(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I don't think Poland has the freedom of speech. For example, they recently passed a law making it illegal to teach Polish collaboration in the Holocaust.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Ukraine can make slow, steady progress using drone directed artillery to smash the heavy weapons, but that will require more shells and time than anyone wants to say out loud. You dont need to destroy every tank every artillery just like you dont need to kill every enemy soldier. There comes a point when the degradation is so much that there is no ability to effectively resist and organized assault. The pertinent question is more where that point is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Szarrukin posted:This is not true. I don't know why you only quoted the first half of that post, but not true in what way? That 2018 is not recent?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
jaete posted:So as I understand it Ukraine is getting closer to the first major Russian defensive line, which is just before Tokmak. What would be the Ukrainian plan for if/when they breach the first line? Defensive lines like this are probably more vulnerable from the rear; would Ukraine try to breach and then go around, to clear out the defenses from a longer stretch of the front? But Tokmak and also the second Russian line (and all kinds of other towns etc) are pretty close to the first line so I'm not sure such maneuvering would be feasible in that space. Theoretically once the lines are breached the defenders can be surrounded and destroyed. More likely given the low overall degree of organization on both sides, once the lines are breached you'd see the Russians run for the next lines and the Ukranians struggle to chase after them. I don't think the goal right now is to break through the lines so much as degrade the defenders to the point that they're forced to withdraw to less well-prepared lines. It is a much less risky strategy in that it degrades Russian forces while conserving limited armored vehicles, but it also probably means that gains in ground will be more limited.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Kchama posted:"All these aspects of an offensive being done together in support of an offensive" not being 'an offensive' is a pretty silly thing to post. If you ignore everything else I said and pretend I only posted that one line then your reply might make some sense. The core intent of the offensive is to advance on the Southern axis. Blowing up Russian equipment in the vicinity is subordinate to that effort. It's something you need to do to succeed, but it's not how you define success. You would also hit strategic targets on axes you are defending or otherwise not attempting to advance on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:If you ignore everything else I said and pretend I only posted that one line then your reply might make some sense. You were claiming they weren’t doing an offensive because they were doing ‘attriting attacks’ and various things that are a part of an offense, unless you merely misspoke and meant they were not doing a successful offensive. Either way, shockingly, you do things you need to do to succeed in order to succeed. So if they’re doing things to enable the success of an offensive, then it appears they are still on the offensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
This is basically a semantic argument. An offensive is a series of coordinated attacks aimed at obtaining some goal, whatever that may be. My impression is that the original goal was to break through and route the Russian army. Due to the depths of the defenses and lack of mine clearing, that wasn't possible, so they pivoted towards trying to degrade and destroy the forward elements of the Russian army in order to force them to withdraw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
saratoga posted:This is basically a semantic argument. An offensive is a series of coordinated attacks aimed at obtaining some goal, whatever that may be. That's been my impression, too. Hell, they may end up still breaking through and routing the Russian army, but it seems they've tempered their expectations and gone with more managable goals. EDIT: I was questioning if it was just a semantic argument too. Since all those things mentioned are what makes up an offensive of some kind. Kchama fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Aug 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 05:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1692837236461433087?t=vja3V3S2ojAhtX7cB8hUpg&s=19 Guess who struck another theatre? After hospitals, hotels and bakeries, add theaters to list of legitimate military targets. gently caress Putin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 11:49
|
|
|
https://nv.ua/ukr/ukraine/events/kr...i-50347244.html (in Ukrainian) Head of SBU revealed details of the first attack on Crimean bridge - indeed, as was determined shortly after, explosives were smuggled to an unsuspecting truck driver. The article also has details on the more recent attack with a "Sea baby" drone boat ("Morskiy malyuk" also maybe winking at the last name of said SBU chief). Interesting that both were SBU, not GUR operations, while Kyrylo Budanov of GUR was happy to take spotlight for past year in regards to every similar op. quote:"The development and implementation of the special operation with the bridge was carried out by me personally and two of my trusted employees," explains Vasyl Malyuk. quote:The SBU had to take into account another important point: there are special electronic warfare devices at the posts near the Crimean Bridge, whose task is to knock down the GPS coordinates on explosive devices set to a specific point. The team assembled by Malyuk created a technically sophisticated system that allowed the "film" cargo to fly into the air in the early morning hours of October 8, 2022, approximately in the middle of the bridge. i am a moron posted:War is hell on earth. I got extremely lucky when I signed up for one on purpose. It’s the most evil, perverted thing you can inflict on people. I can’t imagine being forced to defend yourself or being forced to fight someone else. My heart breaks for everyone in the thick of it on both sides. They’re all going to lose ultimately. Ukraine is losing its best people, Russia mostly gets rid of its lumpen population in a world's least beneficial job program fatherboxx fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Aug 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 12:19
|
|
|
I have some serious SERIOUS issues with using innocent civilians to carry out suicide attacks unwittingly. I can't argue against military value of the strike and so on, and the two people in the adjacent car were regrettable, unintended victims, but wow you had to know the driver of the truck was going to be atomized. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I have some serious SERIOUS issues with using innocent civilians to carry out suicide attacks unwittingly. I can't argue against military value of the strike and so on, and the two people in the adjacent car were regrettable, unintended victims, but wow you had to know the driver of the truck was going to be atomized. Yeah, I dont see how taking things from Palestinian playbook while Ukraine still can do proper military operations and has an array of purely military targets it can hit with better results (and not just "because we could" or "got Putin mad lolz") is beneficial long term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 12:53
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I have some serious SERIOUS issues with using innocent civilians to carry out suicide attacks unwittingly. I can't argue against military value of the strike and so on, and the two people in the adjacent car were regrettable, unintended victims, but wow you had to know the driver of the truck was going to be atomized. Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 12:54
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target. They're really not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:07
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target. Taking out a family of beachgoers with a precision strike
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:09
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target. I don't think international rules would support this position
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
Officer Sandvich posted:Taking out a family of beachgoers with a precision strike Maybe if we call them colonizers it'll be okay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target. No. The gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target. That's not how it works. (People vacationing in Crimea in the middle of the war may be legit Darwin Award nominees, but they're still civilians, and so not legit targets and strikes on legit ones --- like the bridge --- have to try to minimize hownthey are affected).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:12
|
|
|
Nah gently caress them. They know they're on illegally occupied territory in the middle of a war. Their presence is actively supporting the invasion. They're just as valid a target as some poor Russian mobik that was drafted against his will and forced to the front. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target. Anyone working in the World Trade Centre was benefitting US hegemony through global capitalism, therefore they were legit targets  Now, you can bet that the SBU doesn't give a gently caress about breaking eggs when there's a war going on and Ukrainian civilians die in bombings every day. You can even make the case that successfully knocking out the bridge would shorten the war and thus reduce civilian deaths considerably. But even that doesn't make the decision morally unambiguous. At least the poor sob didn't suffer but presumably he had a family.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Nah gently caress them. They know they're on illegally occupied territory in the middle of a war. Their presence is actively supporting the invasion. They're just as valid a target as some poor Russian mobik that was drafted against his will and forced to the front. Again, no. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
Technically, there isn't a lot of difference between that and any other attack with civilian casualties, but, man, does it feel wrong that they not only knew that at least one civilian was going to die, but knew exactly who it was going be. Do any international conventions cover that at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Technically, there isn't a lot of difference between that and any other attack with civilian casualties, but, man, does it feel wrong that they not only knew that at least one civilian was going to die, but knew exactly who it was going be. Do any international conventions cover that at all? Using a random dude as a patsy? I don't think so. For one thing, it's something that would be incredibly hard to pull off when these rules were written. IIRC the rules of war allow a degree of civilian casualties when attacking legitimate military targets, so long as a.) reasonable effort was expended to minimize those casualties and b.) a degree of proportionality is observed (i.e. a bad dude in a hospital doesn't mean you can bomb the hospital.) This came up when the bombing first happened, during the repair efforts. My conclusion after reading through the conventions was that attacking the repair equipment would be acceptable, even when the equipment is manned by civilian workers, but attacking the barracks the workers lived in would be illegal. The workers aren't legitimate targets in and of themselves. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Aug 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:42
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Again, no. it's an illegal border crossing by a foreign supporter of a hostile regime trying to enter a military objective. Any country would be justified in resorting to lethal ways of stopping that threat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:it's an illegal border crossing by a foreign supporter of a hostile regime trying to enter a military objective. Any country would be justified in resorting to lethal ways of stopping that threat. The guy is just some random trucker. He wasn't hauling war material. He's not an 'enemy combatant', he's a protected civilian. His death is *at best* a regrettable necessity, not something to say 'gently caress that guy' about...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1692837236461433087?t=vja3V3S2ojAhtX7cB8hUpg&s=19 The justification by Russia, by the way, is probably going to be that a drone manufacturers expo was held there.  As you might imagine, using a ballistic missile to murder a bunch of sales reps with a handful of drones they had with them is not exactly justifiable considering how many civilians would be around. Once again, very much in line with all other Russian attacks on civilian buildings. Hotels, where maybe some soldiers stayed, restaurants, where maybe some officers dined, shopping centres, where maybe a car park had military trucks parked at, churches that maybe helped raising money for the military, and, of course, the power grid, because electricity can be used for making weapons. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Aug 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:56
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:He wasn't hauling war material. Arguably, he was... But yeah this comes down to would you think that Putin's SVR putting a bomb on an unaware foreign journalist who is going to interview Zelensky would be totally fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:it's an illegal border crossing by a foreign supporter of a hostile regime trying to enter a military objective. Any country would be justified in resorting to lethal ways of stopping that threat. They literally paid him to go there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:They literally paid him to go there. Taking illegal bribes, clearly he was no angel...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:it's an illegal border crossing by a foreign supporter of a hostile regime trying to enter a military objective. Any country would be justified in resorting to lethal ways of stopping that threat. Illegal by whose law? Does the law come with the death penalty attached? Did a court sit in judgement of this dude? I’m focusing on the “illegality” here because I’d you take away the legal aspect (and in case it’s not obvious I don’t think it’s very strong at all) then all you have is “He’s an enemy civilian within the area of a military objective and thus fair game,” in which case oh well I guess Russia was justified in blowing up all those civilians huh? It’s possible to support Ukraine while acknowledging that they might make missteps, practically or morally. And in this case the guy’s smug satisfaction in the fact that nobody involved knew what was happening despite their lives being ruined or ended is sorta off-putting, if only because you wonder what ELSE they might contemplate without worrying about collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:07
|
|
|
Gervasius posted:https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1692837236461433087?t=vja3V3S2ojAhtX7cB8hUpg&s=19 At least seven dead including children and dozens maimed and hurt in a rocket attack on civilians: meh, happens every day One russian guy killed:Jesus Christ war is hell, ukrainians are ruthless...
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
Somaen posted:At least seven dead including children and dozens maimed and hurt in a rocket attack on civilians: meh, happens every day If someone hadn't started posting insane creeds about how every Russian in Crimea is guilty and needs to be executed by Ukrainian missiles or whatever, there would be a lot less posts about that one Russian guy killed, I'm guessing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:it's an illegal border crossing by a foreign supporter of a hostile regime trying to enter a military objective. Any country would be justified in resorting to lethal ways of stopping that threat. This is basically equal stakes reasoning to that the twin towers were legitimate targets full of "little eichmanns", chickens coming home to roost, shame about the service staff and all but service to colonizers implies guilt etc Which is to say: insane
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:The justification by Russia, by the way, is probably going to be that a drone manufacturers expo was held there. It's a "A charity organization dedicated to the victory of Ukraine" according to their linkedin page and are based in New York. They have a 1,000 drones for Ukraine initiative on their web-site which would explain their inclusion in this event, as well as other initiatives. Edit for mods: This is not an endorsement or promotion of this charity. Rather an explanation for anyone else who had a "why the gently caress would THEY be there..?" moment. Cable Guy fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Aug 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:it's an illegal border crossing by a foreign supporter of a hostile regime trying to enter a military objective. Any country would be justified in resorting to lethal ways of stopping that threat. You're moving the goalposts back to just the trucker now? You said that everyone on the territory of Crimea who uses the bridge is a supporter of the regime, a collaborator and a legitimate military target. Which is an absolutely insane thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Anyone that enters Crimea from the Kerch bridge is at least collaborating to some degree with the Russian regime and supporting the occupation of Ukrainian territory, so they're a valid target. Even if this was true, the Ukrainians risk losing international support if they start killing civilians on purpose. Photos of dead children killed by Ukrainian forces is a sure way to raise questions that no one wants to be raised. It's better to leave them alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
poo poo happens in war but that doesn't give you a free pass to make that poo poo happen
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Illegal by whose law? Does the law come with the death penalty attached? Did a court sit in judgement of this dude? If you want to enter another country, you usually do so via official border checkpoints. You don't sneak in through unauthorised access points. Hence, illegal. If you are trying to sneak into a country that your country is at war with then yes, you should not be surprised if you get shot at or killed via other means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:poo poo happens in war but that doesn't give you a free pass to make that poo poo happen Exactly. Intentionality does matter if for no other reason than lowering the bar for it or something like it to happen again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2023 14:56
|
|
