my only claim is that they were state funded. which has been proven. i have no problem with bellingcat but they receive state funds and funds from orgs that are directly related to intel agencies. it doesn't make their stuff less reliable but you can't pretend that there isn't a relation when there clearly is.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
My god some people are just plain dumb.
i don't advocate for the website. i only post the link because it demonstrates the one thing i claimed. that bellingcat receives state funds, and demonstrates it through its own financial disclosures.
Meanwhile:
Zaporizhzhia: Real risk of nuclear disaster in Ukraine - watchdog
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62449982
The UN's nuclear watchdog has called for an immediate end to any military action near Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, warning of a "very real risk of a nuclear disaster".
IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi said he was "extremely concerned" by reports of shelling at Europe's largest nuclear power plant.
It comes as Ukraine said parts of the facility were "seriously damaged" by Russian military strikes.
Russia seized the plant in March.
It has kept its Ukrainian employees, but Kyiv accuses Russian forces of firing rockets at civilian areas from the site, employing "terror tactics".
Friday's strikes underline "the very real risk of a nuclear disaster that could threaten public health and the environment in Ukraine and beyond", Mr Grossi said in a statement.
"Any military firepower directed at or from the facility would amount to playing with fire, with potentially catastrophic consequences," he added.
Ukrainian staff must be able to carry out their important duties "without threats or pressure", he said, adding that the IAEA should be allowed to provide technical support.
"For the sake of protecting people in Ukraine and elsewhere from a potential nuclear accident, we must all set aside our differences and act, now. The IAEA is ready," said Mr Grossi, days after stating the plant was "completely out of control".
The operator of the Zaporizhzhia plant said the Russian missile strikes had forced the closure of one "power unit", adding that there was a risk of radioactive leaks.
The strikes "caused a serious risk for the safe operation of the plant", operator Enerhoatom wrote on Telegram.
Moscow said Ukraine carried out the attack.
Zaporizhzhia: Real risk of nuclear disaster in Ukraine - watchdog
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62449982
The UN's nuclear watchdog has called for an immediate end to any military action near Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, warning of a "very real risk of a nuclear disaster".
IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi said he was "extremely concerned" by reports of shelling at Europe's largest nuclear power plant.
It comes as Ukraine said parts of the facility were "seriously damaged" by Russian military strikes.
Russia seized the plant in March.
It has kept its Ukrainian employees, but Kyiv accuses Russian forces of firing rockets at civilian areas from the site, employing "terror tactics".
Friday's strikes underline "the very real risk of a nuclear disaster that could threaten public health and the environment in Ukraine and beyond", Mr Grossi said in a statement.
"Any military firepower directed at or from the facility would amount to playing with fire, with potentially catastrophic consequences," he added.
Ukrainian staff must be able to carry out their important duties "without threats or pressure", he said, adding that the IAEA should be allowed to provide technical support.
"For the sake of protecting people in Ukraine and elsewhere from a potential nuclear accident, we must all set aside our differences and act, now. The IAEA is ready," said Mr Grossi, days after stating the plant was "completely out of control".
The operator of the Zaporizhzhia plant said the Russian missile strikes had forced the closure of one "power unit", adding that there was a risk of radioactive leaks.
The strikes "caused a serious risk for the safe operation of the plant", operator Enerhoatom wrote on Telegram.
Moscow said Ukraine carried out the attack.
Been a while since I had to add anyone to the ignore list, but I would have added him if I could.
I'm not going to explain either, then, but I'll just say that the tweets show that Amnesty's report is exaggerated but not entirely wrong. And also that, after Amnesty has criticized Russia time and again during this war (and again when publishing this report), it's flat-out crazy that this one report leads you to the conclusion that Amnesty is in Russia's pocket and is contributing to a genocide.
By giving a helping hand to Russian propaganda during the actual war is quite clear contribution to the genocide? This attempt at false equivalence when it comes to the civilian victims is just morally wrong on every level all it does it helps Russia to create an illusion that both sides are to blame and many peoples will for it = less support in the west in terms or donations or military assistance. I mean Russian embassy in uk that publicly called for execution of Ukrainian POWs just a few days ago now shares the report proudly and that’s all you need to know about the state of it and who it was meant to serve.
Roger waters having a mare here.
Would Russia have attacked Ukraine if it had been in NATO, Roger?
Waters also kind of failed to mention that Russia made a pledge to give Ukraine assistance in case they were attacked as part of the nuclear disarment treaty. Anyway I love Waters as a artist and he's probably a nice bloke, but celebrities are shit at politics.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...ato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
I will just always disagree with that sense. You're calling for self-censoring, for the suppression of anything negative about Ukraine. And even more, you're suggesting that anyone who isn't doing that is intending to help Russia (as your last sentence says). I find that attitude (which is not just you, obviously; many people on here seem to think the same) deeply troubling. Orwellian.
That's the crux of it and while it may be unfair to taint the whole organisation, they only had to manipulate a few people.
There have been an increase in reports of Ukrainian attack aircrafts operating closer to the front lines in the Kherson area, the last couple of weeks, this is probably the explanation.
Totally fine to weaponise a nuclear power plant though.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...ng-civilians-new-testimony-and-investigation/
amnesty is not russian propaganda just because it is non partisan in its reporting. if you take the trouble to read its reporting and that of other human rights groups you'll understand that unlike state actors the main human rights orgs aren't typically trying to spread propaganda. that ukraine used civilian areas to house troops made those areas targets. it wasn't the amnesty report that did that. and when or if russia targets more civilian areas unlawfully you can bet that amnesty and others will report it as they have throughout the entire war. @Cheimoon is basically right. there's a tendency on here to demonize everything that isn't exactly what you want to hear and call it putin propaganda. that kind of thinking comes from living in a self-reinforcing bubble where even the orgs most critical of russia are somehow in russia's pocket. it's complete nonsense.
when they call russia out for its crimes, it's fine. when they criticize the ukrainian regime for acting inappropriately, they're russian assets or useful idiots. that is herd like behavior. orwellian indeed. people have been absolutely blitzed into rejecting any shade of critical thought.
that report everyone is up in arms about btw absolutely condemns russia and does not say that russia has not targeted areas, civilian, which were not occupied by troops.
amnesty runs a charity for distributing relief aid to ukraine. it doesn't do that for russia. so some of you need to get to grips with reality.
Last edited:
Would be funny if the Ukrainian advance in the South was a feint and they used their interior lines to shift forces back at Donbas while blowing up every means for the Russians to redeploy back there.
I have to somewhat agree with @neverdie here, I don't think Amnesty is being paid by Russia nor are they willingly spreading Russian propaganda. The problem is that they seem to have no idea about how warfare equipment work and by condemning the Ukrainians for putting military equipment in the cities, they are basically creating an excuse for Russia to attack any civilian targets.
If Ukraine wants to protect a city under attack the only way to do so, is from within the city. You can't have anti air systems 20km outside the city and expect them to be able to intercept incoming fire, targeted at the city. The only way for AA systems like Nasams or BUK to have any chance of intercepting incoming missiles is to have them as close as possible to the targets they are designated to protect.
Same with the ground troops. Large parts of Ukraine is basically just a big grain field, just open fields as long as you can see. If Ukraine would place their tanks and infatry in these fields, outside the cities, they would just be sitting ducks for the Russian artillery, without any cover what so ever.
If Ukraine wants to protect a city under attack the only way to do so, is from within the city. You can't have anti air systems 20km outside the city and expect them to be able to intercept incoming fire, targeted at the city. The only way for AA systems like Nasams or BUK to have any chance of intercepting incoming missiles is to have them as close as possible to the targets they are designated to protect.
Same with the ground troops. Large parts of Ukraine is basically just a big grain field, just open fields as long as you can see. If Ukraine would place their tanks and infatry in these fields, outside the cities, they would just be sitting ducks for the Russian artillery, without any cover what so ever.
Last edited:
Today it's been 14 years since this madness started.
Yeah, I agree with that. It does seem Amnesty overlooked some of the unavoidable practicalities of fighting a defensive war over your own territory. I suppose there's shades in that (choices that can be made); but the general principle could have been acknowledged.
Thread:
How have you and your family been doing?
It seems a bit more insidious than that. It seems to be the latest in a long line of Westerners trying to criticise their own Western nations or its allies by supporting the talking points of the enemy or at the very least creating a false equivalence.
We even had them trying to downplay the Holocaust just after WWII, as many sincerely believed and argued it was being over exaggerated to create a distraction from the (supposed) crimes of the Allied nations.
There’s now the CBS documentary too they are involved in, where they make completely unsubstantiated claims about the final destination of Ukraine’s military aid. The mask is slipping.
i can understand that criticism. i've had that criticism myself of these organisations in the past related to different actors, see the arab conflicts in particular and use of civilian places. in a place like gaza, what else are you supposed to do? but i've just about come round to the idea that they understand how it works and why actors do as they do but they refuse to take sides and generally tend to condemn it all outright which i don't have a problem with. if they didn't do that they'd have less credibility in my eyes even if they publish things that seem to me politically incorrect every now and then.
In wars like this one, when one side attacks the other side for no reason at all and wants to exterminate them, we take sides. All the problems, all the killing, all the injustice, happens because Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia's goal is to eliminate Ukraine altogether, it is life or death for Ukraine. Russia should lose this war, and they should pay for what they did. That's it. What Ukraine did or did not do, is of no concern at this moment. In the future, after the war is over, we can discuss their mistakes. Right now we take their side, because they are a victim with a knife on their throats.
Similarly, in 1940, when Hitler invaded Holland, it would be the wrong time to talk about problems with its democracy, or how badly they behaved with their colonies. Hitler was an existential threat, and he was not going to improve democracy or life in the colonies. If someone wrote in May 1940 "Yes Hitler attacked Holland but the Dutch are no saints, either" he would be saying the truth, and still be completely wrong.
The source CBS used for the claims that only 30% of the weapons ending up on the front lines is Donatella Rovera from Amnesty. She is also the one responsible for the claims about Ukrainian war crimes.
This is what she said in the CBS program.
Despite saying she had no information where the weapons where going, (which would be classified information anyway) she still made claimes that only 30% end up on the front lines.
The claim in it self is just ridiculous, with all the western weapons Ukraine is recieving it is still close to a miracle that they have been able to completly halt the whole Russian army. Saying that they would be able to do so with only 30% is just ridiculous. Second there is so far no evidence of western weapons ending up on the black market, if 70% of the weapons where going missing, the weapons would be showing up in the hands of criminals, so far there have been no signs of that.
She is definitelly a rotten apple within the organisation for whatever reason and not the only one either. I know of at least one Amnesty Finland board member that has been spreading Kremlin propaganda on twitter.
Saying all this, Amnesty is a massive organisation and there are bound to be some bad apples in any organisation that big so I don't think the whole organization should be blamed.
This guy is hardly rimaldo or eboue, somebody could teach him how to write.
Comparing it to the Israel-Palestinia conflict is quite interesting. I know a lot of Amnesty workers are openly very anti Israel in their views. Have Amnesty ever made any report, claiming Palestinian war crimes due to weapons being located close to populated areas?
on populated areas, certain i've seen them criticize them for it before. on everything else, they've criticized the palestinian resistance in terms as harsh or harsher than the ukrainian resistance despite the asymmetry between each side.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/palestinian-authority-hamas-must-stop-targeting-civilians
https://www.channel4.com/news/hamas-tortured-and-killed-palestinian-civilians-amnesty
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32053999
there was one where they criticize them for human shield tactics. wasn't one i thought, but yes they have done it. it's below.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/its-immoral-for-hamas-to_b_5629548
so yeah, their criticism of ukraine is absolutely consistent despite the asymmetry between russia and ukraine on the one hand and the palestinians and the israelis on the other.
Last edited:
What mask? And what is it revealing?
Who is this Donatella woman? Absolutely vile.
no idea who she is beyond her amnesty connection but she didn't pluck the numbers out of thin air. seems to be sourced from the following.
so not sure how accurate that is but it's coming from a very pro-ukrainian source. then you have lots of other material that comes direct from nato countries about the same topic. i'd guess no one knows exactly how many weapons go missing but that it's not a small amount even if it isn't 60% which seems incredibly massive. some will end up on the black market. just some snippets below.
the us and other states and orgs will be conscious of this because of the afghan, syrian, and iraqi experiences where a lot of weapons went missing. and even in conflicts which predate those. it's a fact of war. i just don't know if it's enough evidence to start a witch hunt. it may be that she's anti-ukrainian but her sources aren't.
also
which is part of the overall point i was making. she's seen as bad because she says something that isn't on message or is perceived as being hostile but was she bad when she said this back in may? of course not. she also has a history throughout her career of tracking illegal weapons, which a cursory glance of her working biography and articles tell me.
and it's not aimed at anyone specifically but at everyone generally. people are quick to jump to conclusions with very little evidence, like the comment above which has basically condemned a lifelong human rights activist for no reason because her career and comments have been unintentionally misrepresented.
Last edited: