Russia invades Ukraine

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

So, I guess civilians in Russia should just, like, not live and work?

Yeah probably. Civilian unrest will likely go a long way ending this war.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Well today's post' are a lot more interesting than the previous days........... let's get back to updating and posting stories about the war as opposed to going at each other's neck's and emotions.

No thanks. Today has been more interesting than other days. Let's talk through this. We don't need to sanitize the conversation. War is uncomfortable? Yeah, no kidding.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Duruss

but blowing up Pointmans wife as a way to get back at the Russian state won't do a thing.

Cliff was hitting on it, an eye for an eye really won't help solve this.

I hate that it even appears that I'm advocating for Russian civilian casualties but to say that they would not do a thing just seems too simple of an answer.

As indicated above the air raids were found to decrease morale in WW2. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were found to be justified by the vast vast majority of Americans directly after the bombing as a way to hasten the surrender. The percentage of Americans who believe it justified has decreased pretty much yearly, but it's still an academic question being discussed and the purple hearts produced in anticipation of a lengthy invasion of Japan are still being given out today because that invasion was avoided due to the bombings.

Even if you look at the nuclear bombings as a show of force and power, the question "Did allied air bombing hasten the end of the war?" is a subject still being debated today so I don't think you could say that civilian causalities in this war wouldn't have an effect.

You could take the opposite approach and bring up the Middle east and how civilian casualties there increased the fervour against the West and America, increasing tension and leading to more prolonged and generational conflict.

So I would say I think it's a reasonable position to believe Russian civilian casualties could hasten the end to the war or escalate the situation severely but don't think I can get on board with the position that it "won't do a thing".

[Itse]

If Russians hadn't been so happy or indifferent towards all the previous times Putin has started conflicts, this would likely not have happened.

As Pointman has said, Russians were generally pretty happy about the last time they attacked Ukraine (Crimea), and they have been generally okay with Putin making all the decisions about when, where and who to attack. Syria was an extremely risky conflict to get involved in and could very well have blown up. Ukraine 2014 was risky. Crimea was risky.

Now they're complaining how they didn't want THIS war, but it's too late.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Duruss

You're angry but targeting civilians is the fault of those targeting civilians, doesn't matter who started it. Blowing up Putin sure, but blowing up Pointmans wife as a way to get back at the Russian state won't do a thing.

Cliff was hitting on it, an eye for an eye really won't help solve this.

It's not an eye for an eye I'm supporting here, it's that if there are civilian casualties as a result of Ukrainians attacking targets in Russia, they are still less condemnable than Russian actions, and are entirely the fault of Russia.


If a bully punches you in the face, can you kick them in the shin? Or should you just wait for the next punch to the face?

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If a bully punches you in the face, can you kick them in the shin?

I think given the position of the person you're responding to their analogy would be closer to:

If a bully punches you in the face, can you kick their little brother in the shin?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Itse

If Russians hadn't been so happy or indifferent towards all the previous times Putin has started conflicts, this would likely not have happened.

As Pointman has said, Russians were generally pretty happy about the last time they attacked Ukraine (Crimea), and they have been generally okay with Putin making all the decisions about when, where and who to attack. Syria was an extremely risky conflict to get involved in and could very well have blown up. Ukraine 2014 was risky. Crimea was risky.

Now they're complaining how they didn't want THIS war, but it's too late.

That's how it goes in almost every country. Most people don't care about wars their countries get involved in until the losses start piling up or it turns into a protracted occupation. Why would Russia be any different?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

I think given the position of the person you're responding to their analogy would be closer to:

If a bully punches you in the face, can you kick their little brother in the shin?

If it makes the bully think twice about punching you in the face the second time, then ya. Unless the little brother disowns the bully, and helps kicks him in the shins for you.

[Kasi]

Speaking of weird things in Russia what’s going on with execs at Russian gas companies? Two murder suicides in two days here? Have to believe something fishy is going on here.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/two-ex...ad-in-two-days

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's how it goes in almost every country. Most people don't care about wars their countries get involved in until the losses start piling up or it turns into a protracted occupation. Why would Russia be any different?

***or you make it so uncomfortable for the general populace through sanctions, travel, attending events, national presentation, threat to your way of life, threat to your security that you have no choice but to care and effect change....

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Kasi

Speaking of weird things in Russia what’s going on with execs at Russian gas companies? Two murder suicides in two days here? Have to believe something fishy is going on here.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/two-ex...ad-in-two-days

Sending a message to the oligarchs about loyalty would be my guess.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's how it goes in almost every country. Most people don't care about wars their countries get involved in until the losses start piling up or it turns into a protracted occupation. Why would Russia be any different?

Well actually, a lot of countries have extremely negative feelings towards wars. Even wars fought on other continents.

Most countries haven't started any wars since WW2, and it's normal for most people in the world to grow full generations without their country being at war.

Wars are not popular everywhere.

One big reason why Finns have previously been against joining NATO was that we didn't want any part in all the wars US starts, even when they were winning them.

[FlamesAddiction]

When it comes to professional sports, it is a business first. The athletes are commodities that are marketed and nationality is part of the brand. For better or worse, nationality and national pride have long been tied to sports and athletes going all the way back to ancient times. It's also a major vector for exporting and transmitting political and cultural initiatives. For example, Usain Bolt's "Jamaicaness" and Sidney Crosby's "Canadianess" make them cultural ambassadors for their country whether they want it or not. If Russian athletes want to use their platform to speak out against the atrocious war, then great. If not, then that amounts to tacit support in my opinion and any business is well within its rights to not want to promote the Russian brand.

Wimbledon, I believe, is an invitational tournament run by a private club. It's completely up to them whom they want invite and promote. Just like every other private organization, they can decide what brands matter to them and what political stance they want to take on current global issues. I personally am not advocating any bans for Russians, but it also doesn't bother me one bit.

[jammies]

Vengeance is a poor approximation of justice.

[Itse]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1516805865373933571

President of Finland says he's been talking on the phone with the president of Hungary, and that "it became clear that Hungary will support Finland's decisions", obviously meaning NATO.

This is relevant because a big question mark over Finland joining NATO has been whether or not Hungary (which has a very Putin-friendly PM) would veto our attempt to join.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not an eye for an eye I'm supporting here, it's that if there are civilian casualties as a result of Ukrainians attacking targets in Russia, they are still less condemnable than Russian actions, and are entirely the fault of Russia.

This is a reasonable statement. Attacking legitimate Russian targets is acceptable. The hope is civilian casualties are nil.

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Your country and civilians are fair game for attack since the beginning of the unjust war they started.

This is NOT a reasonable statement. Civilians are never fair game, sorry.

[DFO]

Does Ukraine have any longer range ballistic missiles? If things get utterly dire for Ukraine they should threaten to target the Kremlin or St. Basil's.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Kasi

Speaking of weird things in Russia what’s going on with execs at Russian gas companies? Two murder suicides in two days here? Have to believe something fishy is going on here.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/two-ex...ad-in-two-days

I could actually see this as a marriage breakdown. From my experience (which is admittedly limited) dealing with family law cases involving wealthy Russians, the women are quite cold-hearted about ditching their partners as soon as things go wrong economically. If these guys had their assets frozen, the wives could have announced their intention to leave and then the men do whatever it takes to prevent that.

Could have just as easily been Russian agents though. We are now likely at the point where thousands of formerly very wealthy Russians are having their assets frozen/confiscated. There is going to be personal fall out.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

I could actually see this as a marriage breakdown. From my experience (which is admittedly limited) dealing with family law cases involving wealthy Russians, the women are quite cold-hearted about ditching their partners as soon as things go wrong economically. If these guys had their assets frozen, the wives could have announced their intention to leave and then the men do whatever it takes to prevent that.

Could have just as easily been Russian agents though. We are now likely at the point where thousands of formerly very wealthy Russians are having their assets frozen/confiscated. There is going to be personal fall out.

This started before the sanctions. Leonid Shulman, head of the transport service of Gazprom Invest, opened his veins on January 29th.

I'm thinking it's either some kind of a turf war (after all the Russian oligarchy is a bunch of crooks), or Putin cleaning out dissidence. So many suicides seems like an unlikely coincidence.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by DFO

Does Ukraine have any longer range ballistic missiles? If things get utterly dire for Ukraine they should threaten to target the Kremlin or St. Basil's.

If Ukraine had this option available they should've used it a long time ago.