Russia Attacks Ukraine

[Diogenes]

For the first time since 1939 a major European power, Russia, has attacked another country in Europe, Ukraine. We have not seen an analogous situation since Germany attacked Poland setting off World War 2. Surprisingly we have Neville Chamberlain like appeasement/isolationist responses from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Besides the 180° turn from traditional Republican politics, to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

[JoeyKnothead]

https://rumble.com/v11pemp-mariupol-res ... lians.html


Civilians in Ukraine saying their own military shooting at them. It definitely seem genuine.
To create media propaganda of course. CNN will not ask for evidence.

Bidens handlers want this war i am told spiritually.

"I am told spiritually" and "I'm making me all this up" sound a lot alike.

[JoeyKnothead]

https://www.infowars.com/posts/washingt ... n-ukraine/

"In an article about the potential for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, the Washington Post admits that some within NATO want to prolong the war for as long as possible."

"Some" is as vague as "He's acoming y'all".

[JoeyKnothead]

But now we are supposed to trust these people?

https://www.axios.com/pandora-papers-po ... 24a9f.html

"The Ukrainian president may have pledged to reform the country's corrupt system of politics, but the Pandora Papers tell a different story.

Driving the news: Ukraine is the country with the highest number of politicians named in the leak of offshore data, which implicates hundreds of people linked to offshore companies — including President Volodymyr Zelensky."

Lacking other data, I agree where there's politicians, there's corruption.

In this war though, I find the Putin brand much more of it.

[JoeyKnothead]

One agreement I have is that a lot of countries, America included, wants to see Russia weakened, especially Putin. What I don't like is that some Western countries are okay with Ukraine escalating the war with Russia, but then they're not the ones doing the fighting knowing good and well that Ukraine does not stand a chance unless it gets some real significant support. Perhaps the real dilemma is that the West wants Ukraine to win, but they also don't want to get themselves involved in any direct confrontation with Russia.

Yup.

My knee-jerk reaction is to engage hot and heavy.

Loving my son and them grandgirls, I fear nukes.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
And just to pre-empt any charge that I'm taking Russia's side, I will say that I go on a case-by-case basis. It's possible for Russia to be right in some cases. It's also possible for the West to be wrong in some cases. To expect otherwise is irrational and doesn't help international relations.

If it means anything, I find your posts in this matter to be well reasoned, and as lacking in bias as humanly possible.

I refer folks to the original post for some lernin.

[Difflugia]

A valid point that I hear from Russian officials

That clause is worth a bit of personal reflection.

there are reports of children hiding with Ukranian fighters.

The Russians are not only targeting residential areas, but are looting (and worse) door-to-door. Under those circumstances, if civilians are sheltering with armed troops, that's the opposite of "human shield." If the Russians were avoiding civilian targets, you'd have a point. They aren't, so you don't.

If you know that Russia will target military targets, then it makes no sense to deliberately position civilians among them, especially children.

We know that Russia will target military targets because it's targeting everybody.

[AgnosticBoy]

A valid point that I hear from Russian officials

That clause is worth a bit of personal reflection.

My standard is that logic and evidence should trump personal reflection. Personal reflection might lead a Westerner to conclude something different than non-Westerners.

there are reports of children hiding with Ukranian fighters.

The Russians are not only targeting residential areas, but are looting (and worse) door-to-door. Under those circumstances, if civilians are sheltering with armed troops, that's the opposite of "human shield." If the Russians were avoiding civilian targets, you'd have a point. They aren't, so you don't.

Let's play out your logic. Your logic makes it seem as though the Russians are willing to kill all civilians just as much as they would military targets.T There's evidence to go against that starting with the Russians allowing civilians to evacuate. There's also plenty of video showing Ukrainians protesting in the city of Kherson, but the Russians did not kill them although shots were fired to disperse the crowd. Again, if your logic were correct, these civilians would all be dead.

A more reasonable conclusion is that some Russian soldiers have not followed their objectives perfectly and have murdered civilians. In other cases, which are probably the majority of the cases thus far, civilians have been killed because they are caught in the crossfire, especially those who shelter with Ukrainian fighters that are probably shooting at the Russians, as well. Don't get me wrong, indiscriminate shelling of places is definitely reckless on the part of the Russian army, but I'm betting that they're doing that to flush out the Ukranian fighters that are in those cities. Do you really believe they would be shelling a civilian only area? Again, why aren't they doing that in Kherson? Because no Ukranian fighters are there!

If you know that Russia will target military targets, then it makes no sense to deliberately position civilians among them, especially children.

We know that Russia will target military targets because it's targeting everybody.

Your conclusion goes too far. Refer to my earlier response for further details.

Videos showing civilians not killed after confronting Russian troops:

[Difflugia]

Personal reflection might lead a Westerner to conclude something different than non-Westerners.

Or that Russian officials have been serially dishonest about the invasion.

Don't get me wrong, indiscriminate shelling of places is definitely reckless on the part of the Russian army, but I'm betting that they're doing that to flush out the Ukranian fighters that are in those cities.

A military objective and military target aren't the same thing. The Russian military is shelling civilian areas to encourage capitulation, not to "flush out" military units. It's certainly effective as a military tactic, but it's also a violation of the Geneva Convention, to which Russia is a signatory.



That's not "flushing out" military units.

Do you really believe they would be shelling a civilian only area?

To put pressure on military units elsewhere? Yes. Russia has a history of using that very tactic. They used both indiscriminate bombing and intentional targeting of civilian areas and structures in Syria less than ten years ago, Georgia, and Chechnya before that.

Again, why aren't they doing that in Kherson? Because no Ukranian fighters are there!

Because the city is already occupied.

Your conclusion goes too far. Refer to my earlier response for further details.

Oh, I did.

[AgnosticBoy]

Again, why aren't they doing that in Kherson? Because no Ukranian fighters are there!

Because the city is already occupied.

And because there is no armed resistance. It's not a coincidence that BOTH statements are true.

In a civilian only area, the Russians would occupy it and not attack it. In areas containing both civilians and armed resistance they would attack it because it is not a strictly civilian area when there is fighting or threats of it in the area. That's why I suggest that Ukrainian civilians shelter in areas AWAY from Ukranian fighters to increase their chance of surviving (not 100% guarantee but it's better than standing right next to a guy that's a target for Russian forces).

Don't get me wrong, indiscriminate shelling of places is definitely reckless on the part of the Russian army, but I'm betting that they're doing that to flush out the Ukranian fighters that are in those cities.

A military objective and military target aren't the same thing. The Russian military is shelling civilian areas to encourage capitulation, not to "flush out" military units. It's certainly effective as a military tactic, but it's also a violation of the Geneva Convention, to which Russia is a signatory.

To satisfy your standard I'll just say that the Russians are shelling civilian areas to encourage capitulation of Ukranian fighters in those same areas. Now, of course, that doesn't support your original claim that the Russians are trying to kill civilians just as much as Ukrainian fighters.

That's not "flushing out" military units.

Then we can just say that they are trying to get the Ukrainian fighters to stop resisting. Again, that doesn't support your original claim about the Russians wanting to wipe out all of the unarmed populations just as they are doing with the armed populations.

Do you really believe they would be shelling a civilian only area?

To put pressure on military units elsewhere? Yes. Russia has a history of using that very tactic. They used both indiscriminate bombing and intentional targeting of civilian areas and structures in Syria less than ten years ago, Georgia, and Chechnya before that.

It's not a civilian area if there are armed people there fighting against the Russians. These fighters should not be anywhere near unarmed civilians, like children.

[Difflugia]

And because there is no armed resistance. It's not a coincidence that BOTH statements are true.

Shelling noncombatants is a war crime regardless of how many of those statements are true or false.

In a civilian only area, the Russians would occupy it and not attack it.

That's a pretty slippery slope you're on. You're justifying the leveling of residential areas based on a claim made by Russian officials that have been demonstrated to be lying about the war. Even your own argument doesn't rely on military units intermixed with civilians, only that they're in the same city. If there were no defense of the city, they wouldn't be shelling civilians? That's exactly the argument behind total war.

In areas containing both civilians and armed resistance they would attack it because it is not a strictly civilian area when there is fighting or threats of it in the area.

How large is this area containing both? In order for your claim to be justified, troops must be intermixed with civilians across the entire city in a way that they cannot be meaningfully separated. Is that your claim?

That's why I suggest that Ukrainian civilians shelter in areas AWAY from Ukranian fighters to increase their chance of surviving (not 100% guarantee but it's better than standing right next to a guy that's a target for Russian forces).

Again, that would be meaningful if the Russians weren't indiscriminately shelling residential areas already. They have been.

To satisfy your standard I'll just say that the Russians are shelling civilian areas to encourage capitulation of Ukranian fighters in those same areas.

The Russians are saying that, too.

Now, of course, that doesn't support your original claim that the Russians are trying to kill civilians just as much as Ukrainian fighters.

The indiscriminate shelling of residential areas doesn't support my claim that the Russians are trying to kill civilians? I respectfully disagree no matter how many Russian officials tell me otherwise.

Then we can just say that they are trying to get the Ukrainian fighters to stop resisting.

Shelling civilians to do so is a war crime.

Again, that doesn't support your original claim about the Russians wanting to wipe out all of the unarmed populations just as they are doing with the armed populations.

Is that what my claim is now?

It's not a civilian area if there are armed people there fighting against the Russians.

You haven't supported that the Ukrainian military is fighting from within residential areas. The Russian claim you repeated was that civilians were sheltering with troops.

These fighters should not be anywhere near unarmed civilians, like children.

And yet you keep defending their actions as justified.