Arming the Ukrainians

[Outrider]

This rules out the Russian side launching it, as the front line is also over 20km away.

No, it rules out the idea that the two people in shot turned towards the sound of a launch, it says nothing about the direction any munition might have come from, or what its range might be. Recall, I was only demonstrating that particular claim was errant nonsense.

If it was a mortar or howitzer that fired it, it would most likely be closer than the front line.

If it was. Do you have any reason, other than wanting to avoid conceding that it was likely a Russian attack, to suggest this is the case? A mortar would not produce a signature that the Russian's could detect and suggest was a missile launch; I'm not convinced that howitzer would, either, but I don't know enough about them to be sure of that.

Some travel at speeds lower than the speed of sound, so it's possible that the 2 second delay between the sound of the launch and the explosion is achievable given the right muzzle velocity.

 It would have been launched upwards to shoot into the town, so even if it was travelling nearer the speed of sound, the projectile would have had further to travel than the sound (travelling horizontally) so could still cause a 2 second delay.

Or (and bear with me here) it could have been a Russian attack with Russian long-range missiles at civilian targets, entirely in keeping with their pattern of unjustifiable, indiscriminate, illegal warfare to date in the course of their illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. The only reason to think anything different is to accept, at face value, the claim from Russian (state-operated) media that the Russian military detected a missile launch.

O.

[Spud]

If it was a missile, its launch would not have sounded like that and it would very likely have been launched a long way away.

If it was a shell, I'd expect it to be supersonic, so the sound would reach us after the shell.

Agreed, a missile launch wouldn't sound like that.

Some shells are subsonic. It's clearly a shell that has come from the direction the four people looked in, and a few km away: it echoes several times before the hit.

[Spud]

Outrider,
I think the Russian claim of a missile must be wrong or false. The two factors that matter are the four people that look round and the launch sound. These suggest it was an artillery shell from nearby.
The timing was perfect for a false flag, with Blinken announcing more weapons the same day; look how all MSM have immediately claimed it was a Russian strike - we must defeat these terrorists!
In fact though, there is sufficient evidence that Ukraine is a terrorist state and therefore the UK is breaking the law by arming them.

[jeremyp]

Agreed, a missile launch wouldn't sound like that.

Some shells are subsonic. It's clearly a shell that has come from the direction the four people looked in, and a few km away: it echoes several times before the hit.

Is it clearly a shell that came from the direction people are looking in?  It’s a street with buildings on both sides so the sound need not necessarily have come from where the people are looking.

Anyway, it’s interesting isn’t it that there have now been thousands of strikes against civilians in Ukraine and this is the one that you are talking about in detail. All the hospitals and power plants and blocks of flats that the Russians struck deliberately don’t matter to you, but one market where the source cannot be definitively proved to be Russian and you and your Russian friends are all over it.

[Outrider]

I think the Russian claim of a missile must be wrong or false.

Well, their claim of where they detected a launch from, at least. Let's not discount the idea of a missile of some sort.

The two factors that matter are the four people that look round and the launch sound.

[

Four people look around, but the direction in which they look is not that indicative of anything given the built up area's capacity to redirect sound; that they turn is just evidence of a source of (presumably) noise. It's not clear (at least to me) that the sound on the clip is a launch sound - that might be just that I'm not familiar with the equipment, but it could just easily be another munition impact somewhere out of the immediate sight of the camera. That seems just as likely an explanation to me as the idea of a close-by artillery shell launch.

The timing was perfect for a false flag, with Blinken announcing more weapons the same day; look how all MSM have immediately claimed it was a Russian strike - we must defeat these terrorists!

Which means it's also the perfect time for the Russian disinformation campaign to piggy-back on their already well-established bombing campaign and try to muddy the waters with this one incident.

In fact though, there is sufficient evidence that Ukraine is a terrorist state and therefore the UK is breaking the law by arming them.

Which law is the UK breaking? In what way does this unverified assertion by Russia that in this single instance Ukraine has bombed its own people somehow make Ukraine a 'terrorist state' without considering a) Russia well established bombing campaign in support of their illegal invasion and occupation; b) Russia's well established tendency to lie about events; c) absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is a Ukrainian munition; and d) if it is a Ukrainian munition, somehow demonstrably a deliberate act and not some sort of misfire given the sheer number of shots they are firing.

O.

[jeremyp]

there is sufficient evidence that Ukraine is a terrorist state and therefore the UK is breaking the law by arming them.

This is a joke right?

Ukraine is unambiguously the victim here. I wouldn't describe Russia as a terrorist state either. It's actually a gangster state. It's been run by kleptocrats for decades with no purpose other than to line their own pockets.

[Spud]

Is it clearly a shell that came from the direction people are looking in?  It’s a street with buildings on both sides so the sound need not necessarily have come from where the people are looking.

Anyway, it’s interesting isn’t it that there have now been thousands of strikes against civilians in Ukraine and this is the one that you are talking about in detail. All the hospitals and power plants and blocks of flats that the Russians struck deliberately don’t matter to you, but one market where the source cannot be definitively proved to be Russian and you and your Russian friends are all over it.

I think the issue is that you can't conceive of Ukraine committing war crimes because that would make supplying them morally questionable.  The fact is, Russia is recording thousands of incidents of AFU attacks on civilian targets or other war crimes such as using human shields, and these have been ignored by the west, just as you ignored the last video I gave you from the slightly clumsy but sincere Mr Lancaster. Now we have evidence our side of the front line so it should be investigated.

[Spud]

Which law is the UK breaking

I'm assuming that the government is responsible for the control of arms sales and trafficking. The US president has discretion over where arms can be sent, and he is required to assess the risk that they would be used for terrorism or that they would result in escalation of conflict. Shall we assume the law is similar in this country?

[Spud]

Four people look around, but the direction in which they look is not that indicative of anything given the built up area's capacity to redirect sound; that they turn is just evidence of a source of (presumably) noise. It's not clear (at least to me) that the sound on the clip is a launch sound - that might be just that I'm not familiar with the equipment, but it could just easily be another munition impact somewhere out of the immediate sight of the camera. That seems just as likely an explanation to me as the idea of a close-by artillery shell launch.

That doesn't seem likely to me. It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event. Given the echoes, I'd say very nearby. I could be wrong, but I think it should be independently investigated to try and establish what sort of munition it was from the debris.

[Aruntraveller]

The fact is, Russia is saying it is  recording thousands of incidents of AFU attacks on civilian targets or other war crimes such as using human shields, and these false claims have rightly been ignored by the west,

FTFY

[Spud]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2778
See point #2

[Aruntraveller]

And?

All it states is that it should "take into account" various issues.

They've presumably been taken into account and a decision has been taken to help Ukraine against an oppressive, invading regime which has little or no regard for life.

Please tell me you do remember that it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, a sovereign country. The West has decided to help them against this aggressor.

I'm not saying that Ukraine hasn't done some terrible things in this war, but that is kind of the point. It is a war. And wars are bloody. Ukraine though did not start it.

Now you can carry on posting dubious footage from even more dubious sites but you are not convincing anyone here. So I'd just save your typing fingers for something you understand.

Wooden toothbrushes or some such.

[jeremyp]

I think the issue is that you can't conceive of Ukraine committing war crimes because that would make supplying them morally questionable.

Given that Ukraine has been attacked by a gang of thugs pretending to be a state, we would be morally questionable if we didn't help them to the best of our ability.

The fact is, Russia is recording thousands of incidents of AFU attacks on civilian targets or other war crimes such as using human shields, and these have been ignored by the west

The Russians are a bunch of lying liars. You can't trust anything they say.

just as you ignored the last video I gave you from the slightly clumsy but sincere Mr Lancaster. Now we have evidence our side of the front line so it should be investigated.

I do not ignore anything that isn't blatant Russian propaganda. You seem to ignore everything but the blatant Russian propaganda.

[Outrider]

I'm assuming that the government is responsible for the control of arms sales and trafficking.

Yep. And the authority to determine to whom arms should or should not be sent rests with that government. You might disagree with that decision (and, certainly, in some other instances such as sales to Saudi Arabia in recent years I'd be inclined to disagree with them) but if they undertake the proper documented assessments then it is not illegal. Immoral, maybe, in some circumstances, but not illegal.

The US president has discretion over where arms can be sent, and he is required to assess the risk that they would be used for terrorism or that they would result in escalation of conflict. Shall we assume the law is similar in this country?

In this circumstance what the US law is on the matter isn't particularly relevant, although I suspect that Congress actually has a degree of oversight of the particulars.

However, you've gone from failing to demonstrate that Ukraine has perpetrated this, to determining that it's terrorism (as opposed, say, to an elaborate fake which is equally as preposterous) to therefore the UK is conducting illegal sales - absolute nonsense built on a fabrication that only the deliberately false or incredibly stupid would accept wholesale.

That doesn't seem likely to me.

There's a surprise.

It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event.

Which is odd given that when you started the first sound was explained as the sound of a launch in order to justify the assertion that it must have been a local launch.

Given the echoes, I'd say very nearby. I could be wrong, but I think it should be independently investigated to try and establish what sort of munition it was from the debris.

Should it be investigated? Probably, although unless the Ukrainians change tack entirely and let the FSB in to do it, I suspect you'll fail to accept the findings. It just begs the question why you think Ukraine needs to set up this elaborate and potentially self-incriminating false flag operation when they have a daily tally of between dozens and hundreds of instances of well-establish Russian munitions falling on their civilian centres. It's literally incredible, as in you'd have to be a credulous cretin to accept the notion.

O.

[Spud]

Given that Ukraine has been attacked by a gang of thugs pretending to be a state, we would be morally questionable if we didn't help them to the best of our ability.
The Russians are a bunch of lying liars. You can't trust anything they say.
I do not ignore anything that isn't blatant Russian propaganda. You seem to ignore everything but the blatant Russian propaganda.

Some of them may be thugs, yes, but can we say that about all of them? A lot of them are doing it because they want to protect the civilians who are being shelled from towns like Avdiivka. Rightly or wrongly, but not because they're thugs. So they are a country, not a gang of thugs pretending etc.
People lie when protecting themselves or other people who are doing wrong towards them. They also do things they said they wouldn't depending on other peoples' actions. And yes they lie to cover up wrongdoing. You can;t assume that everything Russia says is a lie. Everybody is capable of good and bad.
It may be true that Patrick Lancaster's videos are propaganda, but does that mean their content is untrue?

[Spud]

Yep. And the authority to determine to whom arms should or should not be sent rests with that government. You might disagree with that decision (and, certainly, in some other instances such as sales to Saudi Arabia in recent years I'd be inclined to disagree with them) but if they undertake the proper documented assessments then it is not illegal. Immoral, maybe, in some circumstances, but not illegal.

I did email my MP a year ago. Her main argument for arming Ukraine was the illegal invasion and atrocities. I replied that if we care about the Ukrainians, it would be better to stick to a policy of non-escalation because if they try to take back the land they lost, they will be slaughtered. I didn't hear back after that.

In this circumstance what the US law is on the matter isn't particularly relevant, although I suspect that Congress actually has a degree of oversight of the particulars.

We left Afghanistan because the US was withdrawing; I think the US law is definitely relevant.

However, you've gone from failing to demonstrate that Ukraine has perpetrated this,

I started with the view that Russia was the perpetrator, but they would be too strong for Ukraine.

to determining that it's terrorism (as opposed, say, to an elaborate fake which is equally as preposterous)

Ukraine seems to be trying to invoke NATO's assistance having failed to invoke Article 5 by pretending Russia attacked the Polish farm. There is plenty to read if you want evidence for terrorism and are willing to allow that Russia can tell truths sometimes.

to therefore the UK is conducting illegal sales - absolute nonsense built on a fabrication that only the deliberately false or incredibly stupid would accept wholesale.

It seems a logical inference to make.

There's a surprise.

Which is odd given that when you started the first sound was explained as the sound of a launch in order to justify the assertion that it must have been a local launch.

When I said "It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event." I meant that it sounds like the first sound was from the gun that fired the projectile, as opposed to the sound of an air defense missile being launched nearby to try and intercept an incoming missile.

Should it be investigated? Probably, although unless the Ukrainians change tack entirely and let the FSB in to do it, I suspect you'll fail to accept the findings. It just begs the question why you think Ukraine needs to set up this elaborate and potentially self-incriminating false flag operation when they have a daily tally of between dozens and hundreds of instances of well-establish Russian munitions falling on their civilian centres. It's literally incredible, as in you'd have to be a credulous cretin to accept the notion.

O.

I accept that Russian missiles do hit civilians, but not as often as daily, and not deliberately, except in isolated instances.

[ad_orientem]

Yes, ruSSia always lies. RuSSia lies knowing everyone else knows it's lying. It just doesn't care. Spud, you support genocide. They only way this can end once and for all is to destroy ruSSia. There is no hope for the country.

[Outrider]

I did email my MP a year ago. Her main argument for arming Ukraine was the illegal invasion and atrocities.

Encouraging Ukraine to Surrender further land to Russia will just encourage Putin, and other expansionist aggressors, to invade other places.

I replied that if we care about the Ukrainians, it would be better to stick to a policy of non-escalation because if they try to take back the land they lost, they will be slaughtered.

And if they don't they will have their cultural identity wiped out and be subject to the abject corruption of the authoritarian Russian regime. Ukraine has opted to fight rather than accept that alternative, and our government has decided that if that's what Ukraine thinks is best for them, we will support them.

I didn't hear back after that.

Probably because she quite rightly thought if that was the best point you could come up with there wasn't much point engaging with it.

We left Afghanistan because the US was withdrawing; I think the US law is definitely relevant.

Afghanistan was a different conflict, for different reasons, involving different groups. Very little of the justifications for that conflict apply to this one.

I started with the view that Russia was the perpetrator, but they would be too strong for Ukraine.

As, I think, did most people.

Ukraine seems to be trying to invoke NATO's assistance having failed to invoke Article 5 by pretending Russia attacked the Polish farm.

What? Ukraine hasn't attempted to invoke Article 5, as it is not a NATO member to be able to do so. Ukraine has reached out to allies around the world - many of whom are in NATO, but many also who aren't - for supplies and logistical support. I'm not sure where Polish farms fall into the equation.

There is plenty to read if you want evidence for terrorism and are willing to allow that Russia can tell truths sometimes.

Some Russians are telling the truth. My personal favourite was the Russian member of their UN Mission who resigned just after the invasion - article

It seems a logical inference to make.

Only if you accept the Russian official accounts at face value, and ignore not only the reports of neutral news agency reporting, but presume that the Ukrainian leadership has suddenly gone mad.

When I said "It sounds very much like the first sound and the hit are the same event." I meant that it sounds like the first sound was from the gun that fired the projectile, as opposed to the sound of an air defense missile being launched nearby to try and intercept an incoming missile.

I wouldn't be able to tell you what a Ukrainian or Russian mortar, howitzer or missile sounded like, and with the poor sound quality of the clip and the distortion produced by the baffle-effect of the built up area, I'd be sceptical if you could.
 

I accept that Russian missiles do hit civilians, but not as often as daily, and not deliberately, except in isolated instances.

If I'm feeling charitable I'd put that down to naivety. I can't guarantee that it's daily, but it's certainly not isolated incidents. And once it's no longer isolated incidents then it's at least negligence - which is  unconscionable of itself if you're launching missiles towards civilian population centres as part of a wholly unjustifiable invasion - but it seems more like it's a deliberate tactic.

O.

[jeremyp]

Some of them may be thugs, yes, but can we say that about all of them?

Certainly we can about the people running Russia. Yes, when I say "gang of thugs" I mean Putin and his henchmen, mostly.

A lot of them are doing it because they want to protect the civilians who are being shelled from towns like Avdiivka.

Rubbish. They are doing it because the consequences of not doing it will be terrible for them and possibly their families.

[jeremyp]

I did email my MP a year ago. Her main argument for arming Ukraine was the illegal invasion and atrocities. I replied that if we care about the Ukrainians, it would be better to stick to a policy of non-escalation because if they try to take back the land they lost, they will be slaughtered. I didn't hear back after that.

It's too late to prevent escalation. There's a full scale war going on. It's escalated.

[jeremyp]

Yes, ruSSia always lies. RuSSia lies knowing everyone else knows it's lying. It just doesn't care. Spud, you support genocide. They only way this can end once and for all is to destroy ruSSia. There is no hope for the country.

Wouldn't destroying Russia necessitate genocide too?

[ad_orientem]

Wouldn't destroying Russia necessitate genocide too?

I'm all in favour of levelling Moscow and St Petersburg to the ground, but being more realistic I meant the disintegration and break up of the country itself.

[Spud]

I wouldn't be able to tell you what a Ukrainian or Russian mortar, howitzer or missile sounded like, and with the poor sound quality of the clip and the distortion produced by the baffle-effect of the built up area, I'd be sceptical if you could.

Have you seen the Guardian's version? It includes the bang, 2 seconds before the strike, and it doesn't sound distorted. I don't know what the munition is, but it definitely sounds like was launched from not far away.
https://youtu.be/gAP_7MA6DiI?si=UxpkaoH6iNpQKc02

[Outrider]

Have you seen the Guardian's version? It includes the bang, 2 seconds before the strike, and it doesn't sound distorted. I don't know what the munition is, but it definitely sounds like was launched from not far away.
https://youtu.be/gAP_7MA6DiI?si=UxpkaoH6iNpQKc02

I don't hear anything that makes me think of a munitions launch but my hearing is poor. Let's presume, for a moment, that there is an indication of a nearby launch - I'd still suspect covert Russian operatives in the contested region is a more likely explanation than Ukraine deciding that it doesn't have enough sympathy or support from all the well-established Russian missile attacks on hospitals and children's centres, and decides it needs to blow up some relatively inconsequential shops itself as a false-flag operation. It makes no sense that they'd do it, or that they'd pick that target if they did do it. And that's only if it turns out to be short-range munition in the first place, which is far from certain, and directly contradicts the Russian claims of detecting a missile launch which is the only reason anyone had for suggesting it was a Ukrainian operation in the first place.

I suppose there's a possibility that it could have been a Ukrainian misfire, but I've not seen anyone else confirm the missile launch; there's a reasonable chance that Ukraine's allies wouldn't if Ukraine requested it, and I can see certain situations where Ukrainian authorities might want to keep that quiet, but I still think this is - whilst still awful - nothing more or less than just another of the indiscriminate Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian population centres which are already a well-established feature of their illegal invasion and occupation.

O.

[ekim]

Top Russian general issues stark warning over Ukraine war ..... https://tinyurl.com/2xacbaxb