“ A video posted online on Monday and verified by The New York Times appears to show a group of Ukrainian soldiers killing captured Russian troops outside a village west of Kyiv.

“He’s still alive. Film these marauders. Look, he’s still alive. He’s gasping,” a man says as a Russian soldier with a jacket pulled over his head, apparently wounded, is seen still breathing. A soldier then shoots the man twice. After the man keeps moving, the soldier shoots him again, and he stops.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/06/world/ukraine-russia-war-news/russia-pows-ukraine-executed

That's good news for Democrats. — frank

Let's hope so.

Bound to happen of course as in any war. We can be shocked but not surprised. As I argued with respect to the atrocities committed by Russia: this is not what we should be focusing on as it doesn't contribute to any type of negotiation towards a ceasefire and eventually peace.

Raising minimum wage to 19 dollars might do the trick and split the GOP for good. That way not just Democrats benefit but actual US citizens.

It's fair to contextualize the issue. Nothing we say here is going to contribute to a solution, merely analyse its possibility. And it's also fair to make moral arguments one way or the other. What I would be interested in is if anyone could tell me what they think is going to happen next because I consider my theory of a straightforward solution pretty much defunct now.

I’ve seen a lot of anti-Russian atrocity propaganda that I feel it important to show the other side of it. I am not in any position to negotiate ceasefires nor contribute to them, and don’t think anyone else here is, so I think we can focus on whatever we want.

I have zero moral judgement about Ukrainians murdering, in whatever way they see fit, Russian aggressors.

Raising minimum wage to 19 dollars might do the trick and split the GOP for good. That way not just Democrats benefit but actual US citizens. — Benkei

There's a labor shortage right now, so that's happened organically.

Although inflation is high too, so it's hard day to day to get a handle on what's happening.

What I would be interested in is if anyone could tell me what they think is going to happen next because I consider my theory of a straightforward solution pretty much defunct now. — Baden

I agree that a peace deal appears almost impossible now, in part because of the war crimes committed by the Russian army which the Ukrainians will find very hard to forgive, but also because the Russians will want a revenge from their recent defeat around Kiev. This war is not ending soon.

I have zero moral judgement about Ukrainians murdering, in whatever way they see fit, Russian aggressors. — StreetlightX

That's because you're fucking crazy.

Hard to say. The separatist war has been going on for 8 years now as well. So maybe this will simmer down to a long-lasting low intensity conflict. The West will lose interest when Will Smith slaps another comedian. Or the Russians are regrouping and will push again and circumstances will change again. And as defunct your view might look this week, maybe it's totally relevant again in another two weeks.

I wasn't arguing you shouldn't post it. I just think that focusing on whatever moral outrage this is supposed to garner in the West or wherever isn't what our governments should focus on. Imagine negotiations starting with both sides blaming and recounting all the war crimes they committed. That will quickly go nowhere. Indeed, I think we can comfortably assume more war crimes were and are being committed by Russia. But if so how should that factor in a ceasefire or a peace deal? I really think that for the immediate goals of ceasefires and peace, war crimes are irrelevant. Justice can wait; there are no statutory limitations on war crimes.

True. It would be better for all the soldiers to murder their commanding officers instead, on all sides, all the way up the chain. The war would end tomorrow.

Thanks for reminding me about class consciousness, comrade.

:up: You're still crazy though.

And you're still dull as rocks but that's OK.

But really who cares about Ukrainians killing Russians. If you're going to invade another country, expect to die. You signed up for it, literally.

If you're going to invade another country, expect to die. You signed up for it, literally. — StreetlightX

There just kids. If they surrender, you shouldn't kill them.

They are soldiers who killed your friends and family, or - and this much is guaranteed - supported those killings. I'm not saying they should be killed. It'd probably be better if they weren't. I'm just not saying I care about anyone who thinks they should be, and acts on it.

Every solider who comes home in a coffin wrapped in a flag from some kind of overseas adventure is someone's else cause of rightful celebration. One country in particular likes those decorated boxes.

All I am saying is that you guys seem to be parroting the US extreme right. That's objective and verifiable, it's not an opinion. — Olivier5

OK.

parrot
verb [ T ]
disapproving
uk
/ˈpær.ət/ us
/ˈper.ət/
to repeat exactly what someone else says, without understanding it or thinking about its meaning:

Verify it then...

Crimea was annexed because it contains Russian naval bases giving it access to the Mediterranean — Benkei

No. That's patently false. You don't annex a whole peninsula just for a naval base and incorporate it to Russia.

You are simply ignorant about the history and the political situation in Crimea. But seems that doesn't matter to you at all.

Nikita Khrushchev gave the peninsula from the Russian Soviet Republic. The cession of Crimea was a “noble act on the part of the Russian people” to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the “reunification of Ukraine with Russia”. Since gaining the territory from the Ottomans in 1783, it had been part of Russia and hence the ethnic Russian population in the Peninsula (which increased thanks to the large naval base of Sevastopol). And right from the start during the Yeltsin years there has been a political agenda to get back Crimea from the now independent Ukraine. And also a vocal Russian movement to get Crimea back to mother Russia. Just to simply disregard all of this makes your conclusion false. Things aren't monocausal.

And then there's Putin himself:

Putin said he had no regrets.

“It’s not because Crimea has a strategic importance in the Black Sea region. It’s because this has elements of historical justice. I believe we did the right thing and I don’t regret anything,” the RIA news agency quoted Putin as saying in the documentary “The President”.

And how did Vladimir Putin then feel about Crimea being part of an Independent Ukraine. From his Crimea speech in 2014:

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city.

So Benkei, the idea that it's only a defensive move against NATO, only the importance of a naval base is patently false. You are just lying to yourself if you believe that this war wouldn't happen if only NATO wouldn't have enlarged itself.

I don't think Putin's musings on the artificiality of Ukraine inform actual policy. Just as his waxing lyrical about the USSR doesn't. I see nothing in circumstances and facts that reinforce this as important. — Benkei

So what leaders say doesn't matter.

What they say what their policies and objectives are doesn't matter.

Yeah, right.

What they say what their policies and objectives are doesn't matter.

Yeah, right. — ssu

over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US allies.

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from only examples of disregard for international law.

Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests.

Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people

In this context [all the above], in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation. — Putin

You just ignore what leaders say when it doesn't suit your narrative and then expect people to listen to you quoting them when it does. It's become a joke.

If you want to be taken seriously, decide if the stated goals and objectives of leaders are relevant or not and stick to it. Otherwise there's no reason to even quote them.

Every solider who comes home in a coffin wrapped in a flag from some kind of overseas adventure is someone's else cause of rightful celebration. One country in particular likes those decorated boxes. — StreetlightX

Like I said, your psyche is a wasteland.

Imagine shilling for state-sponsored professional murderers and telling me my psyche is a wasteland.

Hard to say. The separatist war has been going on for 8 years now as well. So maybe this will simmer down to a long-lasting low intensity conflict. The West will lose interest when Will Smith slaps another comedian. Or the Russians are regrouping and will push again and circumstances will change again. And as defunct your view might look this week, maybe it's totally relevant again in another two weeks. — Benkei

This is my feeling too.

I think the Russian military strategy after the failure to seize Kiev unopposed, which certainly they would have done if there was no resistance, I think was driven by a fear of the potential for Ukraine to break the siege of Mariupol.

I've heard estimates of upwards of about 15 000 Ukrainian troops and 15 000 Azov battalion troops in Mariupol, so if the Ukrainians weren't stretched thin, I think it's definitely in the cards that the siege of Mariupol could have been broken; troops under siege, in particular Azov troops, would I think take pretty much any number of casualties in a chance to break out of Mariupol, and there were several attempts at least rumoured. Failing to break those troops out of Mariupol, Ukraine seems to have sent over 5 helicopters (five seem to have got shot down but seems at least some got through) to evacuate key people.

It was essentially same day as Mariupol effectively fell (centre taken and remaining Ukraine an Azov troops separated into different pockets) that Russia pulled out from around Kiev.

Which, sure, isn't a "good look" for Russia and definitely they would have just stayed there if they weren't taking losses, but if the siege of Mariupol was broken that would be a far greater strategic disaster and embarrassment.

I think it was an opportunity for a diplomatic resolution as well, Russia pulling out, but that chance I think is gone with the new narrative that Russia has committed war crimes in Bucha without any sort of investigation at all, and seems the UK is denying Russia's request to have an investigation.

We're moving now towards another state of permanent warfare like the last 8 years, just I wouldn't call it low intensity in the same sense as the previous Dombas line, I don't think it will be comparable, but certainly lower intensity than the last few weeks.

What I would be interested in is if anyone could tell me what they think is going to happen next because I consider my theory of a straightforward solution pretty much defunct now. — Baden

I agree with you on that. The most probable outcome is a lengthened war. (Which I guess some people will argue has been the objective of the US right from the start)

It's going to be a lot worse.

It will take at least a month to rearm, resupply those battered Russian forces that now have been withdrawn from the Kyiv front. And even then it's doubtful they can rapidly crush Ukrainian resistance. For Zelensky the atrocities just have hardened the determination of Ukrainians to fight (as usually happens) as does the Russian withdrawal from Kyiv. Likely they aren't in the mood of compromise. Yet the Ukrainians cannot go on the offensive and try to destroy the Russian army. They simply don't have the material and huge offensives are extremely risky. Likely the military situation for Ukraine isn't on the verge of collapse that the Ukrainian military would urge Zelensky to make peace. Putin on the other hand cannot eat his words, so without at least conquering the Donbas region in full the Russians won't stop. And let's remember that Putin has basically won all of his wars until no, so likely he's not going throw in the towel quickly.

And as time goes, then the West can train Ukrainians to use new Western weapon systems and get that SAM cover to reinforce the already disputed Air War, the much elaborated "no fly -zone".

If you want to be taken seriously, decide if the stated goals and objectives of leaders is relevant or not and stick to it. — Isaac

If you want to give a serious counterargument, how about actually engaging in what I say and not a strawman?

In short: My point is that Putin invaded Ukraine because of a) wanting to make Russia great again, b) because of NATO enlargement and c) the danger of an Ukrainian "Color Revolution" being so successful that it would give a bad example to the Russian people.

What the hell is wrong with things having multiple causes?

Why the incessant urge to denounce every other reason but NATO enlargement as the cause for this war?

I don't think anybody really knows what's going to happen next. We hear reports that Russia is re-grouping to the eastern parts of Ukraine, so they can focus on those areas. Others say they think Russia is regrouping to launch another assault on Kiev.

Meanwhile, more and more sanctions are being dished out. What the hell's left to sanction? Only gas and oil for the Europeans. If they do sanction that, then Russia will barely have any income left.

The question is, will they mind losing more soldiers for no discernable reason?

Now the Pentagon is saying Ukraine could "win" this war. I think that's highly unlikely, but, they are defending themselves rather well. But as to the future of this, we don't have a clue at the moment.

I've heard estimates of upwards of about 15 000 Ukrainian troops and 15 000 Azov battalion troops in Mariupol, — boethius

Heard where?

30 000 troops? That's far larger than a division. That is an Army Corps.

30 000 troops? That's far larger than a division. That is an Army Corps. — ssu

I was surprised too, but I think I heard mention by Defense Politics Asia channel, and the number is impossible to verify (which the channel mentions and discusses a bit credible ranges of numbers).

However, there was a large retreat into the city from different directions, and the previous defence line was heavily built up and linked up with the current Dombas line.

Additionally, then they are held up in a large city so can recruit civilians and grow their numbers.

So maybe it is credible as the home of Azov and also 1/4th of the 60 000 Ukrainian soldiers said to be manning the Dombas line before the war started wind up in Mariupol, in addition to recruiting. For Azov I generally hear numbers between 30 and 60 thousand members, so 15 thousand doesn't seem unreasonable to be in and around their base at the start of the war.

However, whatever the true number, they put off stiff and well armed resistance so I think their strength was significant and would therefore significantly aid any approaching manoeuvre to break them out.

In any event, it's certainly not a coincidence that the Kiev retreat happened right after successful infiltration of Mariupol and pocketing the remaining Ukrainian and Azov troops, and also signs the battle is over such as acts of desperation like helicopter rescue.

Not only is the force certainly degraded in man power and ammunition due to the month of fighting without resupply, but pocketing the remaining troops severely limits their ability to coordinate any breakout manoeuvre, in addition to lines being fortified this whole month North of Mariupol.

Mariupol falling completely will also free up the Russian troops tied up there.

Azov breaking out would not just be a strategic military embarrassment for Russia, but a significant symbolic defeat and embarrassment and "Azov victory", so I do understand a strategy that minimised the chance of that happening.

The other strictly military purpose of the Kiev salients, I would say is shelling Kiev military industry, which, at least the Ukrainian defence minister, reported as essentially completely destroyed.

There's also significant symbolic and propaganda value of taking Mariupol (capturing Nazi houses, like the right sector leader, and capturing actual Nazi's and also interviews with surviving locals that blame the Ukrainians for shelling them or fighting near their homes and not providing them any assistance). So this symbolic and propaganda victory in Mariupol also compensates a great deal retreating from Kiev (which, even if it served a purpose, is still a retreat).

Though I don't see Russia "losing" the war militarily, public support is the critical thing for them just as it is for Ukraine.

↪Benkei The war itself is one big atrocity, so if atrocities are not the issue, there is no reason to stop the war. Logic anyone? — Olivier5

I agree, the war itself, any war, is a sort of atrocity. It is a macabre twist of civilized conduct to have conventions for the conduct of war, the Geneva conventions, which are useful but somewhat like having rules for breaking into stores and looting the contents.

In war, there are bound to be incidents of atrocities - indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas, killing prisoners and so on. The best thing to prevent this is not to go to war, but prevention is seen as some sort of moral atrocity: 'giving in to slavery etc'.

When the fated atrocities happen, the other side will then use them for propaganda (by the way, how do we know the photographs are of dead civilians? How do we know they are dead? ) Anyway, the way things work, highlighting civilian deaths is a useful tool because people will react emotionally.

The effect of the civilian atrocity videos on people including in this forum shows how they can have an effect: I am not impressed by them except to realize that there are worse deaths and injuries out there - just read the accounts of the civilian deaths in world war II and you will get an idea - but those do not have the same impact because they are expected. So it has to be civilians shot on the streets, unimaginative, but effective. I assume all of them to be fake - all of them, not because they are, but because I have no way of verifying anything.

If I was in the filthy business of conducting a war, one of the first things I would do is prepare some fake atrocity videos beforehand to be released at the correct time. I would pay good money to enemy combatants to play the part: I will not do this, but for the cunning who have no heart the possibilities are endless.

Anyone interested in reading a piece on the Geneva Conventions: https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/28/2/483/3933334?login=false

Isn't it a bit too late for your advice? What difference does it make now, what Zelenskyy did or didn't do to change the Ukrainian constitution before the war? — Olivier5

It's obviously relevant that one of the main reasons for fighting and not making peace with Russia, and one major galvanization of Ukrainian and Western public opinion behind Ukraine was the "right to join NATO" which Zelenskyy was already told by NATO would never happen.

It's relevant to know things are setup by parties within Ukraine to frustrate peace making.

It's a pretty big lie, and so it's reasonable to suspect other big claims by Ukraine to also be lies; certainly not take them at face value if Zelenskyy is able to lie for weeks about a reason for fighting is to join NATO. For example, reasonable to suspect the claim, without even an investigation being conducted of any kind, of atrocities in Bucha being Russian war crimes, is maybe a lie too.

It also is pause for thought of whether Zelenskyy is even in control or then parties that change the constitution to frustrate peace making and therefore want to promote war. There's no statecraft reason to put in the constitution the aspiration to join NATO, it makes no sense except to hold one's population hostage in the hopes of forcing a NATO-Russia direct conflict.

Finally, seeing these sorts of lies and simply political incompetence (admitted to by Zelenskyy) ... and incompetence due to not taking this answer from NATO into account to begin with but then incompetence of just saying he knew all along in a CNN interview, may call into question the whole project of taking everything Zelenskyy says at face value and continuing the "scrutiny protection shield" that the Western media has created for him.

For, if he isn't "pure" and is capable of lying, either for his own purposes or then due to pressure from behind the scenes parties, and if his decisions aren't ordained by god to be good ones, then making scrutiny of Zelenskyy's claims "taboo" (for example kicking off twitter Scott Ritter, a ex-Marine and ex-UN weapons inspector, because he pointed out there's zero credible investigation and so basis to make any criminal accusations whatsoever, and evidence exists that even points to the executions, of white arm band wearing nominal Russian friendlies, being carried out by Ukrainians in a purge, they seem to have stated they would carry out, of collaborators), regardless of the "real truth" of any claim, it creates a moral hazard.

If Zelenskyy knows the Western media and social media corporations will simply buy whatever he says, then he has very little motivation to even look into or reflect on whether what he's saying is true, but a very high motivation to simply say whatever would be convenient to be true.

Western nations, media and social media corporations, simply taking everything he says on face value and placing automatically their seals of approval on it, creates the moral hazard of then not wanting an investigation to happen as it only risks exonerating, to a small or large extent, the Russians and demonstrating facts presented as 100% are in fact not 100%.

Western governments, in particular, buying into claims that may turn out later to be false, creates all sorts of incentives to prefer the war continuing so there is never a resolution and no investigations can ever credibly happen, and the news cycle simply refreshes the material of outrage with equally ambiguous claims so that no claims ever get credibly investigated, eventually everyone accepting that accusing the other side is just part of winning the "information war" and the truth doesn't matter in the slightest.

The truth not mattering in the slightest does not give justice to victims, whoever the perpetrators of the particular crime, and also makes a peace deal nearly impossible.

To make it very concrete, things seemed moving towards a peace deal before the Bucha images.

Now, had the West said that there needs to be an investigation, real substantive evidence before jumping to conclusions and a trial is actually needed to convict anyone of anything, had that signal been quick and strong that actual proof is needed to make a criminal conviction, then likely Zelenskyy would have backed off the claims himself, and the West not automatically believing whatever Ukraine says in their "information war" (the director of the CIA assures us Ukraine is winning) would place immense pressure on Zelenskyy to first bother to see what the truth may actually be, and motivate a peace deal (perhaps significant pressure to arrive at a peace deal if he gets the signal Western backing is not unconditional and there is risk an investigation will reveal the executions were Ukrainian Nazi's purging collaborators as they said they would do), and, in any event, sticking to the principle that criminal convictions need trials which need evidence and impartial investigators doesn't frustrate a peace deal.

However, simply repeating without any critical scrutiny whatsoever Ukrainian claims about Bucha certainly destroyed any chance of a peace deal following Russia withdrawal from North Ukraine, but may even, in itself, lead to a permanent state of war if Ukraine and Western backers now fear peace could lead to actual investigations (independent journalists, neutral countries, UN process etc.) not only casting doubt on accusations already 100% committed to but may even reveal evidence it was Ukrainian propaganda, whether staged or executing "collaborators".

So, lies matter a great deal.

What about Putin's lies? I don't see anyone in the West taking anything Putin says at face value.

We have not setup some moral hazard at the highest institutional level of Western governments of just believing whatever Putin says because he says it. Indeed, the opposite moral hazard has been creating of being able to just assume, with equally zero scrutiny, whatever Putin says that is inconvenient if true, to be a lie.

The ground work for these moral hazards laid by calling Putin literally Hitler for weeks if not years, and so at some point that claim starts to ring hollow without the "atrocities" to go with it.

And why was Scott Ritter banned from Twitter?

Just asking common sense questions and pointing out evidence is needed to actually answer common sense questions, which you may actually want answered before using the jump to conclusions mat.