Ukraine Conflict - "A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny"

[kanisatha]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

Which is one of those "technicalities" some countries use to deny having gone into recession (despite two quarters of negative GDP growth)... A paint job isn't going to gloss over structural problems with the debt, "actual" recession and inflation

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2022/0802

https://nrf.com/research/monthly-economic-review-august-2022

US inflation rate is currently 9.1%... hard to sell as a positive

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

^This part I agree with, though none of this has anything to do with Russia or Ukraine. These are all things resulting from bad domestic policy choices and actions.

[Zoraptor]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

It's going to be a game of chicken, see whose economy collapses first, The US or China. Russia didn't have much of an economy to begin with, so they started at the bottom level, beating the other two easily (you could actually argue, they were the ones with the least to lose if looking at it cynically)

Russia definitely had least to lose and in some ways are far more insulated- energy independent, most people own their own property, lots of raw resources people absolutely need; plus a population that (mostly) isn't used to or expecting a 'luxurious' existence anyway.

Probably more of a politics thread thing, but the employment figures are pretty decoupled from economics this time around. We have record low unemployment* here spurred on by not being able to import slaves cheap foreign labour slaves during covid. We also have 30% of people who bought a house in the past year or so with negative equity and worse to come. That's an awful situation to be in when 10% of your population (not workforce) is employed building tatty mcmansions to exploit a housing bubble.

Proper inflation is a lot worse for poorer people too, and not just via Vimes Boot Index. If you've got the money maybe you delay updating your car to the 2023 model or find you can live without the latest iPhone model...

*not actually, New Zealand had full employment up to the 70s but for some reason that doesn't count

[Mamoulian War]

Looks like the perpetrators of Bucha atrocities have found their judgment…

 

[Malcador]

The reactions to Amnesty International's report is something I don't get, AI always gets dismissed when they say anything negative about the Blue Team though, so isn't a total shock.  But was expecting something more from AI to warrant that, the report seemed tame and I'm not seeing this supposed "false equivalence" being drawn here.

At least the Telegraph's take on it is funny - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/amnesty-now-utterly-morally-bankrupt/

 

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

The reactions to Amnesty International's report is something I don't get..

Really? I would have said the reaction was absolutely predictable. You get pretty much exactly the same thing whenever HRW/ AI criticises Israel, just in exact reverse.

Which is of course itself pretty funny, especially when it's the same person/ organisation taking the mutually contradictory positions.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Really? I would have said the reaction was absolutely predictable. You get pretty much exactly the same thing whenever HRW/ AI criticises Israel, just in exact reverse.

Which is of course itself pretty funny, especially when it's the same person/ organisation taking the mutually contradictory positions.

AI is sometimes  inconsistent, they not as vociferous when Hamas fires rockets into Israel and anytime you target civilians that is a war crime. But at least they do acknowledge it when Hamas is involved in war crimes 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32053999

 

[pmp10]

7 hours ago, Malcador said:

The reactions to Amnesty International's report is something I don't get, AI always gets dismissed when they say anything negative about the Blue Team though, so isn't a total shock.  But was expecting something more from AI to warrant that, the report seemed tame and I'm not seeing this supposed "false equivalence" being drawn here.

The report was so neutral it's being used as a card blanche to justifying hitting hospitals.
Between this and the '30% of aid makes it to front' quote it's clearly a serious attempt to reverse narrative around Ukraine.

Most likely too early for that just yet, but 'had it coming' is only a matter of time.

Edited August 8, 2022 by pmp10

[Elerond]

7 hours ago, Malcador said:

The reactions to Amnesty International's report is something I don't get, AI always gets dismissed when they say anything negative about the Blue Team though, so isn't a total shock.  But was expecting something more from AI to warrant that, the report seemed tame and I'm not seeing this supposed "false equivalence" being drawn here.

At least the Telegraph's take on it is funny - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/amnesty-now-utterly-morally-bankrupt/

 

AI did their typical way half asset job with their reporting (ignored calls from multiple international journalists that tried to give them their input for the article, they don't give any details how international humanitarian laws were broken and so on, which is typical for them in all of their reporting, which is why they usually fail to get any done to correct the breaches they report) and in case of original version of report of Ukraine's breaches they didn't contextualized their findings and their last report of the war was over month ago, making it look that it was just Ukraine that had recently broken international laws (fact that Russia used immediately in their messaging).

Amnesty usually gets away with their poorly written reports because they report wars and issues that don't have much interest, but in case of Ukraine, Ukraine has vested interest and they currently have lot of sympathy. Also current global political climate is unstable and people have much stronger reactions towards certain issues (Ukraine conflict being one of them).

Amnesty has used to criticism towards their work, but they have relied on supporters to be disinterested of details which has given them ability to do their job poorly in past, but now they found out that when they report about issue that their typical supporters are actually interested in they typical shoddy reports will not be received favorably. Shoddy reports work only when their reader is already agreeing with issue in first place and report just strengthens their biases.

In my opinion people should not support organisations like Amnesty International and Greenpeace (and many others, but I have personal issues with those two, so they get to be my examples), who do shoddy pseudo political work in name of better world but at end just cause harm because they don't have any actual interest to do work that actually would solve the issues they claim to try to solve.

[BruceVC]

54 minutes ago, Elerond said:

AI did their typical way half asset job with their reporting (ignored calls from multiple international journalists that tried to give them their input for the article, they don't give any details how international humanitarian laws were broken and so on, which is typical for them in all of their reporting, which is why they usually fail to get any done to correct the breaches they report) and in case of original version of report of Ukraine's breaches they didn't contextualized their findings and their last report of the war was over month ago, making it look that it was just Ukraine that had recently broken international laws (fact that Russia used immediately in their messaging).

Amnesty usually gets away with their poorly written reports because they report wars and issues that don't have much interest, but in case of Ukraine, Ukraine has vested interest and they currently have lot of sympathy. Also current global political climate is unstable and people have much stronger reactions towards certain issues (Ukraine conflict being one of them).

Amnesty has used to criticism towards their work, but they have relied on supporters to be disinterested of details which has given them ability to do their job poorly in past, but now they found out that when they report about issue that their typical supporters are actually interested in they typical shoddy reports will not be received favorably. Shoddy reports work only when their reader is already agreeing with issue in first place and report just strengthens their biases.

In my opinion people should not support organisations like Amnesty International and Greenpeace (and many others, but I have personal issues with those two, so they get to be my examples), who do shoddy pseudo political work in name of better world but at end just cause harm because they don't have any actual interest to do work that actually would solve the issues they claim to try to solve.

Greenpeace? Why do you dislike them, is it because they criticize all the dolphins and whales that you Scandinavians love killing and eating ..Elerond thats guilt you feeling and its normal. It means you human 

[Mamoulian War]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

The reactions to Amnesty International's report is something I don't get, AI always gets dismissed when they say anything negative about the Blue Team though, so isn't a total shock.  But was expecting something more from AI to warrant that, the report seemed tame and I'm not seeing this supposed "false equivalence" being drawn here.

At least the Telegraph's take on it is funny - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/amnesty-now-utterly-morally-bankrupt/

 

 

The director of the Ukrainian Amnesty resigned in protest against this report. At the same time, she accuses the management of publishing incomplete evidence, and that they excluded her colleagues from the investigation.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Chilloutman]

Greenpeace are farce. Protesting for green energy by chaining themselves to most green energy sources in world is just telling. Two brain cells hardly meet in their heads

[Gorth]

A young lady whose Youtube channel I've watched occasionally for a few years. Usually an interesting insight into life in the Far East (living on the border with China, like real "rural" Russia). Giving an insight into life in post-sanction Russia...

 

[Sarex]

So seeing how they are saying it tastes the same, must mean it's still cardboard between buns.

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Greenpeace? Why do you dislike them, is it because they criticize all the dolphins and whales that you Scandinavians love killing and eating ..Elerond thats guilt you feeling and its normal. It means you human 

Their greatest achievement today has been, replacing nuclear power with coal power, and they have audacity to call themselves as protectors of nature

[Elerond]

9 minutes ago, Sarex said:

So seeing how they are saying it tastes the same, must mean it's still cardboard between buns.

Considering that they use same supply lines and ingredients there should not been any big changes in taste until they run out of supplies in storage and need to replace them

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

(ignored calls from multiple international journalists that tried to give them their input for the article)

That's... good. Reporters aren't experts on war crimes, and they most definitely aren't impartial.

They did ask Ukrainian PR for comment though, they just didn't get a response.

Quote

they don't give any details how international humanitarian laws were broken

"Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure." [source]

And yeah, there's some detail there.

I mean, are we going to argue that that isn't part of international humanitarian law? Because that really is trivial to prove.

Quote

..and in case of original version of report of Ukraine's breaches they didn't contextualized their findings and their last report of the war was over month ago, making it look that it was just Ukraine that had recently broken international laws (fact that Russia used immediately in their messaging).

"Many of the Russian strikes that Amnesty International documented in recent months were carried out with inherently indiscriminate weapons, including internationally banned cluster munitions, or with other explosive weapons with wide area effects. Others used guided weapons with varying levels of accuracy; in some cases, the weapons were precise enough to target specific objects.

The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes."

Yeah, sure does say that only Ukraine has recently committed war crimes.

Quote

Amnesty usually gets away with their poorly written reports because they report wars and issues that don't have much interest, but in case of Ukraine, Ukraine has vested interest and they currently have lot of sympathy. Also current global political climate is unstable and people have much stronger reactions towards certain issues (Ukraine conflict being one of them).

Dunno, something around here is poorly written and researched, less than convinced it's the AI report though.

Maybe don't get your summaries off Finnish Fox News.

[Elerond]

21 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

That's... good. Reporters aren't experts on war crimes, and they most definitely aren't impartial.

No, but they are people that were in the front lines seeing where how Ukraine used those schools and hospitals that Amnesty's report was about. 

Also there was no impartial people as they interviewed civilians (which reporters are) in front line towns

EDIT: As report was about putting lives of civilians in risk. So not taking account of view of certain segment of civilians in area is just shoddy work and I can't see anyway how it could be seen as good. 

 

Quote

"Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm’s way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today. Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure." [source]

And yeah, there's some detail there.

 

That is not detail, that is accusation without detail.

Where they did such, when they did, how often they did. How much risk increased for civilians, did Ukraine forces do anything to mitigate risks, etc.. Details.

 

I am sure if article was about Russian actions you would also praise it for it supreme accuracy and excellence 

EDIT2:

Quote

The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes."

This is one example of Amnesty's shoddy work, as this was not in original release, they added that paragraph after getting critic about their report being Russian propaganda piece. And they show they good practices by not mentioning that they edited their report after its release

Edited August 8, 2022 by Elerond

[Zoraptor]

The civilians may or may not be impartial, but they were direct witnesses. Reporters generally aren't, and have cheerfully ignored witnesses and edited their reports specifically to remove references to - or pictures of- Ukrainian military dead to make it look like targets were purely civilian before on more than one occasion.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Sarex]

They really started pushing the narrative of Poland taking over west Ukraine. Can't imagine that west would be so brazen no matter how they package it to look.

[pmp10]

Referendum in Zaporizhzhia officially announced.
Russia doesn't control the whole region so that could well be a de facto claim on the remainder.

Also September keeps getting mentioned as a date, likely to be coordinated with the one in Kherson. 
Time is running out for any potential Ukrainian military offensives. 

[Malcador]

5 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

 

The director of the Ukrainian Amnesty resigned in protest against this report. At the same time, she accuses the management of publishing incomplete evidence, and that they excluded her colleagues from the investigation.

 

 

Yep, saw that.  Not convinced it's supporting Russian narratives or whatever though, is a relatively tame offense compared to the stuff we see like torture and executions. Definitely not going to change anyone's mind in Western countries all that much.   Her demand that the report  "should at least investigate the two sides and take into account the position of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine." is somewhat funny when I recall various discussions in this war, though.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

15 hours ago, Malcador said:

At least the Telegraph's take on it is funny - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/amnesty-now-utterly-morally-bankrupt/

 

This man looks violently English.

Edited August 8, 2022 by KP From Another World

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, KP From Another World said:

This man looks violently English.

Nah, just libertarian. Well...maybe same thing.

In weaponry news - UAF got, I assume, HARMs.  Or maybe some Standards they found in a warehouse somewhere..

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Nah, just libertarian. Well...maybe same thing.

Now that you mention it, he does look like some of the guys with.... interesting opinions on the age of consent.

[Zoraptor]

7 hours ago, Elerond said:

EDIT: As report was about putting lives of civilians in risk. So not taking account of view of certain segment of civilians in area is just shoddy work and I can't see anyway how it could be seen as good. 

Very bad form editing a post someone has already replied to. If you're adding new information it should be in a new post.

Reporters are not primary sources unless they're also eyewitnesses. The hint is in the name: Reporters. You go to primary sources if you can, that's just... basics- that's like eschewing eyewitnesses to get the good oil from wikipedia. Still, typical of reporters to pack a sad when someone thinks they aren't important.

Quote

 

That is not detail, that is accusation without detail.

Where they did such, when they did, how often they did. How much risk increased for civilians, did Ukraine forces do anything to mitigate risks, etc.. Details.

 

Er lol. Why do these objections never surface when they say something the west likes? Let's be frank too, if they gave lots of detail the objection would be "anecdotal" "too long winded" "too much detail" and nitpicking everything.

Let's be honest here, if it was "did Russian forces do anything to mitigate risks" in their report it would all about how how AI was trying to minimise things. You're still wrong though anyway, as it specifically says they were distributed among civilians, the correct way to mitigate risks is to... not be among them. And yeah, for the obvious objection, they do specifically say away from the front lines, as using civilian infrastructure and being among civilians at the front line is (generally) not a war crime.

They cannot give too much detail anyway, as Ukrainian citizens are subject to the military censor and it's illegal to either 'slander' or to give information on the Ukrainian military. Anything that identifies who they talked too has to be restricted. Which is also, of course, why Ukrainian AI staff were not used for this (but are used for Russian war crimes)

Quote

I am sure if article was about Russian actions you would also praise it for it supreme accuracy and excellence 

Depends what they said. I also haven't praised it for accuracy and excellence, I just pointed out that your criticisms were laughable. Similar to when you were claiming that the EU never made their association agreement us or them and it wasn't a step towards EU accession- I made no value judgement on the approach itself

Quote

This is one example of Amnesty's shoddy work, as this was not in original release, they added that paragraph after getting critic about their report being Russian propaganda piece. And they show they good practices by not mentioning that they edited their report after its release

I am sure if article was about Russian actions you would also praise it for it supreme accuracy and excellence 

Cool, so I guess now in every report on Russian war crimes you'll insist on a balancing paragraph about the Ukrainians using civilian infrastructure for military purposes, shooting PoWs etc? No? Because if you don't, you're a hypocrite.

If you're going to complain about retconning of articles you'll be doing nothing else, all day.

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

Her demand that the report  "should at least investigate the two sides and take into account the position of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine." is somewhat funny when I recall various discussions in this war, though.

It's funny when AI did ask Ukraine for comment, and got nothing.