SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I was giving your reply a rethink. Those shattered units redeploying would be irradiating many other of their troops in different locations and create "evidence" of Ukrainian dirty bombs.
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (34 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Speaking of irradiated armor, when we arrived at our FOB in Iraq it was still littered with destroyed Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles. Naturally we wanted to explore, however, were told to not climb in them because several had been taken out by A-10s with 30 mm depleted uranium rounds.
And just for your viewing pleasure a few more pics of destroyed armor we flew upon.
buffnut453
Captain
Primary reaction would be to evict Russian forces from Latvia. However, it's likely that the fighting would spread pretty quickly. The maritime domain is one area where I see room for broader engagements between NATO and Russian forces...and if that happens, we could see some interesting activities in the Black Sea which might help Ukraine.
I don't see NATO attacking Mother Russia, other than any forces gathering to support offensive operations into NATO nations. Targeting Moscow would, I believe, be off the table initially but military targets within Belarus could easily be viewed as fair game.
That said, as others have pointed out, Putin has his hands full "liberating" Ukraine. It would be a monumental mistake to start a 2-front war by attacking NATO.
at6
1st Sergeant
This is so heart breaking. Chalk up another war crime to make some one pay for.
buffnut453
Captain
From the BBC:
The UN will hold a vote on Thursday to determine whether Russia should be kicked off the UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR) over the reports of atrocities committed in areas of Ukraine that it had occupied.
The resolution was introduced by the US after evidence of civilian killings emerged in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha.
Russia has warned countries that attempts to throw it off the 47-member panel will be viewed as an "unfriendly gesture," according to a letter to diplomats seen by Reuters.
Russia's mission to the UN in New York called on countries to "speak out against the anti-Russian resolution". A two-thirds majority is required to expel Russia from the group.
In a statement to Tass news agency, the head of Russia's UN mission said: "If the resolution is adopted, the Westerners will be able to freely impose on the rest of the countries the concepts and their vision of human rights that please them and their Western accomplices."
"The suspension of Russia's rights as a member of the Human Rights Council will discredit the principle of the Council's universality, harm its effectiveness, and completely undermine trust not only in the Human Rights Council, but in the entire UN human rights system," said Gennady Gatilov.
My personal favourite line is the whole idea that Western concepts and vision for human rights are somehow wrong and being forced on the rest of the world. Presumably, therefore, the Kremlin has a different view. Evidence suggest that the Kremlin doesn't believe there's such a thing as human rights...at least not as far as Ukrainians are concerned.
The UN will hold a vote on Thursday to determine whether Russia should be kicked off the UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR) over the reports of atrocities committed in areas of Ukraine that it had occupied.
The resolution was introduced by the US after evidence of civilian killings emerged in the Kyiv suburb of Bucha.
Russia has warned countries that attempts to throw it off the 47-member panel will be viewed as an "unfriendly gesture," according to a letter to diplomats seen by Reuters.
Russia's mission to the UN in New York called on countries to "speak out against the anti-Russian resolution". A two-thirds majority is required to expel Russia from the group.
In a statement to Tass news agency, the head of Russia's UN mission said: "If the resolution is adopted, the Westerners will be able to freely impose on the rest of the countries the concepts and their vision of human rights that please them and their Western accomplices."
"The suspension of Russia's rights as a member of the Human Rights Council will discredit the principle of the Council's universality, harm its effectiveness, and completely undermine trust not only in the Human Rights Council, but in the entire UN human rights system," said Gennady Gatilov.
My personal favourite line is the whole idea that Western concepts and vision for human rights are somehow wrong and being forced on the rest of the world. Presumably, therefore, the Kremlin has a different view. Evidence suggest that the Kremlin doesn't believe there's such a thing as human rights...at least not as far as Ukrainians are concerned.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
I don't believe that this is only the Kremlin's point of view "unfortunately", but on the contra a view shared in majority by African, Asian countries (independently of calling themselves democratic) and maybe even by a majority of the Latin-American countries. Let's see what results this resolution will show/bring.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Holy St Javelin, Batman! The US Senate just voted to revive Lend Lease!
In the fight against Putin, Senate unanimously approves measure that once helped beat Hitler
In the fight against Putin, Senate unanimously approves measure that once helped beat Hitler
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
re the area of human rights as viewed/defined by the Russians.
I think this is one area where the RF reps are probably not being deceptive. There are a large majority of the worlds countries that view 'human' rights as distinct (to one degree or another) from 'civil', 'economic', and/or 'political' rights - some more than others, some less so. This includes many(most?) of the 'leading' western nations.
One example of this separation is seen in the area of homeless rates, between the idea of housing as a human right and the idea of economic rights.
The US started on a program in the 1950s to provide housing through one method or another to everyone that needed it, kind of a non-formally defined human right sort of thing. They did not try to incorporate it into the US Constitution at the time. But, other people saw this attempt to provide housing for everyone as an attack on their economic rights - primarily the real-estate companies, landlords of apartment buildings, and individual home owners - due to the potential impact on their ability to make money. Others saw the homeless (for the most part) as inferior since most were poor, of one minority or another, or mentally ill. So through our representative political system the movement was stalled, and only allowed to be implemented in a token manner. The US has had a minimum of ~500,000 homeless at any time in the last 10 years (note that this number does not include unregistered/illegal aliens).
Finland, just in the past few years, decided to put a right to housing into effect. They are well on their way to succeeding - currently they have the lowest per capita homeless rate of any European nation. "https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the...finland-is-eradicating-homelessness-1.5437402"
Another, more visible difference, is in the area of political protest.
In the past few years here in the US, we have had a significant amount of protesting going on. It has taken the form of everything from peaceful marches and sit-ins, to violent riots in the streets sometimes including destruction of private and government property. The issue primarily revolved around civil rights and how they were not being equally applied to the primarily white ruing class and the various minorities. Although the majority of focus was on the unnecessary killing of black (African American) citizens, it also included other significant ongoing inequitable treatment. Part of the issue was also that the police officers were almost never punished for their actions - at least not in any way that was deemed reasonable by anyone other than the police. The government, for the most part, responded in a reasonable and proportional manner to the level of disturbance and violence perpetrated by the protesters. Some people in this country think that the government was heavy handed, others think that the government should have sent in the police (and national guard if necessary) and had them shoot the protesters. Fortunately, we managed to not make the matter worse, and hopefully something better will come of this so that it will not recur in the future.
What if this same type of protest movement happened in your countries? Would the protesters have been allowed to block traffic - on city streets and freeways? block airport access? hold marches near government centers? interrupt and disrupt political procedures (including protesters entering the building dressed in military gear and armed with loaded pistols and rifles)? hold loud protests outside homes of political leaders (sometimes while armed)? get into fights in the streets with the opposition protesters? get into fights with police? burn down private property? burn down a police precinct HQ building? Would this kind of behavior be protected under the heading of "human' right?
What would happen if this type of protest took place in the RF? I know that there have been serious protests in the RF in the past few decades, but I do not know enough to comment on how they were handled.
And I know that there have been large protests in some of your countries, but again I do not know enough about them to comment.
These were just 2 examples, and probably not the best ones.
Whether we agree/should agree with these separate definitions of rights is another matter, and would probably go too far into politics to be a practical discussion for this forum. But these definitions (views) should not be discounted in our ponderings on what people do and why they do them.
I am not sure how well I expressed my meaning here, but hopefully well enough to be understood.
I think this is one area where the RF reps are probably not being deceptive. There are a large majority of the worlds countries that view 'human' rights as distinct (to one degree or another) from 'civil', 'economic', and/or 'political' rights - some more than others, some less so. This includes many(most?) of the 'leading' western nations.
One example of this separation is seen in the area of homeless rates, between the idea of housing as a human right and the idea of economic rights.
The US started on a program in the 1950s to provide housing through one method or another to everyone that needed it, kind of a non-formally defined human right sort of thing. They did not try to incorporate it into the US Constitution at the time. But, other people saw this attempt to provide housing for everyone as an attack on their economic rights - primarily the real-estate companies, landlords of apartment buildings, and individual home owners - due to the potential impact on their ability to make money. Others saw the homeless (for the most part) as inferior since most were poor, of one minority or another, or mentally ill. So through our representative political system the movement was stalled, and only allowed to be implemented in a token manner. The US has had a minimum of ~500,000 homeless at any time in the last 10 years (note that this number does not include unregistered/illegal aliens).
Finland, just in the past few years, decided to put a right to housing into effect. They are well on their way to succeeding - currently they have the lowest per capita homeless rate of any European nation. "https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the...finland-is-eradicating-homelessness-1.5437402"
Another, more visible difference, is in the area of political protest.
In the past few years here in the US, we have had a significant amount of protesting going on. It has taken the form of everything from peaceful marches and sit-ins, to violent riots in the streets sometimes including destruction of private and government property. The issue primarily revolved around civil rights and how they were not being equally applied to the primarily white ruing class and the various minorities. Although the majority of focus was on the unnecessary killing of black (African American) citizens, it also included other significant ongoing inequitable treatment. Part of the issue was also that the police officers were almost never punished for their actions - at least not in any way that was deemed reasonable by anyone other than the police. The government, for the most part, responded in a reasonable and proportional manner to the level of disturbance and violence perpetrated by the protesters. Some people in this country think that the government was heavy handed, others think that the government should have sent in the police (and national guard if necessary) and had them shoot the protesters. Fortunately, we managed to not make the matter worse, and hopefully something better will come of this so that it will not recur in the future.
What if this same type of protest movement happened in your countries? Would the protesters have been allowed to block traffic - on city streets and freeways? block airport access? hold marches near government centers? interrupt and disrupt political procedures (including protesters entering the building dressed in military gear and armed with loaded pistols and rifles)? hold loud protests outside homes of political leaders (sometimes while armed)? get into fights in the streets with the opposition protesters? get into fights with police? burn down private property? burn down a police precinct HQ building? Would this kind of behavior be protected under the heading of "human' right?
What would happen if this type of protest took place in the RF? I know that there have been serious protests in the RF in the past few decades, but I do not know enough to comment on how they were handled.
And I know that there have been large protests in some of your countries, but again I do not know enough about them to comment.
These were just 2 examples, and probably not the best ones.
Whether we agree/should agree with these separate definitions of rights is another matter, and would probably go too far into politics to be a practical discussion for this forum. But these definitions (views) should not be discounted in our ponderings on what people do and why they do them.
I am not sure how well I expressed my meaning here, but hopefully well enough to be understood.
Admiral Beez
Major
Good stuff. govinfo
My guess is the Russians will begin their new offensive against eastern Ukraine and especially Mariupol within the fortnight. How quickly can arms get to the Ukrainian forces? It is interesting that Russia hasn't hit the Ukrainian railways or interior bridges and highways - they have to know that's the route the new weapons come by.
The radio transmissions were obtained by the Bundesnachrichtendienst, Germany's foreign intelligence service, and presented to parliament on Wednesday, Der Spiegel reported.
In one of the recordings, a Russian soldier could be heard describing how he shot someone off their bicycle, Der Spiegel reported.
Germany intercepted conversations of Russian soldiers discussing Bucha killings, contradicting Kremlin claims of a hoax, report says
Russia claims the massacre of civilians in Bucha, Ukraine, are a hoax or conspiracy designed to frame its forces.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Dam....
buffnut453
Captain
The radio transmissions were obtained by the Bundesnachrichtendienst, Germany's foreign intelligence service, and presented to parliament on Wednesday, Der Spiegel reported.
In one of the recordings, a Russian soldier could be heard describing how he shot someone off their bicycle, Der Spiegel reported.
Germany intercepted conversations of Russian soldiers discussing Bucha killings, contradicting Kremlin claims of a hoax, report says
Russia claims the massacre of civilians in Bucha, Ukraine, are a hoax or conspiracy designed to frame its forces.www.yahoo.com
It seems wrong to be awarding a bacon for a description of such a heinous act. However, the Western nations will need to do exactly this sort of thing to call out Russian disinformation and prove to the rest of the world the true nature of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Perhaps preserving them in hopes of using them for the advance.
Admiral Beez
Major
New Weapons From U.S. Could Rearm Ukraine’s Bayraktar Drones
Ukraine's iconic Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones may be running short of laser-guided missiles as Turkey hedges over its support. Weapons now being supplied by the U.S. could make up the shortfall.
www.forbes.com
"The top item in the Pentagon's latest assistance package to Ukraine announced last week is "laser-guided rocket systems." This might seem like a curious description, as by convention any rocket with guidance is called a missile. But in the U.S. military 'guided rocket' refers to a specific weapon — one that could equip Ukraine's fleet of Bayraktar TB2 drones, which may now be running short of missiles."
- Thread starter
- #3,776
Go back and replay the videos in posts #s 3695 and 3708. They cover these ideas in ways that us folks "contaminated" with western concepts of human rights can hopefully understand.
Essentially it's the relationship between the individual and the nation/state. We see the state as existing to preserve and protect the political rights and freedoms of every individual person. Political diversity and freedom of expression reign over our value system. This is so deeply ingrained in us that we have trouble wrapping our heads around the idea that most of the world, especially those with ethnic axes to grind, have a different hierarchy of values. For these people, freedom from fear and freedom from want are viewed as requiring unity in support of a powerful government that can protect them from their ethnic rivals and the vicissitudes of global geopolitics, as well as domestic "terrorists" who might have different (and unsettling) ideas. "Freedom" for these people has an economic and social dimension that is missing from our purely political version, and tends to value social order and planned economy more highly than the extreme levels of freedom of expression we enshrine.
To them, we look decadent, self indulgent, chaotic, and lacking the political discipline to rein in dissent and forge an economically efficient society. Due to our resource-rich continent and the cumulative wealth it's given us, we've never had to, and the ocean barriers have largely protected us from existential threats.
Implicit in this is the evolutionary dichotomy between the the sea power state with its broader horizons and multicultural exposure with resulting more progressive outlook, vs the continental power state with its ethnic homogeneity, history of invasions and empire, and more or less continuous existential threat, whether actual or perceived, resulting in a more conservative and authoritarian culture. Each mindset in this dichotomy has great difficulty in understanding and relating to the other, guaranteeing a turbulent past, present, and future.
Ukraine's history has been largely as a subset of one continental empire or another, and yet in each case it has served as a crossroads and a frontier of these powers, so becoming more culturally akin to a seagoing state than the empires it served. The Kievan Russ of a millennium ago were landlocked norsemen who had voyaged the rivers from Scandinavia and established a cosmopolitan culture that had predated and outshown the rise of Moscow and St Petersburg and The Russian Empire. No wonder they bailed out of the Russian orbit the minute they got a chance. And they're not looking back. Russians can't understand this.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
I understand the differences between the Western vs Russian perspectives. None of that justifies the indiscriminate or deliberate killing, torture, rape, starvation etc of civilians by military forces. Those are some pretty consistent human rights wherever you live in the world, and have nothing to do with whether the government is there to protect the people or the people to drive the government. There is no possible justification for the actions we're seeing in Russia...and it's those fundamental human rights that I'm talking about. I don't care if your a communist or an anarchist...if you're a human being and part of the civilian society, you have a right to live.
- Thread starter
- #3,778
Right on, buff! An explanation is in no way an excuse or justification. It's merely a feeble attempt to make the incomprehensible dehumanization behind those acts in some way comprehensible.
- Thread starter
- #3,779
"Not if you're an enemy of the people and a threat to the foundations of society." Society is more important than you are.
Hard to wrap your head around, isn't it?
Admiral Beez
Major
What I don't understand is what Russia is hoping to achieve by these tactics? Wasn't the goal of their invasion to topple the Ukrainian government and bring it and the Ukrainian people back into the Russian sphere? How does terrorizing the Ukrainian people, including millions of its Russian speaking civilians accomplish this? The result of these atrocities will be the complete opposite, since any Ukrainian who can fight will now fight, the people are now solidly behind their government, a new sense of Ukrainian nationhood has been forever strengthened and almost the entire world is watching aghast and one upping each other to hit Russia and support Ukraine.
State-led atrocities usually have a purpose. The Holocaust was Germany's plan to clear Europe of Jews and other "Untermensch". What's Putin's aim in terrorizing Ukraine's people? Even if they wanted to, these civilians have no means of forcing Ukraine to capitulate.
