Also from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/mariupol-diary-entries-besieged-ukraine

The destruction of Mariupol

Jeez man, this is the bs I was talking about. :meh:

With news like this, the risk of a fatal miscommunication really rises.

But I'll stop with my paranoid nuclear scenarios.

That story hasn't appeared in the sources I follow. That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers.

That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers. — frank

That's an insane amount of generals. One is already pretty bad, 5 is a disaster.

This is Shireen Al-Adeimi talking about the war in Yemen. Sums up what's happening here quite well.

the ask here is not, “Oh, look at us, come save us from this big bad person, the Saudi Arabians and the UAE.” The ask here is to stop US intervention, to stop piling on to the invasion, the bombing, the starvation, this incredibly devastating war, an onslaught that Yemenis have undergone over the past seven years.

And it’s just mind-boggling to me that that simple ask, really, to just pay attention to what our own government is doing in Yemen, and to call for an end to that, is somehow less worthy of attention then calls to, in fact, save us and give us money, right.

paranoid nuclear scenarios — Manuel

Thomas Schelling's Nobel Lecture is interesting viewing. As I recall, he doesn't talk about himself or his work at all, but goes incident-by-incident from 1945 to 2005, times when we almost had another nuclear war but didn't. I think he offers a tentative theory for why too, but it escapes me.

That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers. — frank

That may very well be true. Russian organizational structure means Russian generals need to lead from the front, putting them right in the firing line, or so I've read.

I think the excessive focus on Ukraine should not be allowed to distract attention from the larger picture which is that this isn't just between Russia and Ukraine. The West - led by America and Britain - is actually at war with Russia. It may be "only" economic and financial war for now, but it's war all the same. And it's also an info and intelligence war with the West controlling the global media and supplying Ukraine with intelligence on Russia's moves, etc.

None of this has to do with the US, which has tried to get them to spend more unsuccessfully for decades, and everything to do with Russia and China acting aggressive enough to scare them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think you quite understand the relationship between Germany and the US. Scholz was at first against cancelling Nord Stream 2 but changed his mind after Biden told him he was going to put an end to it.

During a press conference on Feb 7, when Scholz was asked about Germany’s plans about sanctions on Russia, Biden – NOT Scholz – announced that “we will bring an end to” Nord Stream 2.

Biden was then asked, given that the project is under German control, how exactly does he intend to “bring an end to it”? To which he replied, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”, later reiterating that “it just isn’t going to happen”.

President Biden, German Chancellor Scholz take questions during joint news conference – WPRI

Yes, Germany and Japan are increasing their defense expenditure, but they do so to America's advantage!

If Germany were to build a proper military for itself, complete with nuclear systems, and kick the Americans out of the country, or just declare itself neutral, it would be a different matter. But as things stand, it isn't.

So who the heck does have this info on the situation of the Russian military on the ground? — Manuel

Forgot about this guy: https://twitter.com/defencewithac Good follow for detailed info about what's going on on the ground.

That's an insane amount of generals. One is already pretty bad, 5 is a disaster. — Manuel

Supposedly they aren't used to this kind of warfare. It takes a while to get up to speed.

I exaggerate a little. I'm actually worried here, prospects don't seem to good from what I'm seeing. Not saying they will use nukes, but they might. I think we should be worried here, despite people saying nobody is crazy enough to use them. Nationalism combined with defeat, much less humiliation, do not bode well for crazy actions.

I've heard of several instances in which we were often a word away from total disaster - hard to believe. But thanks for sharing that lecture, will check it out.



Awesome. Will follow. :ok:

E.g.

I think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective. But if I were Ukrainian, I'd be cautious in assuming this means that "we will win".

That's still a very tall order.

think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective — Manuel

True, but sometimes the best general is discovered in the middle of the war. That happened in the American Civil War. His name was Grant.

But if I were Ukrainian, I'd be cautious in assuming this means that "we will win". — Manuel

I think they would probably just like to get to a negotiation table. Putin will put that off as long as he can, I guess. He's a scumbag.

I wasn't talking about outright lies, I'm talking about framing.

I posted a story about a 96 year old Buchenwald survivor killed by a Russian missile. This was labelled 'propoganda'. I expressed the view that Russia's invasion has already failed, in that no major city has been captured, and the Russian economy is going to contract to depression-era levels as a result of sanctions. This was also labelled propoganda. Any criticism of Russia's actions seems to be regarded as 'propoganda' by someone, but that seems to me to be apologetics for Russia's actions.

My opinion is that Russia's invasion is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, totally destructive, a disaster and a humanitarian catastrophe. Some will label that 'propoganda' but as far as I'm concerned it's factual. I will post stories that draw attention to this from time to time. — Wayfarer

Selected pieces in support of demonizing the enemy is propaganda. Your view that the invasion has failed, etc, is opinion. I welcome opinion, however. Criticism of Russia is also welcome. How can they improve otherwise?

Russia's invasion is illegal - according to the ICJ that ruled the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Unjustified - all military operations have their justification, and it is simply not reasonable to call it unwarranted. In fact then, every hostile act towards any country, including sanctions due to a difference of opinion or decisions made by that government, that is also unjustified.

I acknowledge that the Russian TV , RT also puts out propaganda. They are stating that 1351 soldiers have been killed. Maybe. However, Ukraine stated earlier that over 1300 soldiers had been killed. Is this a coincidence? Did they add 351 to the total to make it sound right?

To date, 1,351 servicemen have died and 3,825 have been injured,” the deputy head of the Russian General Staff, Colonel General Sergey Rudskoy told a media briefing.

Kiev, however, remains tight-lipped on its own casualties. The most recent figure was announced by President Volodymyr Zelensky in mid-March, when he said that around 1,300 Ukrainian soldiers had died in combat.

https://www.rt.com/russia/552708-ukraine-conflict-military-casualties/

I am not riding this roller coaster until its over, and official figures on both sides are tallied, it is not going to affect the stand I take that both sides must come to an agreement and stop the killing.

The Biolabs thing looks somewhat of a circus.

Hunter Biden did fund Ukraine biolabs, emails published by media suggest

-RT

On a related note, my daughter independently decided to sell some toys to raise money for Ukraine. I asked her if they talked about this on school but she said no. She's a better person already at six then the rest of the family or my friends. I actually got shit from people that we're offering to temporarily take in refugees. Too distracting for the kids, too long, too costly. The reactions have been interesting. I just smile and nod.


She also came up with buying a gift for her little brother with her own money and she insisted in the store in buying the gift herself. Walks up to the counter, explains to the woman what her brother likes and then asks what she can buy with 5 euro. Admittedly, she picked something they could play together with simultaneously. I'm melting.

If the question can't be answered it is o.k, but I am simply asking, would, in your mind, a 'limited response' 'even a conventional response' be any less effective deterrent than a 'total response?'

OK some answers here: https://nuclearnetwork.csis.org/limited-nuclear-war/

:100: :up:

The West - led by America and Britain - is actually at war with Russia. — Apollodorus

And I'm accused of spouting propaganda.

If the question can't be answered it is o.k, but I am simply asking, would, in your mind, a 'limited response' 'even a conventional response' be any less effective deterrent than a 'total response?' — FreeEmotion

The basic problem is that nobody of course does know how in reality any nuclear exchange would go. What could be said that neither side would be enthusiastic to continue the escalation. But a "tit-for-tat" could happen.

The time has passed when Curtis LeMay during the Cuban Missile crisis could think that having nuclear war could be the option: Russia had only a few ICBMs back then. LeMay and US generals could perhaps have the reasoning that "let's have it now" attitude, although there's no historical proof of this during the Cuban crisis. In the 1980's and afterwards it has been totally different.

What we can go with is historical events, where you obviously have had far smaller exchanges, but still:

Example 1:

President Trump kills Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in January 3rd 2020 with a drone strike. Iran retaliates on January 8th with 12 ballistic missiles fired at US bases. 110 US Servicemen suffer from mainly concussions with few recieving later the Purple Heart.

No response from the US.

Example 2:

Turkey shoots down a Russian fighter bomber after it had veered into Turkish aerospace in 2015. The Russian pilot was killed, the navigator was rescued.

No military response from Russia. Russia-Turkish relations strained for a while, but got back to normal in 2016.

Of course these are totally minor events, but It should be noted that on both occasions neither Russia or the US escalated the situation afterwards with some punitive strikes (in the US case, Trump didn't counter the Iranian attack). The reality is that Iran isn't Saddam's Iraq and even the neocons didn't attack the country as it would be militarily a stupid move: it's a large country with reasonable armed forces.

So I guess that after a "limited strike" getting "limited response" back, what then? After two tactical nuclear weapons exchanged (likely on military targets), what would be the reason or the motivation to continue? Everybody would be panicking. It just isn't really smart in any way. The only way would be if you would be sure that the other side will chicken out.

The basic problem is that nobody of course does know how in reality any nuclear exchange would go. — ssu

No actually it's pretty clear, a nuclear exchange would be apocalyptic and anyone who thinks it is 'unclear' is a psychopath.

That's one way to look at it, yes.

I think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective. — Manuel

When things don't work and junior leaders don't take initiative, then it's a general that has to go to the front and sort it out. Which is a dangerous place.

And I'm accused of spouting propaganda. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But analysts do call it "economic war":

The Toll of Economic War - Foreign Affairs

The West is trying to destroy Russia’s economy. And analysts think it could succeed - CNBC

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire on Tuesday told a French radio station that the aim of the latest round of sanctions was to “cause the collapse of the Russian economy”

Don't you guys read papers in Aussieland?

Analysts do call it "economic war" — Apollodorus

Which was mounted purely and simply as the only possible response to Russia's flagrantly criminal invasion of a peaceful neighbouring country, short of triggering atomic war which could literally culminate in the end of civilisation.

Had Russia actually liberalised, opened up and become part of the liberal economic order after the fall of communism, then there would have been no inherent reason for conflict between Russia and the West. Maybe then Russia could have competed in 'the marketplace of ideas'. But Russia did not manage the transition to a democratic free-market political order. Much of the state-owned wealth was funnelled into the pockets of the so-called oligarchy whilst KGB-trained Putin cemented his rise to an absolute dictorship along the lines of Josef Stalin, extinguishing the free press and any real political opposition along the way. Ukraine wants to be part of a free political system, even if not a NATO member, certainly part of Europe - something which Putin could not tolerate, so he had it invaded it to snuff out their democratic longings. Those sanctions, that 'economic warfare', is the response to that. Putin alone is responsible for it.

Had Russia actually liberalised, opened up and become part of the liberal economic order after the fall of communism, then there would have been no inherent reason for conflict between Russia and the West. — Wayfarer

Mayhaps you are unfamiliar with the liberal economic 'shock therapy' that Russia was subjected to precisely by the West in the wake of the fall of the USSR, and which paved the way precisely for the monsters now in power. And you are no doubt familiar - but choose to ignore - the imperial designs of Western powers who have never not taken mass slaughter for an opportunity, which is exactly what they are doing at the moment.

Or, bluntly put: Dead Ukrainians are to the advantage of the West, and anyone who doesn't think so is not paying attention.

I know mate that nothing done by Russia will ever match the evils of the Great Satan.

As a basic fact of history, that would be correct, yes.

1. I wasn't talking about the "causes" but about the fact that the West is currently waging economic warfare on Russia, as acknowledged by analysts.

2. What you are implying is that Russia must subordinate itself to a world economic system dictated by the West and, in particular, by America. In other words, the deal you're advocating is "open your economy to Western dominance or we wage economic jihad on you".

IMO that's the modern equivalent of Britain's gunboat diplomacy in the days of the empire: "buy our goods or we bomb you"! :smile: