Yep, videos of people killed on the bridge, and bridge visibly collapsed in parts.
I won't link it as there is a woman that is halfway through the windshield visibly dying or in shock and another one dead that also went through the windshield of another car. Since it happened at night, extent we know is only from these witness videos. This one was closer to the Russian side of the bridge.
This was supposedly 2 cruise missiles this time (alleged video of the impact seen)
JohnnyB: Bennett didn't negotiate a peace deal, he was asked to mediate discussions. There was nothing close to a peace deal on the table, it's absurd you believe there was and the US unilaterally "shot it down".
Furthermore, just because Jeffrey Sachs says things you want to hear doesn't make him trustworthy. He's opined lots of stupid crap in the last couple years, like "SARS-COV-2 was developed by a US bioweapons lab". But he is an advocate for the CCP government, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised you're a fan... He's a Russian apologist, just like you.
Yep, videos of people killed on the bridge, and bridge visibly collapsed in parts.
I won't link it as there is a woman that is halfway through the windshield visibly dying or in shock and another one dead that also went through the windshield of another car. Since it happened at night, extent we know is only from these witness videos. This one was closer to the Russian side of the bridge.
This was supposedly 2 cruise missiles this time (alleged video of the impact seen)
Tourists from Belgorod apparently. Maybe booking your vacation in occupied Ukraine isn't the wisest decision. It sucks anytime civilians are killed, but I assume any Russian civilians going to Crimea for a vacation are probably fine with Putin's war and all the Ukrainian civilians dying because of it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The idea that US could just shoot down a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia that would have otherwise happened is kind of silly.
How exactly would that have happened, what leverage would the US use?
Ukraine is an independent nation that needs US support primarily for the war. If there was no war, like in the case of a peace deal, US opinion wouldn't matter much. In a post-war scenario support would likely mostly come from EU and China anyway.
The US has been shutting down peace deals by giving Ukrainians a chance in the war. I can very easily believe that US promises of military support might have been instrumental in making sure there is no peace deal, but that situation could just as easily be described as "Ukrainians pushing the US into promising more and more military support as a condition for continuing a war that the US saw as beneficial to their interests".
The US is much like most western countries, just more powerful. They do a lot more bad things than most other countries because they can, not because they're particularly evil in comparison.
They have both altruistic and selfish reasons to do things. Supporting Ukraine is obviously a bit of both. Same as it is for every other country that supports Ukraine.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Naftali Bennett, who was the person leading those negotiations, has basically said so himself. Jeffery Sachs, who I consider to be a trustworthy person based on his career history, his dedication to humanitarian interests, the risk posed to his career and likely costs at advocating this position, and his direct exposure to senior people and heads of state in the related countries, has said that he has been told off the record from all sides that it went down that way. And, it aligns with the national interests, the historical record of behavior by the US, and their recent activities under this administration in other areas.
Sure, it could be wrong, but when you've got the guy who was there saying it, backed up by a trustworthy source saying it has been confirmed by every side involved, and it aligns with the historical pattern, the current motives, and other current activities, that's a pretty good case on a balance of probabilities, which is likely all that we will ever have.
Naftali Bennett tried being the hero because Putin invited him to meet to "end the war" and was upset that no one took him up on it. Jeffery Sachs is just a professor who thinks the war started because of NATO enlargement which no serious person could possibly agree with. He has no way of knowing anything.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
So remember that situation where Wagner inexplicably veered right in the middle of the mutiny toward Voronezh-45 (nuclear base) that was being disputed as actually occurring?
Those rumours were legit and it actually happened.
Budanov, head of Ukraine military intelligence basically just recently confirmed that Wagner did indeed go and take Voronezh-45, but was just short of actually seizing the nuclear warheads behind a locked door. Budanov also confirming in the interview that Voronezh-45 has 'backpack' nukes, which most definitely would have been easy to carry by Wagner forces.
This also leads to the belief that Putin blinked first in the odd deal that occurred, and that this facility was likely used as a bargaining chip.
Quote:
Budanov, though, says they went further, effectively taking charge of the area around the site. “The doors of the storage were closed and they didn’t get into the technical section,” he added.
Quote:
A source close to the Kremlin with military ties corroborated parts of Budanov's account. A Wagner contingent "managed to get into a zone of special interest, as a result of which the Americans got agitated because nuclear munitions are stored there," this person said, without elaborating further.
A source in Russian occupied east Ukraine, with knowledge of the matter, said this caused concern in the Kremlin and provided impetus for a hastily negotiated end to the rebellion on the evening of June 24, brokered by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.
Naftali Bennett, who was the person leading those negotiations, has basically said so himself. Jeffery Sachs, who I consider to be a trustworthy person based on his career history, his dedication to humanitarian interests, the risk posed to his career and likely costs at advocating this position, and his direct exposure to senior people and heads of state in the related countries, has said that he has been told off the record from all sides that it went down that way. And, it aligns with the national interests, the historical record of behavior by the US, and their recent activities under this administration in other areas.
Sure, it could be wrong, but when you've got the guy who was there saying it, backed up by a trustworthy source saying it has been confirmed by every side involved, and it aligns with the historical pattern, the current motives, and other current activities, that's a pretty good case on a balance of probabilities, which is likely all that we will ever have.
After his interview drew the attention of Musk, the former Israeli prime minister himself went on Twitter to correct some of the commentary.
"It's unsure there was any deal to be made," Bennett said in response to Musk. "At the time I gave it roughly a 50% chance. Americans felt chances were way lower. Hard to tell who was right."
He continued: "It's not sure such a deal was desirable. At the time I thought so, but only time will tell."
In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.
"The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled.
TDLR stop reading Russian / Chinese propaganda cherry picking a misinterpreted comment that was part of a broader interview. Also stop chasing bad sources who has zero insight in the matters (i.e. Sachs) only because they support your own narrative.
Last edited by Firebot; 07-17-2023 at 08:35 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
TDLR stop reading Russian / Chinese propaganda cherry picking a misinterpreted comment that was part of a broader interview. Also stop chasing bad sources who has zero insight in the matters (i.e. Sachs) only because they support your own narrative.
This is like the far right saying Trump would have ended the war but then quietly or not so quietly admitting it would have been because he would not have supported Ukraine.
I used to be surprised that the far/alt right has really leaned into the pro-Russian side of the conflict but then I took a step back and realized that it is probably what they want in the US. A populist strong man that puts Christianity, patriotism, and regressive social policies at the forefront.
It appears that Russia, in their infinite wisdom, seeing them lose ground all over the front and having their precious bridge destroyed again, has decided that right now would be a great time to create a brand new offensive.
They wish to retake Lyman-Kupiansk and have amassed a force of over 100K strong, with supposedly 900 tanks (dubious number and dubious quality).
Ukraine has yet to use most of their NATO equipped reserves meant for the counter offensive. If Russia obliges and gives Ukraine a defensive front to fight from, who are we to argue with Russian logic.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutuu
So edgy...when the wikileaks cables came out it was quite shocking how much the American diplomats actually did care about democratic beliefs.
A viewpoint that has been in the mainstream mix since the 1960s is not "edgy", calling out the USA for coupling the rhetoric of freedom with the reality of oppression and self-interest is old news kept relevant. I certainly prefer American hegemony to the realistic alternative hegemonies, but what I'd really like is a multi-polar world with no hegemon at all.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
…but what I'd really like is a multi-polar world with no hegemon at all.
That’s pretty much what we have now. The U.S. (and it’s Western allies) might be the most powerful global power, but that power is no longer hegemonic. Non-Western actors (China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc) have much more power relative to the West and greater scope for acting independently than was the case 25 years ago. That’s why the sanctions against Russia haven’t been crippling the way they would have been back then.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
A viewpoint that has been in the mainstream mix since the 1960s is not "edgy", calling out the USA for coupling the rhetoric of freedom with the reality of oppression and self-interest is old news kept relevant. I certainly prefer American hegemony to the realistic alternative hegemonies, but what I'd really like is a multi-polar world with no hegemon at all.
You live in a world now where consumers in America, China, India, Europe and large emerging economies like Brazil and Indonesia drive behaviour, save a few autocrats that do lousy stuff for attention. You already live in the world you want.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I don't think some of you are living in the same parallel universe as I am.
Militarily, the USA spends more than the rest of the world combined, can project its power worldwide (no other nation can), leads an alliance of states who are beating a major world power just by sending money and weapons, and has the most technologically advanced weaponry in almost every military field.
Economically, it is still significantly richer than China (with 1/4 of China's population), its dollar acts as the world's reserve currency, it has the #1 and #2 stock exchanges in the world with as much market cap as #3 through #10 combined, and of the 9 companies worldwide with more than a trillion dollar market cap, 7 are American.
Culturally, American content is like their military, it has a global reach no other country can emulate, its movies, television and music are the most popular and influential, and its lifestyle is the one other countries imitate. Pop culture is ascendant culture, and its genesis and apotheosis is American.
Politically, add those three factors up and America dominates - they have the hard power and the soft power. I say this as someone who wishes they didn't have that preponderance of power, but the idea that we already live in a multi-polar world is laughable, unless by multi-polar you mean "other nations can achieve their limited foreign policy goals as long as those goals don't directly conflict with America's".
A true mulit-polar world would be more like imperial Europe from 1815-1914, where four to six powers were all roughly equal, and none of them could act unilaterally without care for the others' reactions. We don't have that, we have one dominant power that all other powers must take into their calculations.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
A true mulit-polar world would be more like imperial Europe from 1815-1914, where four to six powers were all roughly equal, and none of them could act unilaterally without care for the others' reactions. We don't have that, we have one dominant power that all other powers must take into their calculations.
Didn't that multipolar world end up with a cataclysmic world war after a roughly equal set of alliances between those powers? That whole multi-polar world only ended up that way because all the other great powers got their asses kicked by Napoleon. Seems like there might be some drawbacks since equilibrium couldn't be maintained, one way or another.
I don't think some of you are living in the same parallel universe as I am.
Militarily, the USA spends more than the rest of the world combined, can project its power worldwide (no other nation can), leads an alliance of states who are beating a major world power just by sending money and weapons, and has the most technologically advanced weaponry in almost every military field.
Economically, it is still significantly richer than China (with 1/4 of China's population), its dollar acts as the world's reserve currency, it has the #1 and #2 stock exchanges in the world with as much market cap as #3 through #10 combined, and of the 9 companies worldwide with more than a trillion dollar market cap, 7 are American.
Culturally, American content is like their military, it has a global reach no other country can emulate, its movies, television and music are the most popular and influential, and its lifestyle is the one other countries imitate. Pop culture is ascendant culture, and its genesis and apotheosis is American.
Politically, add those three factors up and America dominates - they have the hard power and the soft power. I say this as someone who wishes they didn't have that preponderance of power, but the idea that we already live in a multi-polar world is laughable, unless by multi-polar you mean "other nations can achieve their limited foreign policy goals as long as those goals don't directly conflict with America's".
A true mulit-polar world would be more like imperial Europe from 1815-1914, where four to six powers were all roughly equal, and none of them could act unilaterally without care for the others' reactions. We don't have that, we have one dominant power that all other powers must take into their calculations.
Good post and interesting discussion, but do you really wish they didn't have that kind of power? Coming from a Canadian, I find that an odd point of view personally and wonder how much thought you've truly given the alternative?
I don't think some of you are living in the same parallel universe as I am.
Militarily, the USA spends more than the rest of the world combined, can project its power worldwide (no other nation can), leads an alliance of states who are beating a major world power just by sending money and weapons, and has the most technologically advanced weaponry in almost every military field.
Economically, it is still significantly richer than China (with 1/4 of China's population), its dollar acts as the world's reserve currency, it has the #1 and #2 stock exchanges in the world with as much market cap as #3 through #10 combined, and of the 9 companies worldwide with more than a trillion dollar market cap, 7 are American.
Culturally, American content is like their military, it has a global reach no other country can emulate, its movies, television and music are the most popular and influential, and its lifestyle is the one other countries imitate. Pop culture is ascendant culture, and its genesis and apotheosis is American.
Politically, add those three factors up and America dominates - they have the hard power and the soft power. I say this as someone who wishes they didn't have that preponderance of power, but the idea that we already live in a multi-polar world is laughable, unless by multi-polar you mean "other nations can achieve their limited foreign policy goals as long as those goals don't directly conflict with America's".
Lots of China’s foreign policy goals directly conflict with America’s. It’s exerting power across Asia, Africa, and South America. And obviously Russia’s goals conflict with America’s as well. Pretty sure the U.S. didn’t like them ####ing around in Syria, but wasn’t able to do much about it.
There’s a difference between being the top power - even a dominant power - and hegemony. If the U.S. has hegemony today, what did it have in the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union - double-plus hegemony?
Quote:
A true mulit-polar world would be more like imperial Europe from 1815-1914, where four to six powers were all roughly equal, and none of them could act unilaterally without care for the others' reactions. We don't have that, we have one dominant power that all other powers must take into their calculations.
For much of that period Britain could do as it pleased overseas. Nobody messed with it’s colonial holdings in India, China, Africa, and North America. They projected power clear around the globe to Afghanistan. It was only on mainland Europe that it had to work through alliances. So it was a multi-polar world, but the great powers were far from equal.
The world is transitioning from hegemony to multi-polar. It won’t be the multi-polar world of the 19th century. It will feature two great powers, and several major powers. And it will be far less stable - and almost certainly less liberal and democratic - than recent decades.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
