doing it on purpose, they're just choosing to use weapons that they know will kill a lot of civilians.
This is the war that Putin chose. And this is the war you chose to cheerleed for.
Same-O, Same-O... insult and misattribution.
A BBC article was linked indicating the Kremenchuk Shopping Mall was not intentionally targeted, contrary to claims from President Zelenskyy and others.
An Al Jazeera article was shared which quotes the Ukraine Military as stating Russia is targeting infrastructure, but incurring civilian losses due to their resorting to antiquated, inaccurate missiles.
The BBC, Al Jazeera, and a Ukraine Brigadier General are not making a "defense for Russia killing so many civilians" or "cheerleading war".
Ukraine Military Brass contradicts claims from President Zelenskyy (etc.):
"Brigadier General Oleksii Hromov told a news conference on Thursday that Russia was trying to hit military and critical infrastructure, but that the use of old Soviet-era missiles that are less accurate was leading to significant loss of civilian life.
The brigadier general said 202 missiles had been fired on Ukraine in the second half of June, an increase of 120 from the first half of the month. He estimated that 68 civilian sites had been hit in the second half of this month.
His analysis diverged from that of some Ukrainian politicians who accuse Russia of deliberately striking civilians to sow panic.
“The enemy’s targets remain military facilities, critical infrastructure and industry, transport networks. At the same time, the civilian population is suffering significant losses due to [poorly targeted] strikes,” Hromov said.
The target may have been the industrial plant next to the mall. But, contrary to Russian claims of “high-precision” missiles, it appears they knowingly used an ancient and inaccurate type of munition.
Let’s see what the Geneva Convention has to say…
Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population 1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) 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.
I’m not an international human rights lawyer, nor an expert of war crimes, but it seems to me that if Russia used an imprecise weapon to attack a target of questionable value that was right next to a civilian shopping area, then “they” commuted a war crime. Here “they” refers to whomever ordered and carried out this attack, up to and including Putin himself.
Ukraine Military Brass contradicts claims from President Zelenskyy (etc.):
"Brigadier General Oleksii Hromov told a news conference on Thursday that Russia was trying to hit military and critical infrastructure, but that the use of old Soviet-era missiles that are less accurate was leading to significant loss of civilian life.
The brigadier general said 202 missiles had been fired on Ukraine in the second half of June, an increase of 120 from the first half of the month. He estimated that 68 civilian sites had been hit in the second half of this month.
His analysis diverged from that of some Ukrainian politicians who accuse Russia of deliberately striking civilians to sow panic.
“The enemy’s targets remain military facilities, critical infrastructure and industry, transport networks. At the same time, the civilian population is suffering significant losses due to [poorly targeted] strikes,” Hromov said.
The target may have been the industrial plant next to the mall. But, contrary to Russian claims of “high-precision” missiles, it appears they knowingly used an ancient and inaccurate type of munition.
Let’s see what the Geneva Convention has to say…
Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population 1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) 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.
I’m not an international human rights lawyer, nor an expert of war crimes, but it seems to me that if Russia used an imprecise weapon to attack a target of questionable value that was right next to a civilian shopping area, then “they” commuted a war crime. Here “they” refers to whomever ordered and carried out this attack, up to and including Putin himself.
The point of the precipitating post was to "fact check" false claims the Kremenchuk Shopping Mall was intentionally targeted.
Civilian casualties are abhorrent and it is not unreasonable to heap blame upon the Russian side for this and many other tragedies.
However, errant bombs and missiles are an awful but common occurrence in armed conflict.
In the last 30 years, the list of despicable war crimes the World has seen is plenty long. But almost none have been found to be a prosecutable war crime.
Ukraine Military Brass contradicts claims from President Zelenskyy (etc.):
"Brigadier General Oleksii Hromov told a news conference on Thursday that Russia was trying to hit military and critical infrastructure, but that the use of old Soviet-era missiles that are less accurate was leading to significant loss of civilian life.
The brigadier general said 202 missiles had been fired on Ukraine in the second half of June, an increase of 120 from the first half of the month. He estimated that 68 civilian sites had been hit in the second half of this month.
His analysis diverged from that of some Ukrainian politicians who accuse Russia of deliberately striking civilians to sow panic.
“The enemy’s targets remain military facilities, critical infrastructure and industry, transport networks. At the same time, the civilian population is suffering significant losses due to [poorly targeted] strikes,” Hromov said.
The target may have been the industrial plant next to the mall. But, contrary to Russian claims of “high-precision” missiles, it appears they knowingly used an ancient and inaccurate type of munition.
Let’s see what the Geneva Convention has to say…
Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population 1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) 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.
I’m not an international human rights lawyer, nor an expert of war crimes, but it seems to me that if Russia used an imprecise weapon to attack a target of questionable value that was right next to a civilian shopping area, then “they” commuted a war crime. Here “they” refers to whomever ordered and carried out this attack, up to and including Putin himself.
Another day, another round of indiscriminate missile attacks in a populated area by Russian terrorists. #WarCrime
Russia flattened part of an apartment building while residents slept on Friday in missile attacks near Ukraine's port of Odesa that authorities said killed at least 21 people, hours after Russian troops abandoned the Black Se...
Russia has been purposefully and intentionally bombing civilians from the beginning of this war. This is how Russia fights a war. Just look at the siege of Grozny during the two Chechen wars. Russian forces faced a small contingent of Chechen separatists. Whenever they tried to engage with them in urban combat in Grozny, the Russia forces got slaughtered. So, the decided to just bomb everything between them and the separatist forces until they were able to push the separatists out of the city and into the mountains (where the separatists still managed to inflict significant losses on the Russians). Same tactics used in Syria where Russian forces bombed everything they could bomb in cities like Aleppo.
The point of the precipitating post was to "fact check" false claims the Kremenchuk Shopping Mall was intentionally targeted.
Civilian casualties are abhorrent and it is not unreasonable to heap blame upon the Russian side for this and many other tragedies.
However, errant bombs and missiles are an awful but common occurrence in armed conflict.
In the last 30 years, the list of despicable war crimes the World has seen is plenty long. But almost none have been found to be a prosecutable war crime.
"it is not unreasonable to heap blame upon the Russian side..."
That statement shows you are a Rucist. If the russians choose to target military targets but repeatedly hit civilian ones because their weapons are sh*t, then they are 100% to blame for the massive civilian casualties in Ukraine. They are 100% to blame for all the casualties in Ukraine regardless, because they chose to invade a sovereign country, kill and rape civilians, and destroy cities. They are brutal savages, plain and simple.
Pretty much everyone agrees Severodonetsk has minimal strategic value. As with Snake Island, both Ukraine and Russia focused disproportionate resources there for political/propaganda purposes.
Severondonetsk had tactical value. Had the Ukrainians retreated earlier it would have allowed the Russian to cross the river uncontested.
The Ukraine side could have "bought time" as or more effectively consolidating in Lysychansk sooner rather than continuing a costly and untenable defense of Severodonetsk.
You're saying they could have "bought time" by allowing the next major front in the war to have been underway a couple weeks ago. That's just silly.
Acknowledgement and quantifying of casualties by Ukraine was near unheard of until Severodonetsk. Zelenskyy saw value in admitting to heavy casualties in order to obtain and add urgency to new weapon shipments - which worked.
Zelenskyy is very very good at propaganda and message management, if that's your point. He is, perhaps, Ukraine's single greatest asset. It doesn't hurt, that his vision for Ukraine aligns well with EU and NATO interests.
I expect Russia still aims to take Mykolaiv and Odessa, though I am doubtful they possess ability to take it in the short or medium term - or at all depending on when/how hostilities wind down.
I'm sure they'd like to, but I think their military leadership recognizes that it would be very costly to try now relative to before the Harpoon missile deployment around Odessa starting a few weeks back. This being another example of tactical delay working in Ukraine's favor.
Ukraine Military Brass contradicts claims from President Zelenskyy (etc.):
"Brigadier General Oleksii Hromov told a news conference on Thursday that Russia was trying to hit military and critical infrastructure, but that the use of old Soviet-era missiles that are less accurate was leading to significant loss of civilian life.
The brigadier general said 202 missiles had been fired on Ukraine in the second half of June, an increase of 120 from the first half of the month. He estimated that 68 civilian sites had been hit in the second half of this month.
His analysis diverged from that of some Ukrainian politicians who accuse Russia of deliberately striking civilians to sow panic.
“The enemy’s targets remain military facilities, critical infrastructure and industry, transport networks. At the same time, the civilian population is suffering significant losses due to [poorly targeted] strikes,” Hromov said.
So your defense of Russia killing so many civilians is they're not doing it on purpose, they're just choosing to use weapons that they know will kill a lot of civilians.
This is the war that Putin chose. And this is the war you chose to cheerleed for.
Russia is probably using older, less accurate missiles because the newer stuff is in short supply.
So your defense of Russia killing so many civilians is they're not doing it on purpose, they're just choosing to use weapons that they know will kill a lot of civilians.
This is the war that Putin chose. And this is the war you chose to cheerleed for.
Russia is probably using older, less accurate missiles because the newer stuff is in short supply.
That and they just don't care about killing the civilians that they claim to be protecting.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
