By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Russian soldiers sent Olga Novikova, founder/director of Mariupol film festival video with her captured son demanding to pay 5000 Euro ransom for his life. If not they promised to send video of his execution. links in comments. pic.twitter.com/VBtauH45IZ
Two charming little actresses, Elizabeth and Sonya, of the city theatre of Mariupol. They both performed the role of Lucy in "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe".
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 15:06 - Nov 6 by Nthsuffolkblue
Thank you for providing the balance to this thread condemning Russia for their appalling disrespect for democracy and disgraceful invasion of Ukraine. A random map posted to an image sharing site without any accreditation claiming to show the rate of explosions in the occupied Donbas is powerful evidence indeed. A few questions relating to that:
What is the source of your data? Who was causing these explosions? Why would a full-scale invasion of Ukraine be a proportionate response to them?
How do you feel about the conclusion of the United Nations discussion on Russia's invasion? 143 countries condemn it. Only 5 countries voted against the resolution - North Korea, Russia, Syria, Belarus and Nicaragua. I have no idea why Nicaragua should vote that way, but I think it is pretty clear why Belarus, Syria and Russia themselves would. To get into bed with North Korea is not a good look. Even India and China did not vote against the resolution to condemn the invasion. The support for it among members of the UN is 2.7%.
The last two articles show how even India and China who did not vote with the 143 countries that passed the UN resolution to condemn Russia recognise that Russia are wrong to be invading Ukraine. You seem to be lacking in your defence so far.
Kia Ora! The express overnight train service from Vladivostock was running a bit late this morning. I shall have to have a word with ВолодÑ.
”What is the source of your data?
The OSCE. Was that not sufficiently clear? More specifically, their Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.
This organisation appears to have been the sole independent monitor of the ceasefire agreement, located on both sides of the frontline, prior to Russia’s invasion. I’m not able to find another independent, verifiable source but would be happy to learn of others should they exist.
”A random map posted to an image sharing site without any accreditation claiming to show the rate of explosions in the occupied Donbas is powerful evidence indeed.”
Well, apart from ‘random’ and ‘without any accreditation’, I agree with your statement. For clarity’s sake I will explain. I put the maps on an image hosting site, as recommended at www.twtd.co.uk/forum/faq#imagehd , because it is not possible to link directly to the maps from the source at www.osce.org as they are contained within .pdf files, nor, so far as I am aware, is it possible to insert an image into a forum comment on TWTD.
However the original maps are of better scale and detail and will help you to discern the facts more clearly. Perhaps then we may discuss the content of the information I posted rather than the method by which I did so?
Here is the report list, (you will have to excuse the ghastly url, the date range selected is that of the maps and chart already posted, Feb 14-22, 2022):
I wonder if we could possibly discern that from looking at these maps? Let’s take the one from the last of the above list. I shall have to resort to an image hosting site again if you don’t mind, at least you can check the direct link to the source above to make sure no nefarious Russian hacker has altered the image:
It’s abundantly clear on which side of the frontline the vast majority of these recorded ceasefire violations took place. Bear in mind these observations were made three days prior to the start of Russia’s 'special military operation'.
Should you still need to ask ”Who was causing these explosions?, further clues can be found in the above-linked .pdf reports as each also contains a Table of Ceasefire Violations which detail and enumerate the violations observed. Unlike the maps which present much of the same data in a more digestible graphical format, these can be directly linked from the source. Here is that from the same .pdf as the above map:
I'm not aware of more detailed information being available outside military circles so dive into the detail your heart’s content. I'm sure I can leave you to draw your own conclusions from the evidence presented.
But enough for now, there’s stuff to be done and I need to be up, installed in front of the screen, replete with bacon and eggs, equipped with a steaming great mug of black coffee in one paw by 7:45am tomorrow morning if I am to catch the big one down at Sandhurst.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 12:44 - Nov 7 with 6839 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:32 - Nov 7 by TeHuia
Kia Ora! The express overnight train service from Vladivostock was running a bit late this morning. I shall have to have a word with ВолодÑ.
”What is the source of your data?
The OSCE. Was that not sufficiently clear? More specifically, their Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.
This organisation appears to have been the sole independent monitor of the ceasefire agreement, located on both sides of the frontline, prior to Russia’s invasion. I’m not able to find another independent, verifiable source but would be happy to learn of others should they exist.
”A random map posted to an image sharing site without any accreditation claiming to show the rate of explosions in the occupied Donbas is powerful evidence indeed.”
Well, apart from ‘random’ and ‘without any accreditation’, I agree with your statement. For clarity’s sake I will explain. I put the maps on an image hosting site, as recommended at www.twtd.co.uk/forum/faq#imagehd , because it is not possible to link directly to the maps from the source at www.osce.org as they are contained within .pdf files, nor, so far as I am aware, is it possible to insert an image into a forum comment on TWTD.
However the original maps are of better scale and detail and will help you to discern the facts more clearly. Perhaps then we may discuss the content of the information I posted rather than the method by which I did so?
Here is the report list, (you will have to excuse the ghastly url, the date range selected is that of the maps and chart already posted, Feb 14-22, 2022):
I wonder if we could possibly discern that from looking at these maps? Let’s take the one from the last of the above list. I shall have to resort to an image hosting site again if you don’t mind, at least you can check the direct link to the source above to make sure no nefarious Russian hacker has altered the image:
It’s abundantly clear on which side of the frontline the vast majority of these recorded ceasefire violations took place. Bear in mind these observations were made three days prior to the start of Russia’s 'special military operation'.
Should you still need to ask ”Who was causing these explosions?, further clues can be found in the above-linked .pdf reports as each also contains a Table of Ceasefire Violations which detail and enumerate the violations observed. Unlike the maps which present much of the same data in a more digestible graphical format, these can be directly linked from the source. Here is that from the same .pdf as the above map:
I'm not aware of more detailed information being available outside military circles so dive into the detail your heart’s content. I'm sure I can leave you to draw your own conclusions from the evidence presented.
But enough for now, there’s stuff to be done and I need to be up, installed in front of the screen, replete with bacon and eggs, equipped with a steaming great mug of black coffee in one paw by 7:45am tomorrow morning if I am to catch the big one down at Sandhurst.
It seems you haven't fully grasped how the OSCE plot their maps. The issue is that the "ceasefire violations" can't be apportioned blame purely on where they appear. The OSCE have multiple categories of violation, and you can have a mix at one location.
For instance, an explosion caused by an enemy artillery shell exploding is a violation by the other side. HOWEVER if someone from that position (being in mind on that map scale they could be 5 miles away and be more or less on the same point) returns fire, that is another violation, but this time it's by the side where it was fired from.
You cannot discern detailed information from the OSCE maps and apportion blame, because they are not designed for that. It's indicative of violations occurring, but not a measure of who did what. They also don't list who violates because that's not their mission. You could go through the list of incidents, track location, type, direction to try and make a list, but you'd then run into the issue that the rebels repeatedly block attempts to monitor by the OSCE, shoot at their UAVs. Literally if you read the report for 21st Feb there are multiple incidents of non-compliance with the OSCE monitors. So they can't monitor the number of weapon systems in place, monitor for activity, etc...
It also misses out the key issue. Why did Russia have 100,000s of men staioned across a 2,000 mile border, including in 'neutral' countries, for just such an eventuality? I jokingly called it fortunate before, but considering they were amassing troops for months, it was even raised in defence committee in Parliament in November. The largest act of aggression up to the 24th Feb was Russian army movements along the length of the entire Ukraine Border. This was only surpassed by the invasion that followed and the war crimes left perpetrated in their wake.
1
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 12:49 - Nov 7 with 6837 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:32 - Nov 7 by TeHuia
Kia Ora! The express overnight train service from Vladivostock was running a bit late this morning. I shall have to have a word with ВолодÑ.
”What is the source of your data?
The OSCE. Was that not sufficiently clear? More specifically, their Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.
This organisation appears to have been the sole independent monitor of the ceasefire agreement, located on both sides of the frontline, prior to Russia’s invasion. I’m not able to find another independent, verifiable source but would be happy to learn of others should they exist.
”A random map posted to an image sharing site without any accreditation claiming to show the rate of explosions in the occupied Donbas is powerful evidence indeed.”
Well, apart from ‘random’ and ‘without any accreditation’, I agree with your statement. For clarity’s sake I will explain. I put the maps on an image hosting site, as recommended at www.twtd.co.uk/forum/faq#imagehd , because it is not possible to link directly to the maps from the source at www.osce.org as they are contained within .pdf files, nor, so far as I am aware, is it possible to insert an image into a forum comment on TWTD.
However the original maps are of better scale and detail and will help you to discern the facts more clearly. Perhaps then we may discuss the content of the information I posted rather than the method by which I did so?
Here is the report list, (you will have to excuse the ghastly url, the date range selected is that of the maps and chart already posted, Feb 14-22, 2022):
I wonder if we could possibly discern that from looking at these maps? Let’s take the one from the last of the above list. I shall have to resort to an image hosting site again if you don’t mind, at least you can check the direct link to the source above to make sure no nefarious Russian hacker has altered the image:
It’s abundantly clear on which side of the frontline the vast majority of these recorded ceasefire violations took place. Bear in mind these observations were made three days prior to the start of Russia’s 'special military operation'.
Should you still need to ask ”Who was causing these explosions?, further clues can be found in the above-linked .pdf reports as each also contains a Table of Ceasefire Violations which detail and enumerate the violations observed. Unlike the maps which present much of the same data in a more digestible graphical format, these can be directly linked from the source. Here is that from the same .pdf as the above map:
I'm not aware of more detailed information being available outside military circles so dive into the detail your heart’s content. I'm sure I can leave you to draw your own conclusions from the evidence presented.
But enough for now, there’s stuff to be done and I need to be up, installed in front of the screen, replete with bacon and eggs, equipped with a steaming great mug of black coffee in one paw by 7:45am tomorrow morning if I am to catch the big one down at Sandhurst.
It is also abundantly clear that the area mentioned was part of Ukraine and had been taken over by Russian backed militia. You could say it was an Ukrainian civil war that that should have nothing to do with Russia. This was Ukraine and Russia decided they wanted it, so which side was provoked here? Added to the fact that the tried to invade the rest of the country and not just protect the Russiafied part.
I note the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission mandate expired on 31 March 2022. I wonder why that would be the case?
1
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:53 - Nov 7 with 6772 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:32 - Nov 7 by TeHuia
Kia Ora! The express overnight train service from Vladivostock was running a bit late this morning. I shall have to have a word with ВолодÑ.
”What is the source of your data?
The OSCE. Was that not sufficiently clear? More specifically, their Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.
This organisation appears to have been the sole independent monitor of the ceasefire agreement, located on both sides of the frontline, prior to Russia’s invasion. I’m not able to find another independent, verifiable source but would be happy to learn of others should they exist.
”A random map posted to an image sharing site without any accreditation claiming to show the rate of explosions in the occupied Donbas is powerful evidence indeed.”
Well, apart from ‘random’ and ‘without any accreditation’, I agree with your statement. For clarity’s sake I will explain. I put the maps on an image hosting site, as recommended at www.twtd.co.uk/forum/faq#imagehd , because it is not possible to link directly to the maps from the source at www.osce.org as they are contained within .pdf files, nor, so far as I am aware, is it possible to insert an image into a forum comment on TWTD.
However the original maps are of better scale and detail and will help you to discern the facts more clearly. Perhaps then we may discuss the content of the information I posted rather than the method by which I did so?
Here is the report list, (you will have to excuse the ghastly url, the date range selected is that of the maps and chart already posted, Feb 14-22, 2022):
I wonder if we could possibly discern that from looking at these maps? Let’s take the one from the last of the above list. I shall have to resort to an image hosting site again if you don’t mind, at least you can check the direct link to the source above to make sure no nefarious Russian hacker has altered the image:
It’s abundantly clear on which side of the frontline the vast majority of these recorded ceasefire violations took place. Bear in mind these observations were made three days prior to the start of Russia’s 'special military operation'.
Should you still need to ask ”Who was causing these explosions?, further clues can be found in the above-linked .pdf reports as each also contains a Table of Ceasefire Violations which detail and enumerate the violations observed. Unlike the maps which present much of the same data in a more digestible graphical format, these can be directly linked from the source. Here is that from the same .pdf as the above map:
I'm not aware of more detailed information being available outside military circles so dive into the detail your heart’s content. I'm sure I can leave you to draw your own conclusions from the evidence presented.
But enough for now, there’s stuff to be done and I need to be up, installed in front of the screen, replete with bacon and eggs, equipped with a steaming great mug of black coffee in one paw by 7:45am tomorrow morning if I am to catch the big one down at Sandhurst.
The OSCE [is my source]. Was that not sufficiently clear?
That's part of a source, you need to root of the information (a book, a document, a link, etc), which you have now provided.
is it possible to insert an image into a forum comment on TWTD
Yes, it is. I would recommend ImgBB to insert images.
you will have to excuse the ghastly url
Don't worry, it is 2022, we've all seen a URL before. We'll cope.
Article as a whole You're going to great lengths to try and pin this on Ukraine. If you hadn't provided so much detail I'd consider you ill-informed. That you have clearly spent so much time and effort interacting with different sources make you come across as deluded or disingenuous. I don't trust you or your motives.
1. The US released information on Russia's intent to invade Ukraine months before the build up of military. It takes months to organize an invasion of a country such as Ukraine operationally, logistically and militarily. That they had detailed plans ready to go makes your assertions of a reactive measure look, frankly, stupid. 2. The ceasefire was between the Russian backed "separatists" and Ukraine. The breaking down of this ceasefire does not give Russia the right to invade, occupy and annex areas of Ukraine. This is not provocation, it is their right to defend their nation.
Could you imagine if Norwegians rose up in Suffolk, we sort to defend our country, so Norway invaded us, and then some moron on the internet said we provoked Norway because we had the right and courage to defend our land? It would be laughable if people did the same with Ukraine.
Your links
Interestingly, the weapons are all listed as not known. Meaning there is no proof of who fired the weapons, only the direction the came from. Seems as we saw undercover Russian units in Ukraine in every major city as soon as the war started means that we know Russia had operatives in the country before the war started. Operatives that could have easily fired the weapons themselves. We saw this happen in Crimea before Russia successfully annexed the region. And we have seen the Russians be more than happy to carry out false flag operations to legitimise other actions. Eg damaging the pipeline to Europe.
But enough for now, there’s stuff to be done and... It's a forum, you don't have to excuse yourself each time you decide to get another dose of RT News.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:53 - Nov 7 by Kropotkin123
The OSCE [is my source]. Was that not sufficiently clear?
That's part of a source, you need to root of the information (a book, a document, a link, etc), which you have now provided.
is it possible to insert an image into a forum comment on TWTD
Yes, it is. I would recommend ImgBB to insert images.
you will have to excuse the ghastly url
Don't worry, it is 2022, we've all seen a URL before. We'll cope.
Article as a whole You're going to great lengths to try and pin this on Ukraine. If you hadn't provided so much detail I'd consider you ill-informed. That you have clearly spent so much time and effort interacting with different sources make you come across as deluded or disingenuous. I don't trust you or your motives.
1. The US released information on Russia's intent to invade Ukraine months before the build up of military. It takes months to organize an invasion of a country such as Ukraine operationally, logistically and militarily. That they had detailed plans ready to go makes your assertions of a reactive measure look, frankly, stupid. 2. The ceasefire was between the Russian backed "separatists" and Ukraine. The breaking down of this ceasefire does not give Russia the right to invade, occupy and annex areas of Ukraine. This is not provocation, it is their right to defend their nation.
Could you imagine if Norwegians rose up in Suffolk, we sort to defend our country, so Norway invaded us, and then some moron on the internet said we provoked Norway because we had the right and courage to defend our land? It would be laughable if people did the same with Ukraine.
Your links
Interestingly, the weapons are all listed as not known. Meaning there is no proof of who fired the weapons, only the direction the came from. Seems as we saw undercover Russian units in Ukraine in every major city as soon as the war started means that we know Russia had operatives in the country before the war started. Operatives that could have easily fired the weapons themselves. We saw this happen in Crimea before Russia successfully annexed the region. And we have seen the Russians be more than happy to carry out false flag operations to legitimise other actions. Eg damaging the pipeline to Europe.
But enough for now, there’s stuff to be done and... It's a forum, you don't have to excuse yourself each time you decide to get another dose of RT News.
And, for some reason, the part TeHuia chose not to respond to:
"How do you feel about the conclusion of the United Nations discussion on Russia's invasion? 143 countries condemn it. Only 5 countries voted against the resolution - North Korea, Russia, Syria, Belarus and Nicaragua. I have no idea why Nicaragua should vote that way, but I think it is pretty clear why Belarus, Syria and Russia themselves would. To get into bed with North Korea is not a good look. Even India and China did not vote against the resolution to condemn the invasion. The support for it among members of the UN is 2.7%.
The last two articles show how even India and China who did not vote with the 143 countries that passed the UN resolution to condemn Russia recognise that Russia are wrong to be invading Ukraine. You seem to be lacking in your defence so far."
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 19:42 - Nov 7 by Nthsuffolkblue
And, for some reason, the part TeHuia chose not to respond to:
"How do you feel about the conclusion of the United Nations discussion on Russia's invasion? 143 countries condemn it. Only 5 countries voted against the resolution - North Korea, Russia, Syria, Belarus and Nicaragua. I have no idea why Nicaragua should vote that way, but I think it is pretty clear why Belarus, Syria and Russia themselves would. To get into bed with North Korea is not a good look. Even India and China did not vote against the resolution to condemn the invasion. The support for it among members of the UN is 2.7%.
The last two articles show how even India and China who did not vote with the 143 countries that passed the UN resolution to condemn Russia recognise that Russia are wrong to be invading Ukraine. You seem to be lacking in your defence so far."
"the part TeHuia chose not to respond to"
You may have overlooked my earlier comment ”It is hard to condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine and I wouldn't attempt to do so.”. The UN vote is what I'd expect, I don't have any feelings about it.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 12:44 - Nov 7 by Kievthegreat
It seems you haven't fully grasped how the OSCE plot their maps. The issue is that the "ceasefire violations" can't be apportioned blame purely on where they appear. The OSCE have multiple categories of violation, and you can have a mix at one location.
For instance, an explosion caused by an enemy artillery shell exploding is a violation by the other side. HOWEVER if someone from that position (being in mind on that map scale they could be 5 miles away and be more or less on the same point) returns fire, that is another violation, but this time it's by the side where it was fired from.
You cannot discern detailed information from the OSCE maps and apportion blame, because they are not designed for that. It's indicative of violations occurring, but not a measure of who did what. They also don't list who violates because that's not their mission. You could go through the list of incidents, track location, type, direction to try and make a list, but you'd then run into the issue that the rebels repeatedly block attempts to monitor by the OSCE, shoot at their UAVs. Literally if you read the report for 21st Feb there are multiple incidents of non-compliance with the OSCE monitors. So they can't monitor the number of weapon systems in place, monitor for activity, etc...
It also misses out the key issue. Why did Russia have 100,000s of men staioned across a 2,000 mile border, including in 'neutral' countries, for just such an eventuality? I jokingly called it fortunate before, but considering they were amassing troops for months, it was even raised in defence committee in Parliament in November. The largest act of aggression up to the 24th Feb was Russian army movements along the length of the entire Ukraine Border. This was only surpassed by the invasion that followed and the war crimes left perpetrated in their wake.
TÄ“nÄ koe Kievthegreat
Forgive me if I mistakenly assume from your username that you are not an impartial observer in these matters.
Please allow me to paraphrase your comments as I interpret them:
Point 1. Maps are very complicated, only very, very brainy people can understand them.
Point 2. These maps only appear to show 90% of the explosions took place in non-government held areas. But this is misleading. Those explosions definitely did not occur as a result of activities directed from government held areas. This is proven by Point 1.
Which does rather beg the question; if the attacks did not come from the Ukrainian side from where did they originate?
If your assertion is correct then either the DNR/LNR statelets bombed themselves or it was those crazy Russians.
Sorry mate, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.
”It also misses out the key issue. Why did Russia have 100,000s of men staioned across a 2,000 mile border”.
You may not have noticed that I answered the same question on Sunday:
"Do you believe it was merely fortuitous that Russia had stationed an enormous collection of armed forces all along the border at just the moment the escalation occurred?"
To which my reply was, and remains:
I think it probable Russia had advance knowledge of the attacks which the information I am providing you with documents to have taken place prior to their invasion. One might imagine they would prepare accordingly.
Ka kite anÅ
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:45 - Nov 8 with 6622 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:21 - Nov 8 by TeHuia
TÄ“nÄ koe Kievthegreat
Forgive me if I mistakenly assume from your username that you are not an impartial observer in these matters.
Please allow me to paraphrase your comments as I interpret them:
Point 1. Maps are very complicated, only very, very brainy people can understand them.
Point 2. These maps only appear to show 90% of the explosions took place in non-government held areas. But this is misleading. Those explosions definitely did not occur as a result of activities directed from government held areas. This is proven by Point 1.
Which does rather beg the question; if the attacks did not come from the Ukrainian side from where did they originate?
If your assertion is correct then either the DNR/LNR statelets bombed themselves or it was those crazy Russians.
Sorry mate, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.
”It also misses out the key issue. Why did Russia have 100,000s of men staioned across a 2,000 mile border”.
You may not have noticed that I answered the same question on Sunday:
"Do you believe it was merely fortuitous that Russia had stationed an enormous collection of armed forces all along the border at just the moment the escalation occurred?"
To which my reply was, and remains:
I think it probable Russia had advance knowledge of the attacks which the information I am providing you with documents to have taken place prior to their invasion. One might imagine they would prepare accordingly.
Ka kite anÅ
Sorry mate, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.
You're fooling no one, you don't pass the smell test. Disingenuous and/or duplicitous.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 01:39 - Nov 8 by TeHuia
"the part TeHuia chose not to respond to"
You may have overlooked my earlier comment ”It is hard to condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine and I wouldn't attempt to do so.”. The UN vote is what I'd expect, I don't have any feelings about it.
My apologies. Your opening salvo that the thread lacked balance appeared to be an attempt to defend Russia as did your suggestion that explosions in the Donbas in February somehow held special relevance.
Clearly, even you accept the Russian invasion is indefensible and so see there is no need for redressing any balance in the thread.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 02:21 - Nov 8 by TeHuia
TÄ“nÄ koe Kievthegreat
Forgive me if I mistakenly assume from your username that you are not an impartial observer in these matters.
Please allow me to paraphrase your comments as I interpret them:
Point 1. Maps are very complicated, only very, very brainy people can understand them.
Point 2. These maps only appear to show 90% of the explosions took place in non-government held areas. But this is misleading. Those explosions definitely did not occur as a result of activities directed from government held areas. This is proven by Point 1.
Which does rather beg the question; if the attacks did not come from the Ukrainian side from where did they originate?
If your assertion is correct then either the DNR/LNR statelets bombed themselves or it was those crazy Russians.
Sorry mate, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.
”It also misses out the key issue. Why did Russia have 100,000s of men staioned across a 2,000 mile border”.
You may not have noticed that I answered the same question on Sunday:
"Do you believe it was merely fortuitous that Russia had stationed an enormous collection of armed forces all along the border at just the moment the escalation occurred?"
To which my reply was, and remains:
I think it probable Russia had advance knowledge of the attacks which the information I am providing you with documents to have taken place prior to their invasion. One might imagine they would prepare accordingly.
Ka kite anÅ
You are mistaken about my username. Actually entirely unrelated to Ukraine, although if it had been, I'd have changed it to "Kyiv the Great".
Onto the rest, your paraphrasing is wrong:
Point 1: The maps aren't showing enough data, in precise enough fashion to be measuring the amount of violations from each side.
Point 2: There are supposedly 300+ explosions marked small blue dots and nearly 2000 other violations denoted with the coloured circles of varying colours. There are clearly not 300 blue dots plotted as many are overlapping, so you can't tell me how many explosions there were in each dot. I then explain that the shaded areas are for ceasefire violations full stop. I then reiterate (this will be the third time) that the location of a violation (again, the shaded areas) does not tell you who perpetrated it. If you want to know, start categorising the final PDF you shared.
As for your remarks that :
"I think it probable Russia had advance knowledge of the attacks which the information I am providing you with documents to have taken place prior to their invasion. One might imagine they would prepare accordingly."
My question would be who attacked who? I see 2 sides in an internal conflict lobbing artillery at each other, then a 3rd unrelated force launching attacks hundreds of miles away from the flashpoints at completely unrelated areas with no strategic relevance to the initial conflict zone. Unless of course the attacks had little to do with the existing conflagration and were intended to expand the war to the entirety of Ukraine.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 03:23 - Nov 9 with 6322 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 23:25 - Nov 8 by Kievthegreat
You are mistaken about my username. Actually entirely unrelated to Ukraine, although if it had been, I'd have changed it to "Kyiv the Great".
Onto the rest, your paraphrasing is wrong:
Point 1: The maps aren't showing enough data, in precise enough fashion to be measuring the amount of violations from each side.
Point 2: There are supposedly 300+ explosions marked small blue dots and nearly 2000 other violations denoted with the coloured circles of varying colours. There are clearly not 300 blue dots plotted as many are overlapping, so you can't tell me how many explosions there were in each dot. I then explain that the shaded areas are for ceasefire violations full stop. I then reiterate (this will be the third time) that the location of a violation (again, the shaded areas) does not tell you who perpetrated it. If you want to know, start categorising the final PDF you shared.
As for your remarks that :
"I think it probable Russia had advance knowledge of the attacks which the information I am providing you with documents to have taken place prior to their invasion. One might imagine they would prepare accordingly."
My question would be who attacked who? I see 2 sides in an internal conflict lobbing artillery at each other, then a 3rd unrelated force launching attacks hundreds of miles away from the flashpoints at completely unrelated areas with no strategic relevance to the initial conflict zone. Unless of course the attacks had little to do with the existing conflagration and were intended to expand the war to the entirety of Ukraine.
E koro mÄ, tÄ“nÄ koutou
"You are mistaken about my username."
I stand corrected and offer my unreserved apology.
My point in posting this was to provide some information to support the opinion that the Russian invasion of Feb 24 was not "unprovoked", as I was requested to do.
What I chose to post in order to do so is factual, properly sourced and reasonably intelligible. You may choose not to see what I see when I look at the data, that is your prerogative. Even so, it still begs the question I previously posed, does it not?
But rather than belabour the point, perhaps I should let Prof. Chomsky have his say, it is of course only his opinion. Though it's two months old I only came across this yesterday, the channel name may provoke some mirth.
Right now if you're a respectable writer and you want to write in the main journals, if you talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you have to call it 'the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine'. It's a very interesting phrase; it was never used before. You look back, you look at Iraq, which was totally unprovoked, nobody ever called it 'the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.' In fact I don't know if the term was ever used – if it was it was very marginal. Now you look it up on Google, and hundreds of thousands of hits. Every article that comes out has to talk about the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked. That doesn't justify it, but it was massively provoked. Top US diplomats have been talking about this for 30 years, even the head of the CIA.
After all, if the invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, why have so many western experts spent years warning that the actions of western governments would provoke an invasion of Ukraine?
Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the same path.
No-one listened to them and here we are.
Small compilation 🧵 of these warnings, from Kissinger to Mearsheimer.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 01:39 - Nov 8 by TeHuia
"the part TeHuia chose not to respond to"
You may have overlooked my earlier comment ”It is hard to condone Russia's invasion of Ukraine and I wouldn't attempt to do so.”. The UN vote is what I'd expect, I don't have any feelings about it.
You said it’s hard to condone Russia’s invasion of Ukraine then proceeded to do so.
It’s ok, in this country you are allowed to say that and support Putin and Russia if you wish to. Many people do.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 08:37 - Nov 9 with 6269 views
US mid term elections may well result in US military support for Ukraine waining. It wouldn’t surprise me and I suspect it’s something Putin in factoring in.
The Republicans see it as them paying while Europe keeps its hands in its pockets. Looking at the stats, they are right. The support provided by European countries, including the U.K. is well short of what the Americans have provided. Pathetic by anyone’s standards.
How constrained Biden will be after these elections will be interesting.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:30 - Nov 9 with 6225 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 08:37 - Nov 9 by Churchman
US mid term elections may well result in US military support for Ukraine waining. It wouldn’t surprise me and I suspect it’s something Putin in factoring in.
The Republicans see it as them paying while Europe keeps its hands in its pockets. Looking at the stats, they are right. The support provided by European countries, including the U.K. is well short of what the Americans have provided. Pathetic by anyone’s standards.
How constrained Biden will be after these elections will be interesting.
I think there may well be a reduction, but I do believe that support will still continue. The Republican party is not unified on the topic of Ukraine with many still wanting to support Ukraine. I think Congress (assuming it actually does turn red) will still authorise military aid, but likely at some reciprocal political cost now.
Also when talking about aid, it's always worth pointing out just how much the Baltic countries and Poland are doing relative to their size with Poland alone sending over 250 tanks, while also taking in a disproportionate amount of refugees too and supplying a disproportionate amount of humanitarian aid.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 12:01 - Nov 9 with 6202 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 08:37 - Nov 9 by Churchman
US mid term elections may well result in US military support for Ukraine waining. It wouldn’t surprise me and I suspect it’s something Putin in factoring in.
The Republicans see it as them paying while Europe keeps its hands in its pockets. Looking at the stats, they are right. The support provided by European countries, including the U.K. is well short of what the Americans have provided. Pathetic by anyone’s standards.
How constrained Biden will be after these elections will be interesting.
Oh look, a squirrel.
>Pathetic by anyone’s standards.
Fair call mate. Moar war.
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 14:54 - Nov 9 with 6141 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:30 - Nov 9 by Kievthegreat
I think there may well be a reduction, but I do believe that support will still continue. The Republican party is not unified on the topic of Ukraine with many still wanting to support Ukraine. I think Congress (assuming it actually does turn red) will still authorise military aid, but likely at some reciprocal political cost now.
Also when talking about aid, it's always worth pointing out just how much the Baltic countries and Poland are doing relative to their size with Poland alone sending over 250 tanks, while also taking in a disproportionate amount of refugees too and supplying a disproportionate amount of humanitarian aid.
Indeed, the Baltic States and Poland have done their share - Poland has had refugees to deal with too. My point is really towards Britain, France, Germany and Italy
0
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 14:58 - Nov 9 with 6138 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 12:01 - Nov 9 by distractored
Oh look, a squirrel.
>Pathetic by anyone’s standards.
Fair call mate. Moar war.
Not quite sure what you mean.
I don’t think anyone is advocating any war. Only Putin has done that. The choice is to force him back to his own country or give him what he wants. There is no viable third way that I have seen.
1
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 16:46 - Nov 9 with 6107 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 03:23 - Nov 9 by TeHuia
E koro mÄ, tÄ“nÄ koutou
"You are mistaken about my username."
I stand corrected and offer my unreserved apology.
My point in posting this was to provide some information to support the opinion that the Russian invasion of Feb 24 was not "unprovoked", as I was requested to do.
What I chose to post in order to do so is factual, properly sourced and reasonably intelligible. You may choose not to see what I see when I look at the data, that is your prerogative. Even so, it still begs the question I previously posed, does it not?
But rather than belabour the point, perhaps I should let Prof. Chomsky have his say, it is of course only his opinion. Though it's two months old I only came across this yesterday, the channel name may provoke some mirth.
Right now if you're a respectable writer and you want to write in the main journals, if you talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you have to call it 'the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine'. It's a very interesting phrase; it was never used before. You look back, you look at Iraq, which was totally unprovoked, nobody ever called it 'the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.' In fact I don't know if the term was ever used – if it was it was very marginal. Now you look it up on Google, and hundreds of thousands of hits. Every article that comes out has to talk about the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked. That doesn't justify it, but it was massively provoked. Top US diplomats have been talking about this for 30 years, even the head of the CIA.
After all, if the invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, why have so many western experts spent years warning that the actions of western governments would provoke an invasion of Ukraine?
Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the same path.
No-one listened to them and here we are.
Small compilation 🧵 of these warnings, from Kissinger to Mearsheimer.
What I chose to post in order to do so is factual, properly sourced and reasonably intelligible.
- No it wasn't. - You started with an inaccurate opinion piece from the pope and an incorrectly referenced organisation. - We then bought up sources that gave full quotes. - You then backtracked on the importance of the pope's drivel, and presented a different organisation. - You then presented information that demonstrated you didn't understand the information you were presenting. - You now continue to provide opinion pieces. This time from well known American media and government critic as if this is some sort of balanced piece. - You also choose to ignore all evidence to contradicts your pre-formed opinion.
perhaps I should let Prof. Chomsky have his say,
You don't let him have his own say. You chose to infer your own questionable interpretation: Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked. - It is perfectly reasonable to infer that the reason why the media didn't use unprovoked when reporting on Iraq is because they supported the invading country's illegal war. - It is perfectly reasonable to infer that the reason why the media uses unprovoked in Russia's unprovoked illegal war is because Russia called it a "special military operation". - By bringing in opinion pieces by Chomsky, you are attempting, either purposefully or otherwise, to control the discourse by shifting away from the facts.
It is clear you have no intention of reaching some sort of objective truth, you are just here to spread misinformation.
1. Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation 2. It defended its own territory 3. Ukraine's actions to defend it's own territory is not provocation 4. Russia has no legal basis to invade Ukraine 5. Russia has no legal basis to annex Ukrainian territory
In the context of millions displaced, mass graves of civilians, tens of thousands dead, the threat of nuclear war, the targeting of civilian infrastructure such as water and heating, your continued focus on pushing a fictional narrative with misunderstood sources, unintelligible opinion pieces and bias opinion pieces is disgusting.
[Post edited 9 Nov 2022 16:49]
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 08:37 - Nov 9 by Churchman
US mid term elections may well result in US military support for Ukraine waining. It wouldn’t surprise me and I suspect it’s something Putin in factoring in.
The Republicans see it as them paying while Europe keeps its hands in its pockets. Looking at the stats, they are right. The support provided by European countries, including the U.K. is well short of what the Americans have provided. Pathetic by anyone’s standards.
How constrained Biden will be after these elections will be interesting.
The US is the biggest country supporting Ukraine in terms of GDP, population and military spend. You can't expect Poland, for example, to match the USA unless you consider it was a percentage of the money they make.
With this taken into account there are countries contributing more. I was also critical of France (and they can do more), but their military exports are main around things that are not useful, such as ships. They have also given more valuable military equipment than Poland, for example, but have forces committeed elsewhere. The person I spoke with in France suggested Mali and a couple of other nations, and pulling out of there would have a destabilising impact.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
I amongst all the discussions about OCSE maps and reports, missed the welcome news that the Russians have publically stated they are withdrawing from Kherson.
May 6: "Russia is here forever"
November 9: "Having assessed the current situation from all sides, it is proposed to set up defense on the left bank of the Dnipro river. I understand this is a very difficult decision"https://t.co/CyXh9M9d8o
The question now will likely revolve around how orderly the retreat is and whether Ukraine can capitalise to either cause significant damage to the rear guard, or they can capture heavy equipment that Russians cany retreat with.
1
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 12:37 - Nov 10 with 5935 views
The 'special military operation' continues to reach new lows. on 11:30 - Nov 9 by Kievthegreat
I think there may well be a reduction, but I do believe that support will still continue. The Republican party is not unified on the topic of Ukraine with many still wanting to support Ukraine. I think Congress (assuming it actually does turn red) will still authorise military aid, but likely at some reciprocal political cost now.
Also when talking about aid, it's always worth pointing out just how much the Baltic countries and Poland are doing relative to their size with Poland alone sending over 250 tanks, while also taking in a disproportionate amount of refugees too and supplying a disproportionate amount of humanitarian aid.
Particularly when you have headers like these.
Rep. @AOC was heckled at a town hall in the Bronx with some distinctly pro-Russian talking points. https://t.co/w8FEkZ93hV
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
Just spotted the appropriate last URL