I really find hard to believe that even 20% of hardware needed to fight the bloody invasion of your entire country would be sold on the "black market". Only way this to happen is if the ones distributing the supplies are actual traitors , but at this point I presume most of them would have been cleared from the critical chain of arms distribution.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
People who think Amnesty of all organizations are in the service of the Russian government have gone off the deep end. They might make mistakes, but it's not entirely clear how big this one is. Is it really so hard to believe that Ukraine is making bad judgments of their own in their attempt to defend themselves against Russian conquest?
I don't get the discussion either. Of course Ukraine will not play everything by the book, this is a war and not a game. And of course it has to be allowed to cover such incidents. Does it help the Russian propaganda? Sure. But covering this is the difference between news and propaganda and we should all hope that we get news instead of propaganda.
Dang, the toe the line authoritarianism from some in here is scary as hell. You lot would happily march us into all kinds of barbaric oppression. You are the Nazis here.
It’s just morally so wrong on every level to be discussing this right now and it shouldn’t need any explanation. I advise you to go to the frontlines and then let us know if you still feel the same about that Amnesty report timing and necessity when it creates even more harm for the victim? It’s very easy to take a high horse from a warm couch in western country.
Yeah and you can go to Russia and tell those being locked up for protesting that now is not the time for dissent and they need to rally round their country and leaders, get on board the team and come on in for the big win.
Alternatively you can defend free expression and support the ability to criticise.
Alternatively you can defend free expression and support the ability to criticise.
it isn't morally wrong at all. it's "politically wrong" or "politically inconvenient". amnesty and the likes aren't bound by the same interests as the actors involved in war. they produce investigative material that one side will champion one day and then condemn the next. that's because they aren't trying to promote a state bound ideology which runs by propaganda offices before being published.
what's morally wrong is to post hearsay and improperly researched tweets and articles that demonize a person or collection of people whose interest, historically, lies only in human rights and exposing the horrors of war, and to do it because it doesn't suit the narrative of the day, like the exchange between two understandably biased writers on the last page in tweet form. that is misinformation or disinformation btw.
so the russians expelled amnesty months ago. that's because they accused russia of war crimes. the israelis used to champion amnesty. that changed when they concluded apartheid. the point is simple. states use these findings to suit their agendas and then smear the feck out of the same people and organizations when the investigations reveal truths that aren't welcome. that's morally wrong.
what's morally wrong is to post hearsay and improperly researched tweets and articles that demonize a person or collection of people whose interest, historically, lies only in human rights and exposing the horrors of war, and to do it because it doesn't suit the narrative of the day, like the exchange between two understandably biased writers on the last page in tweet form. that is misinformation or disinformation btw.
so the russians expelled amnesty months ago. that's because they accused russia of war crimes. the israelis used to champion amnesty. that changed when they concluded apartheid. the point is simple. states use these findings to suit their agendas and then smear the feck out of the same people and organizations when the investigations reveal truths that aren't welcome. that's morally wrong.
What an awful comparison, do you even understand the difference betwen victim and aggressor?
Ridiculous.
Amnesty regrets ‘distress’ caused by claims in Ukraine report
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ternational-ukraine-military-report-civilians
Amnesty International has said it “deeply regrets the distress and anger” caused after it alleged that Ukrainian forces were flouting international law by exposing civilians to Russian fire.
“We fully stand by our findings,” the rights group said on Sunday, but it stressed that “nothing we documented Ukrainian forces doing in any way justifies Russian violations”.
Amnesty sparked outrage in Ukraine with the publication of a report on Thursday that accused the military of endangering civilians by establishing bases in schools and hospitals, and launching counterattacks from heavily populated areas.
The head of Amnesty’s Ukraine office resigned in protest, accusing the rights organisation of parroting Kremlin propaganda.
---
For me, when I read the report, my first thought was that the Russian Government would use it to continue their attacks of civilian targets, using the excuse of targeting Ukrainian military assets.
Which they have done.
But they were already doing this, and I do think that Amnesty will have considered this possibility in releasing the findings, as I think the above news report shows.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ternational-ukraine-military-report-civilians
Amnesty International has said it “deeply regrets the distress and anger” caused after it alleged that Ukrainian forces were flouting international law by exposing civilians to Russian fire.
“We fully stand by our findings,” the rights group said on Sunday, but it stressed that “nothing we documented Ukrainian forces doing in any way justifies Russian violations”.
Amnesty sparked outrage in Ukraine with the publication of a report on Thursday that accused the military of endangering civilians by establishing bases in schools and hospitals, and launching counterattacks from heavily populated areas.
The head of Amnesty’s Ukraine office resigned in protest, accusing the rights organisation of parroting Kremlin propaganda.
---
For me, when I read the report, my first thought was that the Russian Government would use it to continue their attacks of civilian targets, using the excuse of targeting Ukrainian military assets.
Which they have done.
But they were already doing this, and I do think that Amnesty will have considered this possibility in releasing the findings, as I think the above news report shows.
Plenty of people at Amnesty International should get the sack, end of story.
typically nuanced and considerate argument.
That doesn't answer my questions. 'The mask is slipping' suggest that someone was pretending to be someone else, but the pretense is coming out. So my question was: what mask do you think Amnesty was wearing? I.e., what do you think they pretended to be? And what are we now learning about them instead? I.e., who are they really?
That's such a cop-out. So if you're not fighting there, you're not allowed to say anything negative?
Let's go with a hypothetical. What if Ukraine would start executing captured Russian soldiers? ('We have to be very mobile and they're holding us up.') Could we criticize that? If not, then whereabouts would you draw the line? Or can Ukraine basically do anything while trying to fight off Russia?
And no, I'm not defending or trivializing anything Russia does. (I figured I'd say that before I'm accused of that.)
Russians mine Zaporizhzhia NPP power units, Ukrainian intelligence confirms
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-at...er-units-ukrainian-intelligence-confirms.html
Ukrainian intelligence confirms that the Russian army mined the power units of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
"The IAEA, the UN, and all other bodies do not control the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Moreover, international investigations were conducted and made public, clearly showing how the Russians transport weapons, equipment and explosives into the territory of power units. There is confirmed information stating that the Russian occupying forces laid mines at the power units of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Enerhodar," Andriy Yusov, a representative of the press service of the Chief Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, confirmed the information about the laying of mines, the press service of the Energoatom company informs.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-at...er-units-ukrainian-intelligence-confirms.html
Ukrainian intelligence confirms that the Russian army mined the power units of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
"The IAEA, the UN, and all other bodies do not control the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Moreover, international investigations were conducted and made public, clearly showing how the Russians transport weapons, equipment and explosives into the territory of power units. There is confirmed information stating that the Russian occupying forces laid mines at the power units of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Enerhodar," Andriy Yusov, a representative of the press service of the Chief Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, confirmed the information about the laying of mines, the press service of the Energoatom company informs.
I don't understand anything I've seen you post other than to categorise it as irrationally ignorant war fever. You play this conflict like it's a football manager sim, I find it repulsive.
Also important for the credibility of the organization to report everything. This isn't the last war humanity will fight.
They’re obviously not working with Russia.
They should be objective in their reporting, but should also be aware of the effect their reporting may have when released at certain times. Not advising them how to do this but what they say does have some influence.
They should be objective in their reporting, but should also be aware of the effect their reporting may have when released at certain times. Not advising them how to do this but what they say does have some influence.
Russia is not under attack. Nobody has declared that Russia should not exist any more. Nobody is trying to annex Russia.
And if it was, and if they did, and if they did, then exploiting these situations as a pretext to strangle dissenting voices, censor free expression and attack anyone not marching completely in step with the views, aims and desires of military leaders, would be irresponsibly oppressive.
Very reasonable point.
What if the situation at a nuclear plant escalates? Would that be a reason for NATO to intervene?
The Zaporizhia plant isn't as dangerous as the Chernobyl one if I recall correctly. Even then, I doubt NATO would intervene.
You only need to watch what’s left from the contested territories (Mariupol, etc.) in the Donbas / Luhansk to understand how ridiculously stupid that report is. Those cities/towns/villages are like 90% destroyed due to the indiscriminate shelling, they use mostly dumb artillery that’s not precise at all and unless they would be staying out in the open fields it would have made no difference as to where they were staying. They just bomb the shit out of the places with heavy artillery and then move into the ruins.
I read that the radius of the potential impact would be around 100km.
You don’t need to be fighting just visit the frontline towns to get the understanding what indiscriminate shelling means and how the towns are totally destroyed without any consideration. Instead it will give Russian propaganda an easy cop-out which will be much more damaging than suggesting Ukrainian armed forces to move few meters up the road from the place which anyway will be subject to dumb shelling. Your example is quite a bit different because executing or not POWs is a choice but defending the cities isn’t as there are no viable alternatives. Also, the people have been warned to move out from frontlines cities since day 1 by Ukrainian gov. but many have chosen to stay at their own risk.
Last edited:
Yeah. I've read one comment that also seemed to be spot on (at least for me). People at Amnesty do have this, let's say, a learned cognitive pattern of perceiving any military conflict from the perspective of civilian population and how they suffer from it and from the military combatants (regardless of the side that they're on). And of course the Ukrainian military doesn't do everything by the book.
So I can kinda understand where they're coming from and I very much doubt that they're being paid by Putin, they've just been completely inconsiderate of how their report would influence the war on the ground — especially since this is one of the first wars where the spread of information and misinformation is this crucial.
I wouldn’t be so sure, calling suffering Ukrainian people from genocide as trolls is giving it away I think.
For someone who we are led to believe published the report out of the care to the civilian population this seems like and incredibly miss-placed arrogance.Looks grim
But but ukrainian military endangers civilians, honestly, if you can look at this and think that Ukrainian army being a few blocks to the left or right would have made any difference given the Russian tactics of leveling towns to the ground you’re being a useful idiot and that Amnesty report has paid for itself already for Putin.
Do you believe Putin paid Amnesty to write a biased report against Ukraine?
Just to jump in here. The author of the report certainly seems to have an agenda and it would massivily surprise me if Russian Intelligence didn't attempt to manipulate organisations like this, it is what they do...
It's such an irresponsible report for a human rights group to publish, knowing fully well how it would be used and abused, that I would go out on a limb and say there is foul play at work here, imo. It leaves out so much context that its very difficult to call it objective.
Amnesty is a huge organisation though so it would be a huge stretch to suggest the whole thing is in Putin's pocket.
Russia have released more grain from Ukraine ports. To China, Turkey and Italy.
The same Italy where populist politicians with links to Russia, forced an anti-Russian and publicly well-liked PM to resign.
You can see Russia's longer-term plan start to emerge. With incoming huge grain shortages and drought in Africa, they're winning over governments that are the gatekeepers of Europe to the huge incoming immigration crisis. A poorer European population, having to cut gas and jobs, is not readily going to accept a huge wave of African refugees. I'd be surprised if the EU isn't pushing Ukraine to buckle to Russia's demands come spring.
The same Italy where populist politicians with links to Russia, forced an anti-Russian and publicly well-liked PM to resign.
You can see Russia's longer-term plan start to emerge. With incoming huge grain shortages and drought in Africa, they're winning over governments that are the gatekeepers of Europe to the huge incoming immigration crisis. A poorer European population, having to cut gas and jobs, is not readily going to accept a huge wave of African refugees. I'd be surprised if the EU isn't pushing Ukraine to buckle to Russia's demands come spring.
i really don't think there's foul play at all. the woman said russia had continuously committed war crimes.
but it's not the first time people are angry at them for reporting on abuses in asymmetric warfare as if the field were symmetric. but i don't think they're any more in the pocket of russia as they are in that of israel. just "politically incorrect" and counterproductive if you're on the other side, as finklestein is above and everyone is here, but they often publish material no one wants to read.
Last edited:
After reading about the situation in the news today, I'm also wondering if Amnesty thought it was time for a report that's critical of Ukraine, just to provide a little balance in their reporting, and with that more credibility for their criticism of Russia.
I might be making that up though, and it would be silly (wrong) reasoning if true.
That guy is talking a lot sense,
they should have published 10 thousand reports on Russia atrocities before committing one to Ukraine for the ratio to be accurate with respect to endangering civilians. I’m not sure it’s a stretch to believe they’re being the influenced by the agents from Israeli or Russian securities services.
i agree, but the fact that you agree with finkelstein here tells you all you need to know about amnesty's independence because you'd be unlikely to agree with him on russia's invasion of ukraine. in fact, you'd conclude that he was in the pocket of the kremlin or a putin propagandist much faster than you'd say the same about amnesty. which demonstrates that this is not an anti-ukrainian agenda but a systemic constant in amnesty's reporting and methodology.
having watched as much of the above as you can before you turn it off, you'll realise that your mutual agreement on amnesty comes down to a political rather than logical agreement. you each dislike their reporting because of their ignorance of symmetry and asymmetry in warfare. finkelstein for their politically blind but morally accurate description of gaza and you for their same political blindness but moral correctness in ukraine. the point being that neither finkelstein nor amnesty are in the pocket of russia any more than you're in the pocket of ukraine. it's just when you're in the corner of one side and an organization produces something unfavourable, or even politicaly incorrect, but not without truth, you tend to demonize them because that's the natural thing to do.
Last edited: