Russian Invasion of Ukraine

  • Thread starter Rage Racer
  • 9,959 comments
  • 556,147 views
inCloud
Yes, but do we automatically saying that all members of RUAF evil? There are three problems with that statement:
1) Conscripts(300.000to400.000)
2) Mobilized(<300.000)
3) No one could leave RUAF since October 2022 and it was hard to do since invasion.

There are a lot of grey areas and everyone should think twice before generalize when speaking about this war, if he don't want to call innocent 18 y.o guy an orc.
Click to expand...
I understand their plight. They are stuck in an autocrat's fantasyland and probably don't understand what's really going on. If they did, they are either resigned to being helpless, feckless pawns, or they are truly evil. It's a sad state, and I'm sorry you are involved in it as someone living in Russia.
 
Omnis
probably don't understand what's really going on.
Click to expand...
Some understand perfectly, but if you refuse to fight against Ukraine you going into pit or taking bullet in head. Some brainwashed or too cynical, some want to revenge comrades. Complicated ****
eran0004
They are all part of the crime.
Click to expand...
What crime? Participation in conflict on aggressor side isn't crime by itself according to international law. As far as individuals don't committing war crimes they aren't criminals.
 
Last edited:
inCloud
View attachment 1379696
RIP
Click to expand...
Up to 490 Russian soldiers were killed in this attack. Supposedly, Ukraine had hacked roadside cameras and been watching Russian movements in real time through their own cameras.

Supposedly Russia has begun transferring reserves to the north now, toward Kursk. That leaves thinner defenses down south. If they can keep targetting AA weapons down south, F-16s would be a very useful air support tool and buy soldiers time to clear defenses in the south and start retaking land.

This here is a problem for America as well:



While our attack helicopters can carry massive amounts of weaponry, ultimately they're completely indefensible against drones. One little grenade is all it takes to take them down.
 
Last edited:
Keef
Supposedly, Ukraine had hacked roadside cameras and been watching Russian movements in real time through their own cameras.
Click to expand...
Modern problems require modern solutions.
Keef
F-16s would be a very useful air support tool
Click to expand...
I don't believe thay would ever be used as support in this conflict.
Keef
ultimately they're completely indefensible against drones
Click to expand...
Jammers would do the job until ai driven drones happens. Than some ai driven active defense systems should do the job.
 
aPAMzxQ_460s.jpg
 
inCloud
Like figurative meaning? IDK, use quotation marks, then, its confusing.
Click to expand...
It's simply a language barrier, don't get too upset about it.

That's not a figurative meaning of the word, it is simply a different context. For example, when we talk about historical events like the Nazi holocaust we often use the phrase "crimes against humanity" but this usage refers to a moral crime, not a break-the-law crime. It's like the concept of "right vs wrong" or "legal vs illegal" which are two different things, but the word crime can be used in both contexts. Frankly, the break-the-law version of crime doesn't actually become literal until somebody is convicted of crimes - a criminal isn't actually a criminal until they're convicted, but before that they're simply a bad person.
 
Last edited:
Keef
crimes against humanity
Click to expand...
Its literally breaking of international law
Keef
but the word crime can be used in both contexts
Click to expand...
Not sure if it can be used in this context. This usage blurs the line, which is really important. When you say that someone is criminal, this should mean that he break the law and was convicted. AFAIK, you even breaking the law when calling someone who wasn't convicted a criminal.

Something like "by wearing this dress you committing a crime" or "by wasting food you committing a crime" is ok, but saying that someone doing a crime when he doesn't actually breaking the law but someone could think he breaking ? Seems inappropriate, if not misleading.
 
Last edited:
inCloud
Seems inappropriate, if not misleading.
Click to expand...
It isn't for native English speakers. English is notoriously difficult to learn for non-native speakers due to many words having different meanings in different contexts.
inCloud
AFAIK, you even breaking the law when calling someone who wasn't convicted a criminal.
Click to expand...
You're referring to defemation, or libel as we call it in the US. Libel - somebody talking crap about you - is almost always a civil case in the form of a lawsuit brought by somebody who feels they've been offended. It isn't really possible for a government prosecutor to bring the case in a criminal manner unless they believe their state or office was defamed somehow but that would be ridiculou because they're public servants. Libel is extremely hard to prove, virtually impossible, because the US's freedom of speech and freedom of press rights are so strong. It is very rare for libel cases to result in criminal penalties, and in the rare cases libel is actually proven in court it's settled in a civil manner, like with financial payments.

So I can talk trash about you or anybody else all I want, really. It may be a crime against you, but it's not a crime against the law, and I may be a criminal for doing it, but I'm not a criminal for doing it.



 
Last edited:
Keef
It isn't for native English speakers.
Click to expand...
I am not too deep in semantic, but from what I find online its pretty close to what we use here(same administrative/criminal law concepts). How should anyone know that in these case it was referred to morally evil and not criminal law breaker?
 
inCloud
I am not too deep in semantic, but from what I find online its pretty close to what we use here(same administrative/criminal law concepts). How should anyone know that in these case it was referred to morally evil and not criminal law breaker?
Click to expand...
A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms, or cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally
 
inCloud
Very strange definition 🤔
Click to expand...
We have a morality thread somewhere on GTP. Law is based on concepts of morality, not the other way around. The idea of right and wrong comes first, then we create law to try and objectify what we think is right or wrong. If anything, the word "crime" relates more directly to morality than to law because the law is simply how we decide if a moral wrong has occurred.
 
inCloud
Like figurative meaning? IDK, use quotation marks, then, its confusing.
Click to expand...
Most words have several meanings, usually the intended meaning can be understood from the context.

Quotation marks are usually used to indicate either a quote or irony. Sometimes they are also used to indicate emphasis, which can produce some hilarious results, such as:

“Fresh” apples for sale.

…which a lot of people would read as irony, rather than emphasis.
 
Scaff
In the UK we use the term 'criminal' in the context of behaviour that is clearly legal but not moral, i.e. 'Jim skipped buying his round last night, that's criminal '.
Click to expand...
Straight to jail!

Anyway,



Ukraine has to poosh!
 
Last edited:
Now that they have Putin sweating over the nuclear plant, I think they will instead muster forces to head southeast or east. Even if they don't occupy Russian territory, they need to do something to disrupt supply lines to the occupied areas to the east. Give their attack aircraft a corridor through which they can run sorties.
 
Dennisch
Also, a lot of footage of en masse surrendering of the Russians, if true.
Click to expand...
If there's footage of it it's pretty true lol. It's been going on for days, I've shared a couple instances also. Especially near Kursk, they got taken by surprise and didn't want to fight.

As for the Russian diversions, the tight focus of Ukraine's Kursk attack and thus the tight focus of incoming Russian forces will allow for an effective aerial attack by F-16s if they have appropriate ground attack weapons. It seems that the Kursk front lacks any sort of defense, possibly even AA defenses, although obviously the F-16s would have to defend against other planes.

Another tactic is that this opens up other spots along the front to Ukrainian attacks although the rest of the front has typically been better defended.

Regardless if the F-16s aren't air-to-ground equipped, they would be nice to have over Kursk given that there doesn't seem to be any AA there and they could fend off Russian jets from a good distance. This is all an unusal tactic by the Ukrainians so they're clearly planning on using different tools to accomplish whatever their goal is.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back