Russia sentences Meta's communications director to six years in prison over "terrorism" charges

[GodisanAtheist]

New York Times work for you?

"Troop Deaths and Injuries in Ukraine War Near 500,000, U.S. Officials Say"

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

This pegs Ukraine's losses at just over 200K ...but readily admits that's based on Kiev's own reporting. And Kiev bans all western reporters from the battlefield. Given their record of honesty in war reporting is even worse than Moscows, I'd say the figure is substantially higher.


You misunderstand my intent. I'm merely trying to show you that no amount finger-pointing will change the realities here. Russia's military is stronger today than before the war began, and it -will- defend Crimea with all means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, we have Zelensky claiming the war won't end until he parks tanks in Red Square, and -- just over the last week -- we learn the US is planning to increase its "military advisors" in Ukraine by a substantial amount. Do you see an off ramp here for either side?

- Got it, so Ukrainian Casualties are clearly well below the 500K figure you initially quoted (granted that NYtimes link is paywalled so I can't check behind it). I like how this same report says Russians have suffered 300K casualties, and their numbers are not bolstered by civilian deaths, so those 300K will be composed almost entirely of Russian service personnel... that's *a lot* worse than the 50,000 killed I initially found, although 300K obviously includes every kind of wounded as well.

- Yes, Russia will have to accept defeat or the end of the human race through nuclear Armageddon. But unlike you, I am giving Russia all the agency here, this is entirely up to them and no one else as the aggressor.

 

[Endymio]

so Ukrainian Casualties are clearly well below the 500K figure you initially quoted

If we accept the Ukrainian MoD's data.

I like how this same report says Russians have suffered 300K casualties, and their numbers are not bolstered by civilian deaths,

Neither were the Ukrainian figures. The totals are for service personnel casualties only.

unlike you, I am giving Russia all the agency here, this is entirely up to them and no one else as the aggressor.

Before the war began, Ukraine had:
1. Funded paramilitary groups conducting terror attacks against ethnic Russians.
2. Stated intent to allow foreign heavy weapons at Russia's border (NATO membership)
3. Abrogated the treaty (Minsk II Accords) granting autonomy to Donbass
4. Threatened to (re) acquire nuclear weapons
5. Officially wrote a military defense plan to attack Russia in Crimea.

The US has attacked and invaded nations for just one of those five reasons. Russia had all five. You can argue right or wrong till you turn blue, but the reality is no amount of foreign aid will change the situation on the ground there.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

If we accept the Ukrainian MoD's data.


Neither were the Ukrainian figures. The totals are for service personnel casualties only.


Before the war began, Ukraine had:
1. Funded paramilitary groups conducting terror attacks against ethnic Russians.
2. Stated intent to allow foreign heavy weapons at Russia's border (NATO membership)
3. Abrogated the treaty (Minsk II Accords) granting autonomy to Donbass
4. Threatened to (re) acquire nuclear weapons
5. Officially wrote a military defense plan to attack Russia in Crimea.

The US has attacked and invaded nations for just one of those five reasons. Russia had all five. You can argue right or wrong till you turn blue, but the reality is no amount of foreign aid will change the situation on the ground there.

- Agreed, looks like Ukraine has had ~70K deaths and ~120K wounded according to US. Russia has had ~350K wounded and killed according to the US/UK

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

- You keep pretending the annexation of Crimea never happened, and that will always handicap any point you try to make. I mean I get that the annexation looks bad for your argument so you want to talk around it.

Let's compromise on this, just type out "Russia Annexed Crimea in 2014, which was Sovereign Ukrainian territory". No assigning blame, just want to make sure we all agree that this actually happened.

Bullet points 1-5 all happened after Russia took over a large portion of Ukrainian territory, so all of those points are meaningless regarding "who started it" if they all happened after Russia took over a large part of Ukraine.

 

[Endymio]

You keep pretending the annexation of Crimea never happened

Eh? No such thing. Crimea was annexed after 98% of the citizens there voted to rejoin Russia. You're likely not aware that Crimea first voted to secede from Ukraine in 1991, at the exact same time that Ukraine voted to separate itself from Russia. Ukraine refused to accept that vote, as it did when Crimea again voted to secede in 1994 and 1996.

The situation died down until 2014, when an ultranationalist faction seized power in Kiev, and immediately began repressing its ethnic Russian minority, which makes up nearly all of Crimea. And they made good on their threat, not only banning them from holding government office or position, but even from speaking their own language. Imagine if the US banned all African-Americans from working for the government, and banned all Hispanics from speaking Spanish!

You're also likely unaware that Khrushchev -- himself a Ukrainian -- illegally "gifted" Crimea from Russia to Ukraine, a move that violated both the Soviet and the Russian Constitution. In his autobiography, he called it his "birthday present" to Ukraine.

By the way, Poland just agreed to help Ukraine hunt down the 900,000+ Ukrainian men which fled to Poland when the war began. Poland is working on a plan to forcibly repatriate these refugees so they can forced to serve in Zelensky's war.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-ready-help-ukraine-get-military-age-men-back-minister-says-2024-04-24/

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I see the script is always the same: If Russia does it then there is a reason, an excuse, some handwaving to justify. US always bad. Russia/China always good.

@Endymio

- The vote in Crimea was held after Russian forces captured the Crimean Parliament and began forcibly converting Crimean residents to Russian citizenship, absolutely no election interference happening there right?

- A lot of bylines about Ukrainian/Crimean history. Have the Russians always been nice to Ukrainians or Crimean Tartars? Will Ukranians always be nice to Russians? Is that justification for invading another country and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (with hundreds of thousands to go)?

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes and a whole lot of Russians and Ukrainians are going to have to die to try and turn it into grape juice.

@ibnMuhammad

- Once again, taking agency away from Russia. Russia did not annex Crimea or amass troops and invade Ukraine, somehow it was actually someone else that made them do it! It's all [insert scapegoat of the day] here!

As an American I can openly say that the US Government lied about its casus belli and invaded Iraq under false pretenses. It is sad to see citizens of the rest of the world are not free to do the same of their governments when they undertake similar blunders.

 

[Endymio]

The vote in Crimea was held after Russian forces captured the Crimean Parliament and began forcibly converting Crimean residents to Russian citizenship

This is flatly false. I myself was in Crimea a few weeks before the vote occurred; the line of outside the Russian embassy -- Crimeans desperately seeking Russian citizenship after the recent coup in Kiev -- stretched more than a mile around the building. Nor does it explain similar votes in 1991, '94, and '96, even *before* an ultranationalist party in Kiev began brutally repressing the ethnic Russians who make a vast majority of Crimea.

Here's polling by the NY Times on the day of the election:

"...The outcome [of the vote], in a region that shares a language and centuries of history with Russia, was a foregone conclusion even before exit polls showed more than 93 percent of voters favoring secession...."

The NY Times reporter, try as he might, couldn't find a single person who opposed secession:

"“Our people must be united in Russia,” Yelena Parkholenko, 27, a manicurist with violet hair, said matter-of-factly after casting her vote in Simferopol... “We were not asked when Crimea was combined with Ukraine. Now they are asking us,” said Svetlana Fedotova, a small-business owner, who arrived to vote with her daughter, Yekaterina, and 9-month-old granddaughter Yelizaveta. “We’re Russian and we want to live in Russia ...
“I’m Orthodox, and Orthodoxy began in Crimea,” said Yury Lyudmilov, 72, a poet and film director with flowing white hair who came to vote under overcast skies in dark-tinted glasses. “Orthodox people must be reunited.” Lyudmilov added, “This is all Russia — greater Russia, minor Russia and white Russia...."

... In Simferopol’s Lenin Square a crowd of thousands celebrated late into the night creating a sea of Russian flags, pumping their fists in the air in victory and chanting “Russia! Russia! ...."

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/europe/crimea-ukraine-secession-vote-referendum.html

 

[Endymio]

@ibnMuhammad, not sure why your post was deleted, but I will add that -- as confirmed recently by German media -- all the way back during the 1991 signing of the Budapest Memorandum, NATO made promises to Russia that it would not expand eastward. And then, breaking those promises, added Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Romania, Albania, Croatia, and a few others I'm too lazy to spell. At Ukraine, Russia drew a red line ... a line that NATO thought was a bluff.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

This is flatly false. I myself was in Crimea a few weeks before the vote occurred; the line of outside the Russian embassy -- Crimeans desperately seeking Russian citizenship after the recent coup in Kiev -- stretched more than a mile around the building. Nor does it explain similar votes in 1991, '94, and '96, even *before* an ultranationalist party in Kiev began brutally repressing the ethnic Russians who make a vast majority of Crimea.

Here's polling by the NY Times on the day of the election:

"...The outcome [of the vote], in a region that shares a language and centuries of history with Russia, was a foregone conclusion even before exit polls showed more than 93 percent of voters favoring secession...."

The NY Times reporter, try as he might, couldn't find a single person who opposed secession:

"“Our people must be united in Russia,” Yelena Parkholenko, 27, a manicurist with violet hair, said matter-of-factly after casting her vote in Simferopol... “We were not asked when Crimea was combined with Ukraine. Now they are asking us,” said Svetlana Fedotova, a small-business owner, who arrived to vote with her daughter, Yekaterina, and 9-month-old granddaughter Yelizaveta. “We’re Russian and we want to live in Russia ...
“I’m Orthodox, and Orthodoxy began in Crimea,” said Yury Lyudmilov, 72, a poet and film director with flowing white hair who came to vote under overcast skies in dark-tinted glasses. “Orthodox people must be reunited.” Lyudmilov added, “This is all Russia — greater Russia, minor Russia and white Russia...."

... In Simferopol’s Lenin Square a crowd of thousands celebrated late into the night creating a sea of Russian flags, pumping their fists in the air in victory and chanting “Russia! Russia! ...."

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/europe/crimea-ukraine-secession-vote-referendum.html

- Alright, I'm willing to let that one go, it sounds like you're banking a lot on the idea of self determination and I can understand a predominantly ethnically Russian populace of Crimea wanting to rejoin Russia especially with the turmoil in Kiev, and especially with Russians in control of the Crimean Parliament.

I wouldn't hold it against anyone to vote the way the wind was blowing...

BUT...

@ibnMuhammad, not sure why your post was deleted, but I will add that -- as confirmed recently by German media -- all the way back during the 1991 signing of the Budapest Memorandum, NATO made promises to Russia that it would not expand eastward. And then, breaking those promises, added Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Romania, Albania, Croatia, and a few others I'm too lazy to spell. At Ukraine, Russia drew a red line ... a line that NATO thought was a bluff.

- You then turn around and say that more than a dozen other states (ironically, ex-Soviet states or border states that have a deep history with Russia) are not allowed the right of self determination to join NATO because of a pinky-promise between Russia and the United States.

Shouldn't the remainder of Ukraine have the right to self determine their allegiance to NATO?

The irony of referencing the Budapest Memorandum, which you claim "NATO" unofficially violated, while Russia literally violated it...

The lesson here is "never give up the nukes..."

 

[Endymio]

You then turn around and say that more than a dozen other states [are] not allowed the right of self determination to join NATO because of a pinky-promise

Sure, they're allowed to request membership. But is NATO allowed to break its promise to accept them?

But there's a more compelling point than debating "rights". If NATO's goal truly is peace in Europe, then forcing the issue on Ukraine accomplished the exact opposite. Before the push for Ukraine to join, there was peace in Europe. Now we're closer to nuclear war than at any point in world history.

Groups like Cato were predicting a full year beforehand that Biden's policies would lead to war in Ukraine. There wasn't just the official statements, but also actions like holding NATO 'training maneuvers' inside Ukraine, only a few miles from the Russian border. How would the US react to a joint Russian-Chinese-Iran military exercise in Mexico, 10 miles from the US? President Kennedy's finest hour supposedly was threatening nuclear war over a smaller provocation than that in Cuba.

Finally, I'll reiterate that, even laying aside the entire NATO issue, there were at least three other reasons Russia attacked Ukraine, all three of which the US has used in the past to justify its own attacks on small sovereign nations. How did you react then?

The lesson here is "never give up the nukes..."

Except Ukraine didn't "give" them up -- they were paid tens of billions of dollars for them. A very good deal, considering they lacked both the money and the technical means to maintain them. Boosted-fission warheads are not cans of beans. You can't simply put them on the shelf and ignore them for 30 years.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Sure, they're allowed to request membership. But is NATO allowed to break its promise to accept them?

But there's a more compelling point than debating "rights". If NATO's goal truly is peace in Europe, then forcing the issue on Ukraine accomplished the exact opposite. Before the push for Ukraine to join, there was peace in Europe. Now we're closer to nuclear war than at any point in world history.

Groups like Cato were predicting a full year beforehand that Biden's policies would lead to war in Ukraine. There wasn't just the official statements, but also actions like holding NATO 'training maneuvers' inside Ukraine, only a few miles from the Russian border. How would the US react to a joint Russian-Chinese-Iran military exercise in Mexico, 10 miles from the US? President Kennedy's finest hour supposedly was threatening nuclear war over a smaller provocation than that in Cuba.

Finally, I'll reiterate that, even laying aside the entire NATO issue, there were at least three other reasons Russia attacked Ukraine, all three of which the US has used in the past to justify its own attacks on small sovereign nations. How did you react then?


Except Ukraine didn't "give" them up -- they were paid tens of billions of dollars for them. A very good deal, considering they lacked both the money and the technical means to maintain them. Boosted-fission warheads are not cans of beans. You can't simply put them on the shelf and ignore them for 30 years.

- If a promise isn't in writing, then it's just hearsay. I don't see any NATO promises of stopping expansion and frankly NATO would have been insane to agree to it, especially given the desire of ex-soviet states to join NATO for collective defense from Russia and Russia's desire to invade or intervene in them.

-Sometimes the shortest line to peace is through War. I suspect by the end of the Ukranians conflict, Russia's ability to wage wars of conquest will be severely diminished, and Russia will fall further into the sphere of China's influence (much to India's disdain, they might try and bail Russia out just to prevent that from happening). China, for its many faults, is using the IMF strategy of bringing developing nations under its yolk through its belt and road initiative, a much more clever approach to silently building a global hegemony.

- In other threads you were of the mind that Biden was an appeaser, lifting sanctions on Nordstream and giving the greenlight for a small war, here you're saying he's actually been instigating this conflict...

- The US would not invade Mexico, I know that much. The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis either. You're inadvertently making my point, Russia had other avenues to approach this than invading, the problem is they see Ukraine like China sees Taiwan, wayward brethren rather than an independent nation.

-I don't support any US invasion of another sovereign country, and you certainly won't find me on the internet defending US invasions with every last bit of sophistry at my disposal.

-Ukraine would have been able to harvest and start a nuclear program, the fact that they lacked the hardcodes to directly use the nukes would have been circumvented in time. Unfortunately there was a bit too much optimism for the future when these decisions were made.

 

[Endymio]

the fact that they lacked the hardcodes to directly use the nukes would have been circumvented in time

The issue isn't "missing launch codes", it's the maintenance boosted-fission warheads require, everything from refreshing tritium gas (12 yr half-life) to replacing exotic components like krytron switches and precisely-cast chemical explosive lenses. With no past experience or test data, it would be easier for a Ukraine to start a nuclear weapons program from scratch than to maintain the components in those existing warheads.

If a promise isn't in writing, then it's just hearsay.

That's a copout. Besides the German reporting that such promises existed, there are many public pronouncements to the effect. Researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive have called these a "cascade of assurances" offered from NATO to limit their expansion eastward.

And you still ignore the point. Promises aside, if NATO's goal is "peace and stability in Europe", how does starting a major war -- a war which may turn nuclear -- help that cause?

I suspect by the end of the Ukranians conflict, Russia's ability to wage wars of conquest will be severely diminished

Except that even the US military brass is admitting that the war is helping Russia's military grow stronger. We've convinced them to reverse 30+ years of funding declines and rebuild their war machine, and the conflict has given them invaluable experience and data on modern US tactics. Just yesterday, the British Press reports this:

"Russia has found the critical vulnerability in Nato’s American tanks: ...
The arrival of the US M1A1 Abrams tanks in Ukraine was hailed as a turning point in the war. At $10 million a unit, the Nato stalwart was supposed to provide the armoured fist that would punch through Russian lines. [But] Russia’s use of hunter-killer drones has led to heavy casualties for the tanks....Two months after entering service, the Abrams tanks are now being withdrawn from the frontline. Five of the 31 tanks delivered last year have already been destroyed..."

Even worse is the fact that China -- a far larger threat to the US than Russia -- is silently watching the entire conflict. And learning. China now has priceless data on the capabilities of many of the US's top weapons platforms ... and, knowing Ukraine, actual physical copies of many of them.

- The US would not invade Mexico, I know that much.

Yes, and the US wouldn't invade tiny Grenada or Panama either, right? Or Serbia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, or a dozen other countries. The US will invade ANY nation on the thinnest of pretexts if it considers its national security at risk -- even inventing false intel to support that goal. If you doubt me, read about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam, the "WMD in Iraq", or who exactly helped fund the 2014 overthrow of the Ukraine government.