The recent Russian deal to allow exports of grain from Odessa is a very interesting development. It clearly came at the urging of Iran because Iran buys a lot of grain from Ukraine and faces political instability if there are food shortages. Ahmadinejad has already positioned himself to try to retake the government by being anti-Russian and pro-Ukraine. Russia has a long history of failing to live up to promises of cooperation and investment in Iran. Russian forces have backed off their participation in combat in Syria as the Ukraine war as overburdened Russian forces. Now, Turkey is stepping up attacks in the northwest in Syria with Russia struggling to maintain its commitments to Assad and Iran in Syria.
So, what is happening is that Russia is increasingly being put into a position where it has to dance in order to maintain allies like Iran. Russia was blockading Ukraine grain shipment in an effort to get leverage to reduce some Western sanctions. But they had to give that up in order to keep Iran on board and prevent Ahmadinejad's faction from moving Iran away from cooperation with Russia. And the grain deal puts billions of dollars back into the Ukraine economy.
ISW assesses that Russian forces were responsible for the July 28 attack on the Olenivka prison that killed 53 Ukrainian POWs.
ISW assesses that Russian forces were responsible for the July 28 attack on the Olenivka prison that killed 53 Ukrainian POWs. Russian forces are reportedly moving more troops from northern Donetsk Oblast to support defensive positions in southern Ukraine.https://t.co/uWZ5WepGFtpic.twitter.com/oBZ3VAikYM
The two European countries are seeking to join the alliance, which would end their long-standing military neutrality, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The only warmonger is the guy who started this war. 5000+ posts later, and the power dynamics are still the same. Putin started this war, and only Putin can end this war. The only choice Ukraine has is: fight or die.
The only warmonger is the guy who started this war. 5000+ posts later, and the power dynamics are still the same. Putin started this war, and only Putin can end this war. The only choice Ukraine has is: fight or die.
This is the problem.
Ukraine and the World condensed into Black and White. Good and Evil. Us vs. Them. Events exist in isolation, devoid of provocation, history, context, or repercussion.
It's simplistic, myopic, and just plain wrong - factually and morally.
And by warmongers in this this thread, I refer to those folks... *ahem*... no names... who routinely celebrate death, hypocritically castigating misdeeds on one hand while excusing them with the other, depending on who is committing atrocity.
We have seen posters outright call for mass extermination of 145 million Russians, or cavalierly dismiss prospects of World or Nuclear war. Disgusting, right?!
Lunacy such as this thrives when people see some as only good and others as only evil.
Interestingly, we have not seen many (or any) aside from ISW and the Ukraine government taking this view.
ISW is DC-based and primarily funded by American Military Contractors.
Whatever remnants of objectivity ISW projected were shed when IS Senior Fellow James Dubick published in The Hill on 31 July championing the Ukraine side, stating this was needed for "preventing the kind of world in which force plays an increasing role." Gosh, cuz the US and NATO sure wouldn't want that.
Anyway, the ISW analysis regarding the POW massacre is basically this:
Images of the prisoner camp show a strike only to the damaged barracks, so indiscriminate artillery was not used. Meaning a precise strike. Which is precisely what HIMARS is said to produce.
And while the Ukraine side is acknowledged to have conducted dozens of HIMARS strikes in the region, the ISW says it has no information that HIMARS was used here. Because certainly if such information existed they would have it and disclose it. Therefore a HIMARS could not have been used! And therefore the attack could not have come from the Ukraine side! And therefore could only have been purposefully conducted by Russians in a False Flag operation. Case Closed!
FWIW, images have been posted showing HIMARS rocket pieces said to have been collected from the barracks, but I suppose it would be trivial to dismiss non-conforming evidence as planted.
These are the supposedly unbiased geniuses deciphering and arbitrating battlefield events in the Ukraine - and to which some here follow and swallow like Pablum.
Ooh look, undiluted regurgitation of Russian talking points.
As the Russians know very well at this point, when HIMARS missiles hit a lightly constructed building like the houses they've commandeered as HQs, they're instantly blown all to hell, with fragments of building and body parts blown outward in every direction (but not much burn damage, unless they've hit an ammo depot with lots of secondary explosions). If the Russians need to review the concept, there are dozens of sites they can inspect. Or, you know, they can just wait until later this evening for another reminder.
But what the pictures from Olenivka show instead is a building that's been burned down and not blown out. The pictures also show HIMARS missile fragments that have already been displayed at other sites. Oh, and the Russians are preventing anyone from inspecting the site in person.
Warmongers: people like the current Russian leadership who invade peaceful neighbors.
Not warmongers: people like the Ukrainians who are trying to defend their country from invasion by an untrained mob of raping, pillaging murderers. There will be international criminal court proceedings for decades to come after this, and plenty of video evidence.
Interestingly, we have not seen many (or any) aside from ISW and the Ukraine government taking this view.
ISW is DC-based and primarily funded by American Military Contractors.
Whatever remnants of objectivity ISW projected were shed when IS Senior Fellow James Dubick published in The Hill on 31 July championing the Ukraine side, stating this was needed for "preventing the kind of world in which force plays an increasing role." Gosh, cuz the US and NATO sure wouldn't want that.
Anyway, the ISW analysis regarding the POW massacre is basically this:
Images of the prisoner camp show a strike only to the damaged barracks, so indiscriminate artillery was not used. Meaning a precise strike. Which is precisely what HIMARS is said to produce.
And while the Ukraine side is acknowledged to have conducted dozens of HIMARS strikes in the region, the ISW says it has no information that HIMARS was used here. Because certainly if such information existed they would have it and disclose it. Therefore a HIMARS could not have been used! And therefore the attack could not have come from the Ukraine side! And therefore could only have been purposefully conducted by Russians in a False Flag operation. Case Closed!
FWIW, images have been posted showing HIMARS rocket pieces said to have been collected from the barracks, but I suppose it would be trivial to dismiss non-conforming evidence as planted.
These are the supposedly unbiased geniuses deciphering and arbitrating battlefield events in the Ukraine - and to which some here follow and swallow like Pablum.
This will be easy for you to discard as well, but British Intelligence has also publicly assessed the POW massacre as not being the product of an artillery or rocket attack.
All such assessments point to the damage being consistent with an accelerated fire and not explosive ordinance. That is, there are no apparent bomb craters and damage structures isn't consistent with what would be expected from an explosion. These assessments are based on available commercial satellite imagery and on the ground photos coming from the Russians.
Ooh look, undiluted regurgitation of Russian talking points.
As the Russians know very well at this point, when HIMARS missiles hit a lightly constructed building like the houses they've commandeered as HQs, they're instantly blown all to hell, with fragments of building and body parts blown outward in every direction (but not much burn damage, unless they've hit an ammo depot with lots of secondary explosions). If the Russians need to review the concept, there are dozens of sites they can inspect. Or, you know, they can just wait until later this evening for another reminder.
But what the pictures from Olenivka show instead is a building that's been burned down and not blown out. The pictures also show HIMARS missile fragments that have already been displayed at other sites. Oh, and the Russians are preventing anyone from inspecting the site in person.
Warmongers: people like the current Russian leadership who invade peaceful neighbors.
Not warmongers: people like the Ukrainians who are trying to defend their country from invasion by an untrained mob of raping, pillaging murderers. There will be international criminal court proceedings for decades to come after this, and plenty of video evidence.
The difference really isn't hard to understand.
Labelling contrary facts or opinions as "Russian Talking Points" does not make them so, nor make them invalid.
It's smear, not refutation.
We have seen definitive, clearly self-serving conclusions from a UDF spokesperson, British "Intelligence", and some anonymous US "experts". The evidentiary basis for which seems reliant on review of a published photo and an incorrect assumption that the Ukraine side has only one type of HIMARS ordinance.
In past, we have seen many False Flag claims, many baseless or ludicrous, such as were repeatedly made when the Ukraine side asserted Russians must have attacked their own Oil Storage facilities.
This is not to exclude possibility of a False Flag attack on the barracks - but as they said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - not just absence of accepted proof.
Circling back to "British Intelligence", if seeking an unbiased opinion, we might as well consult Russian Intelligence.
From the beginning of the conflict, it's been made clear these agencies are projecting deliberate bias and cannot be trusted as reliable sources:
Ooh look, undiluted regurgitation of Russian talking points.
As the Russians know very well at this point, when HIMARS missiles hit a lightly constructed building like the houses they've commandeered as HQs, they're instantly blown all to hell, with fragments of building and body parts blown outward in every direction (but not much burn damage, unless they've hit an ammo depot with lots of secondary explosions). If the Russians need to review the concept, there are dozens of sites they can inspect. Or, you know, they can just wait until later this evening for another reminder.
But what the pictures from Olenivka show instead is a building that's been burned down and not blown out. The pictures also show HIMARS missile fragments that have already been displayed at other sites. Oh, and the Russians are preventing anyone from inspecting the site in person.
Warmongers: people like the current Russian leadership who invade peaceful neighbors.
Not warmongers: people like the Ukrainians who are trying to defend their country from invasion by an untrained mob of raping, pillaging murderers. There will be international criminal court proceedings for decades to come after this, and plenty of video evidence.
The difference really isn't hard to understand.
Labelling contrary facts or opinions as "Russian Talking Points" does not make them so, nor make them invalid.
It's smear, not refutation.
We have seen definitive, clearly self-serving conclusions from a UDF spokesperson, British "Intelligence", and some anonymous US "experts". The evidentiary basis for which seems reliant on review of a published photo and an incorrect assumption that the Ukraine side has only one type of HIMARS ordinance.
In past, we have seen many False Flag claims, many baseless or ludicrous, such as were repeatedly made when the Ukraine side asserted Russians must have attacked their own Oil Storage facilities.
This is not to exclude possibility of a False Flag attack on the barracks - but as they said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - not just absence of accepted proof.
Circling back to "British Intelligence", if seeking an unbiased opinion, we might as well consult Russian Intelligence.
From the beginning of the conflict, it's been made clear these agencies are projecting deliberate bias and cannot be trusted as reliable sources:
On July 28, a blast consumed a building in Eastern Ukraine, killing 53 Ukrainian POWs sleeping inside. Moscow claimed the prison had been struck by a rocket fired by a HIMARS artillery system given to Kyiv by the U.S. Here's...
Labelling contrary facts or opinions as "Russian Talking Points" does not make them so, nor make them invalid.
It's smear, not refutation.
We have seen definitive, clearly self-serving conclusions from a UDF spokesperson, British "Intelligence", and some anonymous US "experts". The evidentiary basis for which seems reliant on review of a published photo and an incorrect assumption that the Ukraine side has only one type of HIMARS ordinance.
In past, we have seen many False Flag claims, many baseless or ludicrous, such as were repeatedly made when the Ukraine side asserted Russians must have attacked their own Oil Storage facilities.
This is not to exclude possibility of a False Flag attack on the barracks - but as they said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - not just absence of accepted proof.
Circling back to "British Intelligence", if seeking an unbiased opinion, we might as well consult Russian Intelligence.
From the beginning of the conflict, it's been made clear these agencies are projecting deliberate bias and cannot be trusted as reliable sources:
No surprise to see carmine flaunting a Russian war crime.
Killing billionaires is a war crime while killing the poor is fine?
No. That’s why we’re all appalled by Russia killing tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. Well, all of us except you. You only care about your 401k.
So, please provide extraordinary proof of the extraordinary claim that Ukraine struck the barracks housing their own POWs.
Logic does not work like that.
You do not pick one contentious position then uphold it as unassailable fact unless another position is proved.
No one is suggesting the Ukraine side would deliberately attack Ukraine prisoners.
But it is not difficult to believe the building was targeted by the Ukraine after being incorrectly informed it housed other materials (weapons) or persons (soldiers/guards).
