The Kremlin accused the West of turning a blind eye to what it said were "terrorist attacks" committed by Ukraine inside Russia, noting on Wednesday what it said was the silence this week over a deadly attack on the Crimean Bridge.
Uhm, no, based on your definition not even the official 9/11 story’s Al-Quaida would be considered terrorists because they supposedly admitted to what they were doing:
FBI’s terrorism definitions:
International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.
Al Queda was a non-state actor with state support. You bolded “nations”, but that whole line says “designated foreign terrorist … nations”. The Ukrainians are not trying to instil fear, they’re cutting a major logistical line with military uses.
I also bolded nations (state-sponsored), political organizations, state institutions such as armies and intelligence services.
Exactly for that reason. Ukraine is openly and clandestinely attacking* Russia, most likely with help from Western governments. The goal is to instill fear in the Russian population in order to reduce the russian population’s willingness to support or accept the ongoing SMO/war against Ukraine/NATO expansion.
Not to forget the Nordstream pipelines (though I’m sure the US was heavily involved).
Come on man, there are no good people in war. Stop the “Russian talking points” line while simultaneously regurgitating Western talking points. It’s quite tiresome.
“No good people in the war that Russia started and is perpetuating.”
Ukraine’s options for ending the war here are either continue fighting (in its own territory, even) or lay down and die. Are you seriously recommending it do the latter?
If you want better results, you should spend your time convincing Russia to end their war of aggression, instead of bitching about the lengths Ukraine must go to if it wants to not die.
And leave everyone exposed to one-sided Western propaganda that’s already all over the media? Nah, pass. I did my own research into the whole Ukraine/Russia/maidan coup story years ago after stumbling upon some people critical of the Western narrative. You and people like you can downvote and keep on repeating the same NATO talking points all you want, I’m not here for the clout/karma/whatever. :)
I’ll grant you Darya’s assassination is suspect, but like you admit, there’s no confirmation. As for the drones, that’s a ridiculous false equivalence given those drones were targeting military assets and no civilians were hurt by them, unlike Russias pattern of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure.
I’ve seen no credible evidence that anyone other than Russia was behind the Nordstream attacks, but feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
I might add my grandparents were great when they fought off the fascist Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Russia is wholly in the wrong for this war and did so only under the false assumption they’d be able to take over quickly and with acceptable repercussions.
You’re the one bringing up “Russian talking points”; the views I present are my own.
You’re the one bringing up “Russian talking points”; the views I present are my own.
He said, she said - we’re going in circles here. Either we’re both able to accept that we have our own views, hopefully based on research of somewhat neutral or at least sources of both sides or we’ll keep throwing mud at each other for no reason.
I’ve seen no credible evidence that anyone other than Russia was behind the Nordstream attacks, but feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Sure thing, see:
After months of accusations by Western states that Russia carried out the attack against itself, the narrative about Russian “ghost ships” began to crumble. On May 21, the Swedish paper, Expressen, wrote that “the Russian ships have been able to be excluded from the investigation” because “their positions have been mapped and the conclusion must be that they have not been in such a place that they could have carried out the deed.”
[…]
In a June 7 article, the Washington Post cited intelligence gleaned from the Discord Files to assert that the Ukrainian military had secretly orchestrated the Nord Stream sabotage. “All those involved reported directly to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer,” the Post claimed, “who was put in charge so that the nation’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, wouldn’t know about the operation, the intelligence report said."
I’m aware TGZ is suspect to many (I can already hear the “tanki tankie!!!11” crowd) and I don’t take anything they write at face value either, but seriously, this is solid reporting on the matter, a good summary of the various narratives that have been put into play so far, it’s well sourced and based on data collected by Erik Andersson who lead an independent diving expedition to the blast sites. You can also check out his Substack if you absolutely don’t want to read TGZ.
If you’re still convinced it was Russia, I don’t know what to tell you.
If the goal were to instill fear in Russian citizens, they’d be attacking Russian citizens.
They are not.
They are attacking a Russian supply line to hamper their offensive efforts.
When you give bad faith actors the benefit of the doubt, you look like a bad faith actor yourself. Stop parroting Russian talking points as if there’s a way for Ukraine to have their approval without capitulating.
The purpose of felling the two towers was to cause terror and change amaricans political views.
The purpose of felling the Kerch bridge is to stop russian bringing military resources into the Ukraine.
What maybe a difficult point is something like the bombing of ww2 cities like Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima. Many there were making munitions for Japan so was it.civilian or moltrry
Office buildings are not military targets, nor was the plane used to strike the Pentagon (getting ahead of that potential rebuttal). The Kerch bridge is as it’s used to transport military goods to the front line.
There’s a reason I quoted multiple definitions. The 9/11 example is also clearly a response to the comment I’m replying to because the author claimed that terrorism requires that the perpetrators are hiding their involvement.
None of your definitions match Ukraine, which attacks military targets during an active war started by a nation that invaded them.
Now, Russia actively bombing civilian targets to generate a climate of fear in a population to bring a particular political objective, seems to awfully match that definition.
What’s so interesting to me is that from much of what I’ve read - bombing civilian populations as a way to end a war has basically never worked. It was pushed heavily in WWII due to I think LeMay theories, but basically strengthened morale to stand up to the enemy instead.
Of course, not saying the Russians, or really anyone who gets into a war is necessarily behaving rationally, but this is sadly very destructive with very little history saying it’ll help anyone achieve any goal.
Yeah, in case of Ukrainians they know that if they surrender it still won’t be over, the next thing will be killing them and moving them to far east until the Ukrainian identity is completely erased.
Yeah, in case of Ukrainians they know that if they surrender it still won’t be over, the next thing will be killing them
The constant refrain of “Russia wants to kill every Ukrainian”. It’s never made sense. There has never been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukrainians.
Can you lay out exactly why you think that Russia will kill Ukrainians once the war is over? Can you lay out why you think the goal is to kill Ukrainians?
‘“What Russia Should Do with Ukraine” (Russian: Что Россия должна сделать с Украиной, romanized: Chto Rossiya dolzhna sdelat’ s Ukrainoy), is an article written by Timofey Sergeytsev and published by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti. The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state, as well as the full destruction of the Ukrainian national identity in accordance with Russia’s aim to accomplish the “denazification” of the latter.’
Pretty genocidal if you ask me. And before you say articles on state-owned media don’t count, let’s take a minute to remember what Russia did to Chechenya:
Putin was never hiding that in his opinion Ukraine has no particular cultural significance or uniqueness
If you watch interviews of Muscovies they want to exterminate Ukrainians some people didn’t even have problem with saying that Ukrainian children should be murdered
there are already brutal attacks on Ukrainian civilians and many documented war crimes
nearly a million of Ukrainian kids were kidnapped and sent to Muscovies, that’s basically a textbook example of genocide
Do you believe things will get better if they have full control over Ukraine?
Uhm, no, based on your definition not even the official 9/11 story’s Al-Quaida would be considered terrorists because they supposedly admitted to what they were doing:
FBI’s terrorism definitions:
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Cambridge:
Al Queda was a non-state actor with state support. You bolded “nations”, but that whole line says “designated foreign terrorist … nations”. The Ukrainians are not trying to instil fear, they’re cutting a major logistical line with military uses.
Devils in the details, as usual.
I also bolded nations (state-sponsored), political organizations, state institutions such as armies and intelligence services.
Exactly for that reason. Ukraine is openly and clandestinely attacking* Russia, most likely with help from Western governments. The goal is to instill fear in the Russian population in order to reduce the russian population’s willingness to support or accept the ongoing SMO/war against Ukraine/NATO expansion.
The goal is to deny Russia a supply route. If they wanted to instill fear they’d strike apartment buildings like the Russians do.
Ukraine was likely behind the assassination of Darya Dugin and they’ve flown drones armed with explosives over residential areas in Moscow.
Just one source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65751632
Not to forget the Nordstream pipelines (though I’m sure the US was heavily involved).
Come on man, there are no good people in war. Stop the “Russian talking points” line while simultaneously regurgitating Western talking points. It’s quite tiresome.
“No good people in the war that Russia started and is perpetuating.”
Ukraine’s options for ending the war here are either continue fighting (in its own territory, even) or lay down and die. Are you seriously recommending it do the latter?
If you want better results, you should spend your time convincing Russia to end their war of aggression, instead of bitching about the lengths Ukraine must go to if it wants to not die.
I’ll make sure to give Putin a call and let him know once I’ve finished dinner.
Or just stop posting Russia apologia and Ukraine whataboutism on the Internet? Pretty easy fix imo.
And leave everyone exposed to one-sided Western propaganda that’s already all over the media? Nah, pass. I did my own research into the whole Ukraine/Russia/maidan coup story years ago after stumbling upon some people critical of the Western narrative. You and people like you can downvote and keep on repeating the same NATO talking points all you want, I’m not here for the clout/karma/whatever. :)
I’ll grant you Darya’s assassination is suspect, but like you admit, there’s no confirmation. As for the drones, that’s a ridiculous false equivalence given those drones were targeting military assets and no civilians were hurt by them, unlike Russias pattern of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure.
I’ve seen no credible evidence that anyone other than Russia was behind the Nordstream attacks, but feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
I might add my grandparents were great when they fought off the fascist Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Russia is wholly in the wrong for this war and did so only under the false assumption they’d be able to take over quickly and with acceptable repercussions.
You’re the one bringing up “Russian talking points”; the views I present are my own.
He said, she said - we’re going in circles here. Either we’re both able to accept that we have our own views, hopefully based on research of somewhat neutral or at least sources of both sides or we’ll keep throwing mud at each other for no reason.
Sure thing, see:
Source: The Grayzone
I’m aware TGZ is suspect to many (I can already hear the “tanki tankie!!!11” crowd) and I don’t take anything they write at face value either, but seriously, this is solid reporting on the matter, a good summary of the various narratives that have been put into play so far, it’s well sourced and based on data collected by Erik Andersson who lead an independent diving expedition to the blast sites. You can also check out his Substack if you absolutely don’t want to read TGZ.
If you’re still convinced it was Russia, I don’t know what to tell you.
I hadn’t seen that post article, thanks for sharing.
You’re welcome!
If the goal were to instill fear in Russian citizens, they’d be attacking Russian citizens.
They are not.
They are attacking a Russian supply line to hamper their offensive efforts.
When you give bad faith actors the benefit of the doubt, you look like a bad faith actor yourself. Stop parroting Russian talking points as if there’s a way for Ukraine to have their approval without capitulating.
For example, like the Kremlin is bombing Ukrainian apartment buildings and murdering civilians.
You’re replying to a comment where I explicitly mention that Russia and Ukraine are at war. Duh. Thanks for… explaining war?
I never disputed that Russia is killing Ukrainians. wtf.
Russians bombing apartments is more akin to terrorism than Ukrainians bombing a supply route.
I never disputed that.
The purpose of felling the two towers was to cause terror and change amaricans political views.
The purpose of felling the Kerch bridge is to stop russian bringing military resources into the Ukraine.
What maybe a difficult point is something like the bombing of ww2 cities like Dresden, Coventry or Hiroshima. Many there were making munitions for Japan so was it.civilian or moltrry
Agreed, 9/11 isn’t a good example for the topic of the RUS/UKR war. Thanks!
Office buildings are not military targets, nor was the plane used to strike the Pentagon (getting ahead of that potential rebuttal). The Kerch bridge is as it’s used to transport military goods to the front line.
There’s a reason I quoted multiple definitions. The 9/11 example is also clearly a response to the comment I’m replying to because the author claimed that terrorism requires that the perpetrators are hiding their involvement.
None of your definitions match Ukraine, which attacks military targets during an active war started by a nation that invaded them.
Now, Russia actively bombing civilian targets to generate a climate of fear in a population to bring a particular political objective, seems to awfully match that definition.
What’s so interesting to me is that from much of what I’ve read - bombing civilian populations as a way to end a war has basically never worked. It was pushed heavily in WWII due to I think LeMay theories, but basically strengthened morale to stand up to the enemy instead.
Of course, not saying the Russians, or really anyone who gets into a war is necessarily behaving rationally, but this is sadly very destructive with very little history saying it’ll help anyone achieve any goal.
Yeah, in case of Ukrainians they know that if they surrender it still won’t be over, the next thing will be killing them and moving them to far east until the Ukrainian identity is completely erased.
The constant refrain of “Russia wants to kill every Ukrainian”. It’s never made sense. There has never been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukrainians.
Can you lay out exactly why you think that Russia will kill Ukrainians once the war is over? Can you lay out why you think the goal is to kill Ukrainians?
The stated goal is killing the Ukrainian identity, a.k.a. genocide.
Is it? Can you point me to anywhere that that’s the stated goal?
Never has the stated goal included wanting to genocide Ukrainians. To say that’s the case is to pretend your imagination is reality.
‘“What Russia Should Do with Ukraine” (Russian: Что Россия должна сделать с Украиной, romanized: Chto Rossiya dolzhna sdelat’ s Ukrainoy), is an article written by Timofey Sergeytsev and published by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti. The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state, as well as the full destruction of the Ukrainian national identity in accordance with Russia’s aim to accomplish the “denazification” of the latter.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukraine
Pretty genocidal if you ask me. And before you say articles on state-owned media don’t count, let’s take a minute to remember what Russia did to Chechenya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_genocide
Do you believe things will get better if they have full control over Ukraine?
Thanks for explaining war to me. Helpful.