Saving UKRAINE is NOT Worth a War Between the USA and RUSSIA.

a reply to: alphacenturi


I agree on the msm civilian soldier hero worship propaganda.

We all see it, and understand why.

I doubt anyone here likes it.

We also know that war is hell, especially for civilians.



Few points though:

Most of the civilian fighters you hear about are 'barely' civilians.

They've received more training for a longer period than most understand.

Normal civilians can't do what they are in Ukraine, they just get slaughtered.

These are not normal civilians.

5 million have received roughly an equivalent to 'basic training' in a typically military.

Another 5 million were trained for support roles.

russia broadcast this invasion for a LONG time, and Ukraine didn't just sit idly by waiting to be conquered by russia.




Rougly half of Ukraine's army is keeping those 100k russian soldiers trapped in the hills north of Kiev, the rest are all over the country in very small groups leading the 5m Territorial Forces - those trained civilians.

It's these Territorial forces that have been doing nearly all the fighting in Ukrainian cities every time russian forces try to enter.

Ukraine is leaving most of the country undefended, they just don't have the equipment to hold more rural ground or go head to head with russian soldiers out in the open.

So they're mostly only defending cities and critical infrastructure.

Strategy and tactics that have worked very well so far.

Nothing is worth a nuclear Armageddon obviously but Russia is a known adversary and treats us like on at every opportunity. We cant let him run rampant in eastern Europe. So you want to give our enemy a free pass and let them do whatever he wants? Not gonna happen. All this Putin **** sucking here is making me sick. He is an enemy of the USA and should be treated like one. It aint going nuclear unless Russia itself is in immanent danger of being destroyed. And no, putting a ballistic missile shield or Ukraine in NATO does not warrant a Nuclear Armageddon. Stop making excuses.

March 8, 2022

FOXNEWS continues to stand above all others, in its attempt to gin up support among U.S. and global viewers and readers, for USA and NATO direct intervention in Ukraine.

Ironically, the Biden Administration is providing some the best material for Fox News. Take a look at this report on FoxNews.com today.

Blinken calls out Russia for attacks on civilians, as Biden admin war crimes review 'ongoing'

The story: www.foxnews.com...

FoxNews is using the "Civilians being Targeted" and the "War Crimes" emotional triggers, to push viewers/readers that much closer to picking the phone and calling their Congressperson to request direct NATO intervention, to "stop the carnage being inflicted by the Russians".

CBS News even ran an 8 minute segment at the top of their nightly newscast last evening to describe how Russia is "ramping up its horrific attacks on civilians in Ukraine".

Actually, several news outlets have been running with that emotional heart-tugging headline every day for the past 5 days.

You'd think MANY THOUSANDS of Ukraine civilians have been slaughtered by Russian Troops and Weaponry.

IN REALITY, the U.N. says as of 3.7.2022 the Civilian Death Toll in Ukraine stands at: 406.

Source: thehill.com...

War Crimes? The US killed over 80,000 women and children in Japan. Based on our history of "playing dirty", the U.S. needs to be more restrained at quickly pointing the finger at Putin, or anyone else, for killing civilians.

Let's hope Russia continues showing restraint in killing civilians. Avoid needless deaths, and deprive FoxNews (and War Mongers in general) the excuses they seek for pushing a direct war between the USA or NATO, and RUSSIA.

a reply to: carewemust

Let's hope Russia continues showing restraint in killing civilians.

How about not invading in the first place? It’s like saying your thankful a home invasion only killed one of your family members when it shouldn’t have happened at all.

I don’t want US troops on the ground in the Ukrainian, but “home” invasion on a nation cannot be tolerated either.

As far as Japan is concerned. The Nuclear bomb drops? Was there any indication Japan was going to surrender without a US based invasion of Japan? That would have resulted in the deaths of many Americans soldiers, and caused prolonged suffering with city to city fighting?

a reply to: carewemust

an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Sometimes it’s kinder to be immediately cruel than be on a road to hell paved with good intentions.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

The people are requesting to be armed. To defend their homes against foreign invaders who are bombing their cities and killing their people.

The people are of course well within their rights to arm themselves and defend themselves... but at what cost?

Military forces are considered fair game... innocent civilians are not considered fair game. The problem is that they have now blurred (if not completely erased) the lines between innocent civilians and military forces. By arming themselves and fighting the military forces, they have made themselves literal soldiers in the fight.

It makes it impossible to avoid attacks on civilians. Especially when those attacks come from residential buildings. At that point, everyone in that building is a target.

a reply to: Boadicea

You

Military forces are considered fair game...

I understand the logic. But back to the home invasion example. A person invades your personal home and you choose to use your firearm, your now a legitimate target for the person committing the home invasion?

a reply to: Boadicea

Medics carry guns too. They're not supposed to use them to attack, but it's good to have a weapon to defend yourself, even if you're a civilian.

a reply to: neutronflux

I understand the logic. But back to the home invasion example. A person invades your personal home and you choose to use your firearm, your now a legitimate target for the person committing the home invasion?

No, of course not.

I am saying that there are well established long standing accepted rules of engagement in war making very clear distinctions between military forces and civilians for the protection of innocent civilians in war zones. These rules of engagement are exactly why "terrorists" are called "terrorists" and not "soldiers" because they knowingly and deliberately target innocent civilians in acts of war for political purposes.

When civilians take up weapons and make war, they are no longer innocent civilians, but armed enemies. And, in this case, encouraged and empowered and emboldened by their Commander in Chief, Zelensky.

This may work out great for some Ukrainians... but it sure won't for all.

And I'm not at all sure how it will work out in future conflicts and wars...

a reply to: Cutepants

Medics carry guns too.

Thank you -- I'm not sure what to make of it though. Are you speaking about army medics, who I would expect to be armed. Or Red Cross medics? Who I would not expect to be armed. Or civilian medics? I hadn't really thought about it much before.

They're not supposed to use them to attack, but it's good to have a weapon to defend yourself, even if you're a civilian.

I think the relevance here (for civilians anyway) is that they are apparently restricted to defensive use, as opposed to offensive use against military forces. Medics are thought of as providing humanitarian assistance, not making war.

a reply to: Boadicea

When civilians take up weapons and make war, they are no longer innocent civilians, but armed enemies.

There people defending their homes to kick out an unjust invasion by another country.

90% of houses are damaged’: Russia’s Syria-honed tactics lay waste Ukraine towns

www.theguardian.com...

There have been terrible strikes on homes, schools and hospitals around Ukraine. But residents of both towns say the barrage of shelling, rocket assaults and airstrikes since the start of the war has damaged or destroyed nearly every building in their towns, a comprehensive devastation as yet unmatched elsewhere.

The Russian flag has now been raised over the ruins of Schastia. In Volnovakha, the attack is still so intense that dead bodies lie uncollected, says local MP Dmytro Lubinets. Ukrainians still brave enough to run rescue missions are going back only for the living.

Thousands of them are trapped in basements, with dwindling supplies of food and water, sheltering from an apparently senseless attack on a town Lubinets says has no military defenders in its centre. The line of contact is 20km away, he says.

What are you, from the Bobby Knight school of being violated?

'I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.''

www.nytimes.com...

Question to ATS Russian friends...

WHO takes over if Putin is ousted?

Would this be the 'Communist Party of the Russian Federation' (CPRF)?

a reply to: neutronflux

There people defending their homes to kick out an unjust invasion by another country.

That has already been acknowledged. And as I have said, EVERYONE has an absolute inalienable Natural right to defend and protect themselves.

But the rules of engagement are what they are. There is one rule for dealing with innocent civilians, who are not making war... and there is another rule for armed combatants who are making war. When civilians take up arms, they become armed combatants. Period.

And when armed combatants attack the invading force from residential buildings and neighborhoods, then the civilians and every building therein becomes a legitimate military target. There are plenty of stories about Ukrainian army forces (as well as armed civilians) attacking Russian forces from residential buildings, provoking return fire from the Russians.

Let's look at the humanitarian escape corridors. I read about a Russian commander killed by Ukrainian forces as he was helping people escape in one of these corridors.

'Today in Volnovakha, the commander of a separate reconnaissance battalion 'Sparta' of the Guard, Colonel Vladimir Zhoga, call sign Vokha, died heroically.

'He was mortally wounded while ensuring the exit of civilians.

''Sparta' covered the evacuation of civilians, mostly women and children. The Nazis opened fire on them...

ETA with my apologies: Russian separatist warlord who led Neo-Nazi 'Sparta' mob is shot dead during battle in eastern Ukraine town in fresh blow to Putin's floundering invasion

I do not know if this is true or not, or just propaganda, but I have not seen anyone refute it. I would very much like to know how these escape corridors are being managed, and by whom. If it is in fact Russians who are running them, and Ukrainian forces are attacking these Russians (and civilians), then it's Ukrainian forces which are putting these civilians in harm's way. And continue to put civilians in harm's way.

I'm not pretending to know the whole truth either way. Propaganda is out-of-control on both sides. And since I don't know the whole truth, I'm prepared to believe the best or worst either way. Although I expect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Question to ATS Russian friends...

Are only Russian "friends" allowed to answer then? Hope not... cause it's damn good question and I'm gonna answer you.

WHO takes over if Putin is ousted?

The Daily Mail is the only one I have seen address this question:

Who could replace Putin if he is toppled in a coup? The rogues' gallery of henchmen including spy chief who 'approved' Litvinenko poisoning who could assume control of Russia if president is overthrown

People need to be careful of what they wish for... because they just might get it. Is Putin the worst? Or could it actually get worse??? Especially if Putin is assassinated and his successor is hellbent on avenging their leader's death...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Obviously I'm not Russian but I hope you don't mind me offering my two penn'orth?

WHO takes over if Putin is ousted?

Whoever the US wants?
Mikhail Mishustin is the appointed successor I think, but I guess it would depend on who 'ousted' him and what level of support they had.

Would this be the 'Communist Party of the Russian Federation' (CPRF)?

The CPRF is the second largest political party in Russia....but it only has a membership of around 150,000 people, remarkably small for a nation of 145million.
Their manifesto is one of modern socialism....I don't think their proposed programme of nationalisation of many industries would go down too well with the numerous oligarchs and other vested interests.

To give some comparison Russian National Unity - an openly neo-Nazi party - has over 100,000 members.

By far the biggest party in Russia is the ruling United Russia with a membership of at least 2,000,000.
Apparently its a party of 'Russian conservatism' but the only thing consistent with its membership is support for and obedience to Putin.

As with most nationalities the vast majority of Russians just want to get on with their lives the best they can free from unnecessary interference from any political party.

a reply to: Boadicea

You

And when armed combatants attack the invading force from residential buildings and neighborhoods, then the civilians and every building therein becomes a legitimate military target

You missed the point..

The Russian flag has now been raised over the ruins of Schastia. In Volnovakha, the attack is still so intense that dead bodies lie uncollected, says local MP Dmytro Lubinets. Ukrainians still brave enough to run rescue missions are going back only for the living.

Thousands of them are trapped in basements, with dwindling supplies of food and water, sheltering from an apparently senseless attack on a town Lubinets says has no military defenders in its centre. The line of contact is 20km away, he says.

Civilians are already being targeted without picking up arms. So at what point does it become self defense from war crimes.

a reply to: Freeborn


Who ever Russian Citizens want.

None of anyone else's business unless their selection starts invading neighbors or threatening global nuclear annihilation over feelz again.

a reply to: Freeborn

I think you bring up a lot of good points Freeborn. Especially the part about most people of XYZ nationality have the same goals and interest in not being at war

I can’t think of a war after WW2 that we entered for the right reasons. I’m not saying they have all been bad, but they didn’t really accomplish anything other than killing a bunch of their citizens, our citizens and a few bad guys. Maybe I am getting old but the death and human cost just isn’t worth it

We had better be on the brink of unprovoked annihilation anymore. I couldnt stand to hear about one more drone strike that hit some family on the move, or maiming children because some tyrant decided to hide weapons among residential areas

The sad part is that’s exactly what they are doing to Ukraine

I won’t say we’re powerless to stop it, because we *could* send in conventional forces and dare Putin to push on. But if he called our bluff, now we have to decide between launching nukes or surrendering those folks to someone that has shown he is not a good person

I don’t think Putin is evil, necessarily, although he has done evil things. The poisoning of Mr Litvinenko, of several people I believe. Murder of political opponents, and now an unprovoked attack on their neighbor

Even if Putin was right about NATO expansion, take it up with us! Don’t single out Ukraine when the problem is supposedly NATO

To me, war is a racket that nobody wins or gains from. Minus a few narrow exceptions 😊 my 2c worth anyhow

a reply to: neutronflux

It is self defense neutronflux, the ICC is a court and I suspect they would reject the argument that Citizens taking up arms in self defense is the same as Citizens organizing into combat ready units

At least that is how I see it and my most sincere wish

Otherwise, they’re damned if they do damned if they don’t. If they don’t pick up arms they are at the whims of Russia. If they do, people call them combatants.

At the end of the day, if taking up arms and sticking it to an invader means some folks won’t have protection of the ICC, I say so be it. It will be worth it 😁 But like all courts, there is room for explanation and discussion not just cold interpretation of technical terms and statutes. I can see a dozen reasons to take up arms in self defense and not a combatant

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Boadicea

You missed the point..

No, actually, I did not miss anything. In fact, I addressed it head on:

And when armed combatants attack the invading force from residential buildings and neighborhoods, then the civilians and every building therein becomes a legitimate military target. There are plenty of stories about Ukrainian army forces (as well as armed civilians) attacking Russian forces from residential buildings, provoking return fire from the Russians.

The Russian flag has now been raised over the ruins of Schastia. In Volnovakha, the attack is still so intense that dead bodies lie uncollected, says local MP Dmytro Lubinets. Ukrainians still brave enough to run rescue missions are going back only for the living.

Thousands of them are trapped in basements, with dwindling supplies of food and water, sheltering from an apparently senseless attack on a town Lubinets says has no military defenders in its centre. The line of contact is 20km away, he says.

Can you guarantee that Russians were not attacked or fired upon from these buildings as has been reported and applauded? Can you guarantee that not one member of the Ukrainian military or one armed civilian did not first attack Russian forces from these buildings as has been reported and applauded?

Of course you can't. Which brings me back to my point:

And when armed combatants attack the invading force from residential buildings and neighborhoods, then the civilians and every building therein becomes a legitimate military target. There are plenty of stories about Ukrainian army forces (as well as armed civilians) attacking Russian forces from residential buildings, provoking return fire from the Russians.

Civilians are already being targeted without picking up arms.

Civilians have already picked up their arms... and used them. Not all, but some.

Which brings me back to my point:

And when armed combatants attack the invading force from residential buildings and neighborhoods, then the civilians and every building therein becomes a legitimate military target. There are plenty of stories about Ukrainian army forces (as well as armed civilians) attacking Russian forces from residential buildings, provoking return fire from the Russians.

So at what point does it become self defense from war crimes.

In theory, it's all self-defense. The real question is at what point do innocent civilians become armed combatants against the enemy? And the answer is as soon as they take up arms and use them aggressively.