Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[Broomstick]

Did you catch the official reason for doing so? According to Putin's government those entities were kicked out because they "violated" Russian law. That is, they refused to take the Kremlin line, called a war a war, pointed out Russian atrocities, and otherwise told the truth. Of course they had to go.

To be fair they probably did violate Russian laws since it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a law against questioning the official "truth" given by the Kremlin.

There actually is such a law. It was recently passed. Up to 15 years for daring to call the war in Ukraine a war, or otherwise contradicting the Kremlin.

[Lord Revan]

Did you catch the official reason for doing so? According to Putin's government those entities were kicked out because they "violated" Russian law. That is, they refused to take the Kremlin line, called a war a war, pointed out Russian atrocities, and otherwise told the truth. Of course they had to go.

To be fair they probably did violate Russian laws since it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a law against questioning the official "truth" given by the Kremlin.

There actually is such a law. It was recently passed. Up to 15 years for daring to call the war in Ukraine a war, or otherwise contradicting the Kremlin.

Honestly only thing that surprises me there is that it was recently passed rather then an old one.

[Ralin]

Honestly only thing that surprises me there is that it was recently passed rather then an old one.

I would hazard a guess that it builds on/replaces older, similar laws.

[Elfdart]

The Azov regiment is not what it was 8 years ago. It started out as a unit mainly composed of neonazis, but after the fighting in Donbass, was folded into the Ukranian military and now has a much more varied membership.

Besides, when the aggressor of an unjustified war has publicly put out a document where they lay out plans for the genocide of an entire nation of over 40 million people and has been seen putting it into practice, pearl clutching about the political leanings of a single regiment on the side targeted for genocide and casting doubt on helping the victims sounds to me like being complicit with the aggressors.

You wouldn't by any chance have the extraordinary evidence needed to back up either of these extraordinary bullshit claims, would you?

[Elfdart]

In case anyone wants to keep up with what the right are saying about Ukraine:


On that Freeper website I mentioned earlier, things like this are the prevailing wisdom on what is actually going on. It stopped being funny when I realized that the last time I saw something like this, it was when the right was coalescing it's opposition to the vaccine which resulted in 100,000s of people dying.

Honest question, what is the legitimate refutation to the timeline and what explains the initial delay and the Russian story that it was the Ukr militias doing?

So far the best they've come up with is something to the tune of "You're a Russia-loving piece of shit who wants to smear Putin's wiener with borscht and vodka, then suck it off. Comrade." Or they get you banned from social media if you point out (as Scott Ritter did on Twitter) that the Marines murdered more people in less than an hour in Haditha.

I mean, it's possible -even likely- that the Russians shot these people just because they could. But the hysteria about "genocide" is comical.

[Dominus Atheos]

Oh god, an alt-left "ukraine truther". And of course it's Elfdart, probably should have seen that one coming. Scott Ritter, seriously?

I've always wanted to ask one: does it bother you at all that you've gone so far left that you actually circled back around and now agree with several points of the alt-right? Does that not give you any pause?

[Dominus Atheos]

This is what actually got scott ritter banned from twitter BTW:

[Elfdart]

Oh god, an alt-left "ukraine truther". And of course it's Elfdart, probably should have seen that one coming. Scott Ritter, seriously?

I've always wanted to ask one: does it bother you at all that you've gone so far left that you actually circled back around and now agree with several points of the alt-right? Does that not give you any pause?

I haven't gone anywhere. The fact that many a shit-lib has developed chronic Russophobia because Hillary lost to a racist game show host, and a number of foam-at-the-mouth righties favor Russia or Covid-19 virus just to get a rise out of said shit-libs has zilch to do with my position, which has remained consistent: Nazis are bad, Salafi jihadists are bad, invading other countries is wrong, and of all the things on the internet to wank to, ginning up a war is near the bottom of the list.

Yeah, Scott Ritter is a creep in his personal life, and served time for it. However, no one can dispute his facts when it comes to Iraq, Syria or Ukraine. That's why they banned him on Twitter. Censorship is the last refuge of the pwned.

[Elfdart]

photos snipped

So he was banned for giving his opinions about the war. In what universe is pointing out that Zelinskyy and Biden could also be war criminals "targeted harassment"?

[Ralin]

I haven't gone anywhere. The fact that many a shit-lib has developed chronic Russophobia because Hillary lost to a racist game show host, and a number of foam-at-the-mouth righties favor Russia or Covid-19 virus just to get a rise out of said shit-libs has zilch to do with my position, which has remained consistent: Nazis are bad, Salafi jihadists are bad, invading other countries is wrong, and of all the things on the internet to wank to, ginning up a war is near the bottom of the list.

You are so full of shit. You just delurked after weeks to demand proof that either the Ukrainian military isn't made up of Nazis or that the Russian government doesn't plan genocide against the country it invaded and is letting people air long, detailed plans for how they have to destroy Ukraine as a cultural and political entity about on state media.

Oh, and to white knight for a guy who said that Ukrainian civilians who fight back are subject to summary execution. Around the same time it came out that the Russian military has been lining up civilians and shooting them. You're not fooling anyone about your priorities here.

Yeah, Scott Ritter is a creep in his personal life, and served time for it. However, no one can dispute his facts when it comes to Iraq, Syria or Ukraine. That's why they banned him on Twitter. Censorship is the last refuge of the pwned.

"They just banned me because they're afraid of what I have to say!"

[Ralin]

So he was banned for giving his opinions about the war. In what universe is pointing out that Zelinskyy and Biden could also be war criminals "targeted harassment"?

The universe where "Denying a violent event" (subtext for you because you're stupid, they're talking about shit like Holocaust denial but stands to reason war crimes or hate crimes would apply), wishing violence on people and celebrating violent acts are under the same general category as targeted harassment on the "Report a tweet" lists of options. Here, let me give you the the short list under "Harassed or threatened with violence"

Sexual harassment, group harassment, insults or name calling, posting private info, threatening to expose private info, violent event denial, violent threats, celebration of violent acts

And if you go to the next page there's a drop down list of choices:

Sexually harassing people
Sending people unwanted adult content
Name-calling or using insults
Wishing harm on people
Encouraging others to harass people
Posting people's private info
Threatening to expose or hack people's private info
Sharing people's image or likeness without permission
Denying a violent event
Threatening people with violence
Celebrating or praising violent acts

Yup, sounds pretty on target in that context. Who wants to bet money on whether Elfdart will handwave that away or just ignore it?

[Dominus Atheos]

Oh god, an alt-left "ukraine truther". And of course it's Elfdart, probably should have seen that one coming. Scott Ritter, seriously?

I've always wanted to ask one: does it bother you at all that you've gone so far left that you actually circled back around and now agree with several points of the alt-right? Does that not give you any pause?

I haven't gone anywhere. The fact that many a shit-lib has developed chronic Russophobia because Hillary lost to a racist game show host, and a number of foam-at-the-mouth righties favor Russia or Covid-19 virus just to get a rise out of said shit-libs has zilch to do with my position, which has remained consistent: Nazis are bad, Salafi jihadists are bad, invading other countries is wrong, and of all the things on the internet to wank to, ginning up a war is near the bottom of the list.

It's a turn of phrase. You going so far left that you circled back around to the right is something anyone familiar with you should have seen coming.

Yeah, Scott Ritter is a creep in his personal life, and served time for it. However, no one can dispute his facts when it comes to Iraq, Syria or Ukraine.That's why they banned him on Twitter. Censorship is the last refuge of the pwned.

I don't care about his personal life, I care about the fact that he has been consistently wrong on Ukraine since before the invasion even started.

1. Russia isn't winning, they are losing, but only slightly. We need to help Ukraine keep up the pressure, and then they will win or at least stalemate.

2. Zelensky hasn't committed any war crimes. Russia keeps accusing Ukrainian troops of whatever they can pull out of their ass, and I hope if evidence is found those troops are punished, but no evidence has been found implicating Zelensky or Biden.

3. There are legal protections for partisans and resistance members:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Combatants and prisoners of war
Article 44 [ Link ] -- Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43 [ Link ] , who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an
armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and

(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c [ Link ] .

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 [ Link ] of the Third Convention.

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.

8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 [ Link ] [ Link ] of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/i ... CD00425040

photos snipped

So he was banned for giving his opinions about the war. In what universe is pointing out that Zelinskyy and Biden could also be war criminals "targeted harassment"?

He didn't say "could be" he said they straight up were war criminals. Calling someone a criminal means "wishing or hoping" they get punished for that crime, which in this case would be execution. That very clearly violates twitter rules.

[Dominus Atheos]

Just to state it clearly since I don't want anyone to get get confused and call me a "shit-lib":

Fighting defensive wars (and helping other people fight defensive wars) = good.

Fighting offensive wars and colonialism (including Iraq, Vietnam, and most of what we did in Afghanistan) = bad.

[Zaune]

Personally, I think we should probably go easy on throwing around accusations of premediated genocide or other war crimes until we have all the facts. The more unsubstantiated allegations that do the rounds on social media, the more the Russians and the likes of the original Azov Brigade can play it off as propaganda and the harder it will be to follow up allegations that are substantiated.

[Ralin]

Personally, I think we should probably go easy on throwing around accusations of premediated genocide or other war crimes until we have all the facts. The more unsubstantiated allegations that do the rounds on social media, the more the Russians and the likes of the original Azov Brigade can play it off as propaganda and the harder it will be to follow up allegations that are substantiated.

Okay here's where it's appropriate to start applying some nuance. We don't know that Putin is planning the absolute deculturalization/mass killing of all Ukrainians who don't already consider themselves patriotic Russians. It is entirely possible that his personal goals fall well short of that. But what we do have is a lot of talk that either sounds pretty close to justifying some kind of genocide or straight up calling for it like that article Broomstick posted. An article that was published in an official news source aligned with the government in a country that has stricter control over what the media is allowed to say about politics than most places.

That doesn't mean that Putin/the Russian government as a collective entity specifically approved of Mister All Ukrainian Identity Is Nazism And Must Be Eliminated, much less plans to follow his blueprint. Government-aligned media isn’t the same as being part of the government, anymore than Trump was personally accountable for everything Fox News said while he was in office. They sometimes had different narratives and takes on things and even criticism for him. Hell, Xi Jinping doesn’t even have absolute control over what gets published and said in Chinese news media. But allowing it to be published is still a sign of some sort of approval from the authorities and when there’s enough genocide-leaning talk afoot surrounding a government (or president) it’s fair to start to interpret that as a sign of intent.

Especially since we have to read this in the context of Russia having been the one to invade. We should be biased against the side that started the war, and doubly so when that side lays mine fields in the path of fleeing refugees.

[Elfdart]

1. Russia isn't winning, they are losing, but only slightly.

Then they aren't really losing, no matter how much their advances have looked like the Keystone Cops. They still occupy a large chunk of the country and getting them to leave is going to take a much bigger war. My guess is that intend to form up their land corridor between the Russian-speaking parts of the country and Crimea and more or less annex it all, then call it a "victory".

We need to help Ukraine keep up the pressure, and then they will win or at least stalemate.

Why in the name of Burl Ives' left nut should "we" back a regime that has avowed Nazis in their armed forces, complete with Nazi insignia, which they wear openly? You know, the nice people who burned 42 trade unionists alive in Odessa?

2. Zelensky hasn't committed any war crimes. Russia keeps accusing Ukrainian troops of whatever they can pull out of their ass, and I hope if evidence is found those troops are punished, but no evidence has been found implicating Zelensky or Biden.

He named Dmytro Kotsyubaylo, leader of Right Sector, as "hero of Ukraine". When Kotsyubaylo isn't yukking it up about feeding the bones of Russian-speaking children to his pet wolf, he and his minions burn trade unionists to death. Zelensky supports crimes against humanity.

3. There are legal protections for partisans and resistance members:

I'll believe that when the people who approved the rape, torture and murder in places like Bagram, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib ever end up in the dock. Besides, Twitter would NEVER ban someone for posting that say, a Hamas partisan who chucked a gasoline bomb at IDF troops could/should be shot as "terrorists". Sauce for the goose is not sauce for certain ganders.

He didn't say "could be" he said they straight up were war criminals. Calling someone a criminal means "wishing or hoping" they get punished for that crime, which in this case would be execution. That very clearly violates twitter rules.

Drama queen much? Many heads of state, as well as their henchmen, are called war criminals -usually with justification. While it's fun to daydream about them dying in prison rather than a posh private hospital bed, it's not "harassment" to say they richly deserve it. One thing that never changes is that you're more likely to be punished for denouncing or exposing a war criminal than for being one. For example, in this video from 13 years ago, it's the Code Pink gals who get grappled by the police and not Rumsfeld.

[Ralin]

He named Dmytro Kotsyubaylo, leader of Right Sector, as "hero of Ukraine". When Kotsyubaylo isn't yukking it up about feeding the bones of Russian-speaking children to his pet wolf, he and his minions burn trade unionists to death. Zelensky supports crimes against humanity.

2. Zelensky hasn't committed any war crimes. Russia keeps accusing Ukrainian troops of whatever they can pull out of their ass, and I hope if evidence is found those troops are punished, but no evidence has been found implicating Zelensky or Biden.

committed ---- supports

Notice the dishonest little verbal shift there? Given that Elfdart’s only response to being told that Zelensky hasn’t committed war crimes is to try and change the focus to Zelensky apparently saying good things about someone who either has or wants to this is basically a concession that Zelensky hasn’t committed any war crimes that Elfdart can name. What a dishonest little weasel.

Why in the name of Burl Ives' left nut should "we" back a regime that has avowed Nazis in their armed forces, complete with Nazi insignia, which they wear openly? You know, the nice people who burned 42 trade unionists alive in Odessa?

Because they were invaded by another, larger country whose troops are currently murdering their citizens you dishonest little shitheel. Most militaries have members who are Nazis or similarly bad. If that alone was enough to justify them being conquered we’d all be pretty fucked. In short,

my position, which has remained consistent: Nazis are bad, Salafi jihadists are bad, invading other countries is wrong, and of all the things on the internet to wank to, ginning up a war is near the bottom of the list.

Your position is not consistent. You lying little shit.

I'll believe that when the people who approved the rape, torture and murder in places like Bagram, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib ever end up in the dock. Besides, Twitter would NEVER ban someone for posting that say, a Hamas partisan who chucked a gasoline bomb at IDF troops could/should be shot as "terrorists". Sauce for the goose is not sauce for certain ganders.

Blah blah blah America and Israel got away with about the same thing.

Drama queen much? Many heads of state, as well as their henchmen, are called war criminals -usually with justification. While it's fun to daydream about them dying in prison rather than a posh private hospital bed, it's not "harassment" to say they richly deserve it. One thing that never changes is that you're more likely to be punished for denouncing or exposing a war criminal than for being one. For example, in this video from 13 years ago, it's the Code Pink gals who get grappled by the police and not Rumsfeld.

So pretending that the president of a country that was invaded through no real fault of their own is morally equivalent to Bush and company. Hey Elfdart, America’s not the center of the world and it’s shitty of you to Kramer your way into a thread about an unrelated country’s problems to use them as a soapbox for ranting about a presidential administration that ended over a decade ago and American issues in general.

Also:

Who wants to bet money on whether Elfdart will handwave that away or just ignore it?

For anyone who put down a wager, Elfdart elected to completely ignore the part about denying a violent event (Russian soldiers tying up and shooting Ukrainian prisoners).

One might also reasonably speculate that what’s his name’s support for things like the summary execution of Ukrainian civilians may have contributed to his suspension even if that wasn’t in the specific tweet that prompted it, but that is both outside the scope of the bet and also beyond Elfdart’s capacity for nuance.

[Elfdart]

The universe where "Denying a violent event" (subtext for you because you're stupid, they're talking about shit like Holocaust denial but stands to reason war crimes or hate crimes would apply), wishing violence on people and celebrating violent acts are under the same general category as targeted harassment on the "Report a tweet" lists of options. Here, let me give you the the short list under "Harassed or threatened with violence"

He didn't deny any violent event, fucktard. He simply pointed out that Haditha was worse and that it's not proven who did the killings.

And if you go to the next page there's a drop down list of choices:

Sexually harassing people
Sending people unwanted adult content
Name-calling or using insults
Wishing harm on people
Encouraging others to harass people
Posting people's private info
Threatening to expose or hack people's private info
Sharing people's image or likeness without permission
Denying a violent event
Threatening people with violence
Celebrating or praising violent acts

Yup, sounds pretty on target in that context. Who wants to bet money on whether Elfdart will handwave that away or just ignore it?

That's because you're a liar as well as a fucktard. In none of those twitter messages (one of which wasn't even his, which you're too fucking stupid to notice by the way) did he wish harm on anyone, deny any violent events or celebrate or praise violent acts.

[Dominus Atheos]

That's because you're a liar as well as a fucktard. In none of those twitter messages (one of which wasn't even his, which you're too fucking stupid to notice by the way) did he wish harm on anyone, deny any violent events or celebrate or praise violent acts.

I'll get back to your other stuff later, but real quick that tweet is quoting him spreading easily disprovable russian disinformation. That's why I included it.



That is objectively false, it's not even debatable.

[Ralin]

He didn't deny any violent event, fucktard. He simply pointed out that Haditha was worse and that it's not proven who did the killings.

That's because you're a liar as well as a fucktard. In none of those twitter messages (one of which wasn't even his, which you're too fucking stupid to notice by the way) did he wish harm on anyone, deny any violent events or celebrate or praise violent acts.

Saying that Biden is trying to 'shift the blame for Bucha murders onto Russia' implies that the Russian military did not murder a bunch of civilians by tying them up and shooting them, Mister Fake Anti-Imperialist. Maybe in your mind that doesn't qualify as a violent event because there are neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military and guilt by association and all that, but for those of us whose brains haven't been replaced by worms it's pretty straight forward.

Also notice you skim over the bit with him crowing over how Ukrainian civilians who resist are fair game for summary execution.

Also

He simply pointed out that Haditha was worse

You just can't stop with the Kramering in about America, can you?

[Elfdart]

committed ---- supports

Since you are even more stupid than you are dishonest, I'll go to the trouble of educating you. Heads of state usually don't go out and commit crimes themselves. They have stooges do it for them. The fact that Zelinsky promoted that Nazi thug and gave him a medal, proclaiming him a "hero" when his record of being a Nazi and murderer is well-known shows that Zelinsky approves of his conduct OR he's too weak to distance himself from Right Sector, Azov or other Nazi groups.

Why in the name of Burl Ives' left nut should "we" back a regime that has avowed Nazis in their armed forces, complete with Nazi insignia, which they wear openly? You know, the nice people who burned 42 trade unionists alive in Odessa?

Because they were invaded by another, larger country whose troops are currently murdering their citizens you dishonest little shitheel. Most militaries have members who are Nazis or similarly bad. If that alone was enough to justify them being conquered we’d all be pretty fucked. In short,

Bitch, stop lying. Ukraine is the only country on the face of this earth where members of the armed forces or other security services are allowed to wear Nazi insignia on their uniforms. This practice is so commonplace in Ukraine that even when they (or their NATIO sponsors) try to post feel-good photos on social media, they end up having to take them down because their "heroes" are sporting SS lightning bolts, the wolfsangel, or the Black Sun. It's like Dr Strangelove's right arm!

my position, which has remained consistent: Nazis are bad, Salafi jihadists are bad, invading other countries is wrong, and of all the things on the internet to wank to, ginning up a war is near the bottom of the list.

Your position is not consistent. You lying little shit.

Feel free to quote where I say Putin's invasion was a good idea, or was justified.

I'll believe that when the people who approved the rape, torture and murder in places like Bagram, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib ever end up in the dock. Besides, Twitter would NEVER ban someone for posting that say, a Hamas partisan who chucked a gasoline bomb at IDF troops could/should be shot as "terrorists". Sauce for the goose is not sauce for certain ganders.

Blah blah blah America and Israel got away with about the same thing.

No, America and Israel got away with much worse. You're just sore because the plain truth affects you the same way garlic afflicts vampires.

[Elfdart]

That's because you're a liar as well as a fucktard. In none of those twitter messages (one of which wasn't even his, which you're too fucking stupid to notice by the way) did he wish harm on anyone, deny any violent events or celebrate or praise violent acts.

I'll get back to your other stuff later, but real quick that tweet is quoting him spreading easily disprovable russian disinformation. That's why I included it.



That is objectively false, it's not even debatable.

Watch those goalposts fly!

The tweet is by Lee Camp, not Scott Ritter -so it has no bearing on him being censored. Twitter made clear why they kicked him off: writing that Biden is a war criminal. And which part is "easily disprovable russian [sic] disinformation"? Where he said in early March that it looked like Russia was winning handily? I remember the breathless media reports at the time where they made it sound like the Russians would be in Kiev at any moment.

Oh and extra fucktard points for describing an opinion you disagree with as "russian [sic] disinformation" -as if Ritter couldn't have come to that conclusion on his own and therefore it must have come from the Kremlin. You do realize that by your logic, someone could accuse you of spreading Nazi agitprop.

[wautd]

Meet Dmitry Utkin, founder of the Wagner Group. Putin's private army of neo-nazi mercenaries, fighting along Russian backed separatists in the Donbas region since 2014 (among other places).

[Ralin]

Since you are even more stupid than you are dishonest, I'll go to the trouble of educating you. Heads of state usually don't go out and commit crimes themselves. They have stooges do it for them. The fact that Zelinsky promoted that Nazi thug and gave him a medal, proclaiming him a "hero" when his record of being a Nazi and murderer is well-known shows that Zelinsky approves of his conduct OR he's too weak to distance himself from Right Sector, Azov or other Nazi groups.

Of course they don’t, dumdum. But when someone says a head of state committed a war crime that implies they ordered someone to do it, or at least deliberately set up a situation where it would happen. Pretty sure you know that. Pretty sure you knew you couldn’t give an example of Zelensky doing that, which is why you did your little switch to ‘supports’ and pretended you were addressing the original point.

Bitch, stop lying. Ukraine is the only country on the face of this earth where members of the armed forces or other security services are allowed to wear Nazi insignia on their uniforms. This practice is so commonplace in Ukraine that even when they (or their NATIO sponsors) try to post feel-good photos on social media, they end up having to take them down because their "heroes" are sporting SS lightning bolts, the wolfsangel, or the Black Sun. It's like Dr Strangelove's right arm!

Which is terrible if true and all, but 1) open insignia or not many militaries have horribly racist, murderous and generally terrible people in their ranks and 2) no part of this means that Ukrainians somehow don’t have a right to self-government or national sovereignty or not being tied up and shot by Russian troops.

Feel free to quote where I say Putin's invasion was a good idea, or was justified.

Oh you didn’t explicitly say it, you lying little ass spelunker. But as much as you pretend otherwise context is a thing. You’ve gone out of your way to smear the Ukrainian government and military (including President Zelensky, noted Jew) as Nazis, just like actual Russian propaganda. You took the example of some neo-Nazis in Ukrainian military and used that as a jumping off point to soapbox about how you are outraged, absolutely outraged at the idea that the US or other allied countries should support the horrible Ukrainian government that allowed such things [in defending themselves against Russian invasion]. Going all in condemning the Ukrainian government and the idea of supporting them [with military and economic aid] while handwaving Russia’s ongoing crimes against them is an implicit defense of Putin’s invasion.

You’re not fooling anyone, Elfie. I’d call you stupid again, but frankly I don’t think you seriously expect to convince anyone. Seems like grandstanding about this alt-left shit is just your way of killing time and staying entertained.

[Zaune]

Just in case you thought we hadn't reached the absolute nadir, now we've got reports of chemical weapons being deployed in Mariupol.

Wow, my last post in this thread aged really well, didn't it? I was amenable to giving the Russians the benefit of a tiny scrap of doubt until more details came to light, because digging one big trench for all the bodies recovered after a battle isn't a war crime all by itself, even if some of them weren't carrying weapons when they died: There's a war going on, innocent people will get caught in the crossfire no matter what steps either side take to manage the risk.

But if these reports turn out to be true... Well, at that point it doesn't really matter if ethnic cleansing was a policy objective or not because genocide by gross negligence is still genocide. And using chemical weapons against enemy positions in a built up area goes several orders of magnitude beyond inadequate risk management.