It's not, and you can't prove it anyway. We know there are Ukrainian defenders in the city, they even armed many civilians, thus making them combatants. How do you prove that the civilian casualties are not simply collateral damage? Even if you buy the Ukrainian numbers, which obviously would inflate both civilian and Russian casualties, about the same number of Russian soldiers have died as Ukrainian civilians. Does that sound like a military that's hell bent on mass murdering civilians? If Russia really wanted to kill civilians, wouldn't they just carpet bomb the cities, instead of just a shell here, a missile there? Some folks buy way too much into the mainstream narrative. Maybe try some alternative views, like this interview with colonel Macgregor.
They're certainly not winning hearts and minds by killing thousands of civilians. Russia will be a pariah in the international community long after this war. This indiscriminate bombing and shelling is actually harming morale among their own troops.
ASB Military News on Gab: 'American and British mercenaries are running away…' - Gab Social Interesting video from American that went to Ukraine
It's not that hard to prove based on current international law. Article Eight of the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court mentions the following as violations, most of which could easily be proven… Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
Lol. I can’t believe people are actually buying this obvious bullshit. Do people actually believe that any Republicans give any more of a shit if Russians sanction them than Democrats do? It’s any empty “punishment” that effects no one but works wonders for the Ruskies when people fall for the obvious ploy hook line and sinker. It’s working right now judging by these posts. Other than a couple nut job junior Republicans there is bi-partisan support for Ukraine. In fact, there had been Republicans calling for more arms for Ukraine long before Biden decided to finally send them. You guys have waaaaay over played this Republicans in bed with Russia angle. I get it though. Gotta have something to march out in November besides just Biden.
While I do not doubt that there are some Americans and other foreigners such as Brits with little or no military training who volunteered to fight in Ukraine and ended up fleeing when they saw real war a single anecdote does not mean that it has occurred with any frequency.
Some points from Macgregor's interview: 1) Most Ukrainian forces are surrounded, much probably running low on supplies. 2) The primary military objective for the Russians is neutralizing Ukrainian forces, and that's essentially accomplished. 3) Mariupol is a big problem, it's controlled by ~3000 Azov battalion soldiers (a fascist militia), and they're not allowing civilians to leave despite a humanitarian corridor opened up. 4) The Russians aren't deliberately trying to cause civilian casualties. If they didn't care about civilian casualties the war would've been over 10 days ago. Mistakes happen in war, much like with our own military. 5) Putin's support within Russia is higher now than before the war. 6) President Biden has made some very good decisions in standing firm against troops in Ukraine or imposing a no-fly zone. 7) First time he heard Marco Rubio say something intelligent when he said "Russia is not Iraq", while Blinken is pushing for dumb ideas. 8) Complains that donors are pushing to widen the conflict, who are enriched by conflicts, but praises Biden for being responsible to the electorate and continuing to stand firm. 9) The DOD is well aware that our forces are woefully unprepared to fight against a conventional, peer competitor. Our experience fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant. The donors who have no military experience, which he calls the "bombs away club" have no understanding of this. 10) On accusation of potential Russian false-flags with bio labs "usually the winners don't plant false flags." Thinks it's more likely that the Ukrainians will try it in an attempt to draw us in.
How do you prove they're not Russian military objectives? Is the wedding that we bombed a military objective? We thought it was, so not a war crime. What about the family of 10 that we killed with a drone strike when we withdrew from Afghanistan? It's not that easy to prove war crimes.
Deep fakes and control of a news station is super dangerous. Hacked News Channel and Deepfake of Zelenskyy Surrendering Is Causing Chaos Online
Reading the comments, it’s a haven for Neo-Nazi’s and extremists. I’m sure some of the foreign fighters going over there were badly unprepared for getting hit by airstrkes and shelling, maybe had some false expectations based on Iraq/Afghan combat experience. Ok? This is why the U.S. govt has discouraged Americans from joining the fight. The people on that forum are not American patriots, these are anti-govt folks or Russian trolls finding a platform. They are actually rooting for Russia, sorry but there’s no universe where Russia is the “good” guys in this invasion. 100% of the hostilities are taking place in Ukranian territory. It’s an invasion. Not complicated. Interesting they simultaneously accuse the Ukrainians of being “Nazi’s” while also expressing strong anti-Semitic tropes in their own comments. It’s like they can’t even pick a lane to run with.
so this guy? Seems like a impartial and credible source. Kosovo War In 2014, Macgregor went on Russian state-owned RT to express his opposition to U.S. intervention in the Kosovo War.[19] Ukraine and Russia 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and was engaged in a conflict with Ukraine over its eastern parts, Macgregor appeared on Russian state-owned network RT where he called for the annexation of the Donbas and said residents of the region "are in fact Russians, not Ukrainians, and at the same time, you have Ukrainians in the west and in the north, who are not Russians."[19][34] 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Macgregor appeared on three Fox News programs to speak in support of Russia's actions. Russian state television broadcast excerpts of Macgregor's appearances, which included a characterization of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "puppet," that Russian forces had been "too gentle" in the early days of the invasion and that Russian president Vladimir Putin was being "demonized" by the United States and NATO. Macgregor said he believed Russia should be allowed to seize whatever parts of Ukraine it wanted. After one of his appearances, Macgregor's comments were characterized by veteran Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin as "appeasement" and that he was being an "apologist" for Putin. After Griffin's remarks, Tucker Carlson — who hosted Macgregor on two successive nights — remarked, "Unlike many of the so-called reporters you see on television, he is not acting secretly as a flack for Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon. No, Doug Macgregor is an honest man." Trey Gowdy, another Fox News host who interviewed Macgregor, said his viewpoint was "stunning and disappointing."[35][36][37][38] U.S. representative Liz Cheney said of Macgregor "This is the Putin wing of the GOP."[39]
Yeah, one of the mistakes that people make is to try to create rationality in people who are so massively resentful to the world that their actions are completely irrational.
I stay away from sites like that, even briefly, for the same reason I don't use a OUIJA Board or chant over a pentagram.
But slightlyskeptic assured us the “Russia thing” is badly overplayed. So weird! Here’s the thing. I think the “elites” in the party recognize the threat. The rabble? It’s more reflective of the pro-Putin sentiment than the nearly unanimous Congress would suggest. Tucker is the one mainstream news host giving cover, but very few are willing to cross that line. But make no mistake, there is a pro-Putin wing in the far right of GOP. What % that is I have no idea, it’s not 0%, it may be a double digit % which is not insubstantial. IMO.
