Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

RT. Good grief!

[Spud]

RT. Good grief!

RT is banned in the UK.
I'm 24 minutes into the video, it's showing Mariupol and saying Azov shelled it, destroying every building, then Russia liberated it and enabled the kids to go to school again. Is it just me or is this the opposite of what we were told was happening?

[Maeght]

RT is banned in the UK.
I'm 24 minutes into the video, it's showing Mariupol and saying Azov shelled it, destroying every building, then Russia liberated it and enabled the kids to go to school again. Is it just me or is this the opposite of what we were told was happening?

Why are you surprised?

[jeremyp]

RT is banned in the UK.
I'm 24 minutes into the video, it's showing Mariupol and saying Azov shelled it, destroying every building, then Russia liberated it and enabled the kids to go to school again. Is it just me or is this the opposite of what we were told was happening?

Can you explain why, when Ukraine liberates bits of territory that Russia invaded, the civilians always seem to be really happy, even the ones who speak Russian as a first language?

[Spud]

Can you explain why, when Ukraine liberates bits of territory that Russia invaded, the civilians always seem to be really happy, even the ones who speak Russian as a first language?

Maybe those come from places outside Donbass, like Kherson and Kharkov? The film is mainly about the liberation of LNR and DNR.

[ad_orientem]

Maybe those come from places outside Donbass, like Kherson and Kharkov? The film is mainly about the liberation of LNR and DNR.

The Russians bombed the shit out of Mariupol. Russia always lies. It worries me that you still don't get that but I suppose that's what happens when you simp for dictators.

[Spud]

The Russians bombed the shit out of Mariupol. Russia always lies. It worries me that you still don't get that but I suppose that's what happens when you simp for dictators.

Maybe they did, but the claim in the film is that the Ukrainian military had already been shelling Mariupol since 2014. The aim then is to verify whether the people there welcomed the Russian liberation.

[ad_orientem]

Maybe they did, but the claim in the film is that the Ukrainian military had already been shelling Mariupol since 2014. The aim then is to verify whether the people there welcomed the Russian liberation.

That doesn't make any sense. Ukraine didn't lose control of Mariupol until the spring of this year. The nearest frontline was at least a good 20km away.

[Spud]

That doesn't make any sense. Ukraine didn't lose control of Mariupol until the spring of this year. The nearest frontline was at least a good 20km away.

Ok, sorry - it's people from towns in the border regions eg Golubovka who reported Ukrainian shelling over the 8 years, not people from Mariupol.
At 16 minutes people in Mariupol report that when the Russians arrived, Azov regiment began firing on residential buildings, setting booby traps and shooting civilians. It seems like it was a scorched earth strategy.

[Spud]

At 19 minutes they describe how from 22 February the Ukrainians taking up firing positions on the 7th, 8th and 9th floors of blocks of flats having kicked out the residents. That would be why the Russians shelled the buildings.

[Maeght]

At 19 minutes they describe how from 22 February the Ukrainians taking up firing positions on the 7th, 8th and 9th floors of blocks of flats having kicked out the residents. That would be why the Russians shelled the buildings.

That's the reason given. What makes you think it is accurate?

[Spud]

That's the reason given. What makes you think it is accurate?

Why would the Russians shell apartment blocks believing no military were in them, then after taking the city, give out food to civilians and allow schools to start back up?

[Spud]

Ukraine is in an existential war at the moment. How do you not understand this? If they weakened their resolve in any way, Ukraine will soon cease to exist.

The problem seems to be that they use terrorist tactics to achieve that. If they allowed the Russian-speaking Donbass to become autonomous and agreed on non-NATO status, the rest of Ukraine could westernize as it chose to.

[Spud]

The Russians can stop the starvation today by withdrawing from Ukraine.

The article was written in December 2014. If Ukraine wanted to give Russia a humanitarian reason to intervene at that time, cutting off the economy of Donbass was it. Is there starvation in Donbass now?

[Spud]

Here is the 2016 documentary, Ukraine on Fire.
At 25:28 begins Oliver Stone's interview with Viktor Yanukovych, who explains why he decided to reject the EU treaty in November 2013 in favour of closer ties with Russia.

[Maeght]

Why would the Russians shell apartment blocks believing no military were in them, then after taking the city, give out food to civilians and allow schools to start back up?

Perhaps because they thought there might be and didn't really care if they were right or not so did it anyway. Did they know the residents had been kicked out? Did they care? I don't know the answers to any of those questions as I don't know what is true - but just interested as to why you seem to believe everything RT and other pro-Russian sources say regardless.

Any force which occupies territory needs the local population to be on side or at least to accept the occupation and not resist. Giving out food, if they did, is about 'hearts and minds' surely.

[Maeght]

Here is the 2016 documentary, Ukraine on Fire.
At 25:28 begins Oliver Stone's interview with Viktor Yanukovych, who explains why he decided to reject the EU treaty in November 2013 in favour of closer ties with Russia.

Oliver Stone has always presented a particular world view in his films/documentaries.

From Wikipedia 'He has been frequently critical of American foreign policy, which he considers to be driven by nationalist and imperialist agendas. In addition, he has approved of politicians such as Hugo Chávez, and interviewed several world leaders, including Vladimir Putin.'

Not saying you should ignore his views but understand that he has a particular view which he presents in his work.

Have you read the 'Reception' section of the Wikipedia page about that documentary?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_on_Fire

[jeremyp]

The problem seems to be that they use terrorist tactics to achieve that.

They are at war with Russia. How can you not see that?

If they allowed the Russian-speaking Donbass to become autonomous and agreed on non-NATO status, the rest of Ukraine could westernize as it chose to.

Why should they? Why let Russia steal their territory?

[jeremyp]

Why would the Russians shell apartment blocks believing no military were in them,

Because they are murderous bastards.

[Spud]

Perhaps because they thought there might be and didn't really care if they were right or not so did it anyway. Did they know the residents had been kicked out? Did they care? I don't know the answers to any of those questions as I don't know what is true - but just interested as to why you seem to believe everything RT and other pro-Russian sources say regardless.

I think if we're going to be fed information from our own media then we the public should be able to hear both sides of the story. RT was a useful source for the Russian perspective before it was banned.

Any force which occupies territory needs the local population to be on side or at least to accept the occupation and not resist. Giving out food, if they did, is about 'hearts and minds' surely.

It was more than just giving out food, it was not killing them, as the Azov soldiers had done.

[Spud]

They are at war with Russia. How can you not see that?
Why should they? Why let Russia steal their territory?

We've been through this and I can't really do any more but refer you to the links. My opinion is that our government have been sending weapons that are being used not just on Russian soldiers but on civilians (deliberately) and anyone who disagrees with the nationalist agenda.

[Maeght]

I think if we're going to be fed information from our own media then we the public should be able to hear both sides of the story. RT was a useful source for the Russian perspective before it was banned.
It was more than just giving out food, it was not killing them, as the Azov soldiers had done.

But you seem to take RT as being the truth rather than being sceptical of both side's media. As I said 'just interested as to why you seem to believe everything RT and other pro-Russian sources say regardless.' You don't seem to believe anything from non Russian sources but everything from Russian and pro-Russian sources is my point.

[jeremyp]

My opinion is that our government have been sending weapons that are being used not just on Russian soldiers but on civilians (deliberately) and anyone who disagrees with the nationalist agenda.

Have you got any evidence that that is the case, because it is bullshit. Ukraine has a Russian army to fight that is superior in numbers and seeks to destroy the country. A moment's thought will tell you that wasting their NATO weapons on civilians would be suicidal.

Russia is unambiguously the bad guy here.

[ekim]

Spud is beginning to sound like the Lord Haw-Haw of a Russian Nazi State.

[Dicky Underpants]

The problem seems to be that they use terrorist tactics to achieve that. If they allowed the Russian-speaking Donbass to become autonomous and agreed on non-NATO status, the rest of Ukraine could westernize as it chose to.

I thought the Russians would like us all to believe that the Ukrainians completely destroyed their own city of Mariupol as a false flag operation, so that they could blame the Russians for doing so. Are the Russians saying that they might just have done a teeny-weeny bit of shelling? I think I rather lost patience with anything the Russian propaganda machine puts out, after I heard Sergei Lavrov describing the Ukrainian claims of the destruction of their city as "pathetic".

'Pathetic' is hardly the word to describe such a tragedy, however it came about, but I can't think of any nation in history which has perpetrated such destruction on itself as the Russians are claiming the Ukrainians are doing to themselves. There ought to be some room for laughter at the brainless, unimaginative protestations from the Russian propaganda machine, except that the mindless barbarism of these Untermenschen precludes it.