Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
They also have their influence campaigns in Africa. They are trying to rig elections in Europe and USA.
They are currently trying to take Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia since those are the most important and easiest for them
--Trying to establish spheres of influence is pretty typical stuff all nations (that can) do; so hard to be too outraged at Russia for this. I was specifically speaking of them militarily invading further West into nations that have no desire to be part of a new "Russian empire". Just doesn't seem to be in the cards in any reasonable time scale to worry about.
Seems very simple to me. If the West stays united until Russia is defeated then it sends a strong signal that they're not going to stand for unprovoked invasions which is a huge deterrent to anyone who might want to invade a country for territory.
That is possible. But there is a lot of other possible outcomes and second order effects that could make the world a much worse place if Russia "loses". I just dont think we can accurately predict outcomes in such complex systems this simply.
I am not arguing we should let Russia win. I am just saying you have a lot of confidence your predictions of what will happen if Ukraine loses or becomes a failed state are correct; that I dont think is warranted, or knowable at all.
I assume when Russia inevitably invades British Columbia (and Alaska), the Canadian response will be...."Don't fight back bros, we don't want any Canadian casualties defending our country. Putin's good people...It's all good!".
--Trying to establish spheres of influence is pretty typical stuff all nations (that can) do; so hard to be too outraged at Russia for this. I was specifically speaking of them militarily invading further West into nations that have no desire to be part of a new "Russian empire". Just doesn't seem to be in the cards in any reasonable time scale to worry about.
Which other nations are engaging in similar behavior? And all of these things are done so that Russia can restore itself to a world power, at which point if they wish to invade other countries they can do so.
That is possible. But there is a lot of other possible outcomes and second order effects that could make the world a much worse place if Russia "loses". I just dont think we can accurately predict outcomes in such complex systems this simply.
I am not arguing we should let Russia win. I am just saying you have a lot of confidence your predictions of what will happen if Ukraine loses or becomes a failed state are correct; that I dont think is warranted, or knowable at all.
I am not saying I know the future; I am not saying I have a crystal ball. Given the information available to us at this exact moment, these seem to be the most likely outcomes and one outcome is clearly far better than the other. If you have an alternate theory then I'm all ears.
--Trying to establish spheres of influence is pretty typical stuff all nations (that can) do; so hard to be too outraged at Russia for this. I was specifically speaking of them militarily invading further West into nations that have no desire to be part of a new "Russian empire". Just doesn't seem to be in the cards in any reasonable time scale to worry about.
That is possible. But there is a lot of other possible outcomes and second o
Why would Russia stop there at the total surrendering of Ukraine ?
They didn’t stop after Crimea did they?
Other nations bordering Russia didn’t lose time to join nato .
They must had good reasons while not doing it decades before .
It’s Putin the problem ….
The West, and especially USA's current administration, very much wants to avoid that at all cost.
I think its likely to happen regardless of what happens in Ukraine though, Putin and the oligarchs have ruined Russia.
72off: Do you disagree that the Lancet's speculation is speculation? Do you disagree that Victor tried to blame all future deaths on Israeli "murder" despite the Lancet specifically saying they are speculating about "indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence"?
Use that brainpower.
imagine if Russia destroyed all of the hospitals in Ukraine. then completely blockaded them. who would you attribute the deaths from starvation, lack of medicine, disease, exposure?
the apologia never ends.
Russia is trying to do that. I blame Russia.
That's not the same as saying that these things have already happened, that Russia has already "murdered" those Ukrainians due to what could happen in the future. This isn't Minority Report.
I do not apologize for what is Israel is doing, I am very vocal about that. You have not once criticized Russia on your own. You always come in here to attack Ukraine, and never to attack Russia. Using your own logic that makes you pro Russian. You are the living definition of "every accusation is a confession".
Lancelet conservatively estimates that 186k are ALREADY dead.
Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given the intensity of this conflict; destroyed health-care infrastructure; severe shortages of food, water, and shelter; the population's inability to flee to safe places; and the loss of funding to UNRWA, one of the very few humanitarian organisations still active in the Gaza Strip.8
In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. A report from Feb 7, 2024, at the time when the direct death toll was 28 000, estimated that without a ceasefire there would be between 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024.10
IN THE COMING MONTHS AND YEARS
And as awful as these deaths would be, they are not murder. If you're going to be pedantic about the language others use then you should choose your own words carefully:
in this case, you are wrong but not lying. I am sure you would never do me such a courtesy and would probably spend the next 5 years whining about it I ever made such an incorrect statement.
They say "could" be attributable. Not will or would. It's present tense.
And I agree that it is not murder in the court of law of the USA.
Trump and Vance, Putin's only chance
The difference between "could" and "will" is that "will" is definitive. "Up to up to 186 000 or even more deaths will be attributable" means 100% probability. Since this is speculative, the article uses the word "could" to indicate that this is not certain... since it will be occurring in the future.
The attribution might happen in the future. But they dead now.
Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases.
.
Ya the numbers could be 186k now. And they will rise in the future even if it stopped immediately.
Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable
Once again indirect deaths are defined as:
Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases.
Thats just saying the death toll will continue to rise
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/8/...
The study finds factors like diseases will lead to many more indirect deaths in the long run even if the war stops now.
Conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence, the study said, and even if the Gaza war ends immediately, it will continue to cause many indirect deaths in the coming months and years through things like diseases.
186k could be dead now. and many more will be dead in the future even if they stop the war.
Why would Russia stop there at the total surrendering of Ukraine ?
They didn’t stop after Crimea did they?
Other nations bordering Russia didn’t lose time to join nato .
They must had good reasons while not doing it decades before .
It’s Putin the problem ….
Putin will be dead in 10 years (probably less). And Russia is in no shape to conquer anyone (except maybe a tiny country like Georgia right on their border) in that time frame, especially Ukraine. If it was really that simple that Putin was the problem, the solution would be very simple. We just wait him out. I hope you are right, but I seriously doubt it.
As far as the Lancet paper goes, I said this the day it came out. It sucks and is very poor scholarship, they dont even bother to define their terms or explain their methodology, and I honestly have no clue how that could get through an editorial process.
It is just rage bait activism.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/07...
Russia’s vast stocks of Soviet-era weaponry are running out
--I dont have access to get behind the paywall, but I get the gist of the argument.
Modern warfare, especially trying to do invasions, is extremely resource intensive; and with Western boycotts, Russia has no clear path to keeping their war effort going; which is a good thing. When your main allies are Iran and NK, that only gets you so far.
As far as the Lancet paper goes, I said this the day it came out. It sucks and is very poor scholarship, they dont even bother to define their terms or explain their methodology, and I honestly have no clue how that could get through an editorial process.
It is just rage bait activism.
Remember they were team pangolin in 2020. So they were already slipping. Not the thread for it but I'm sure Gaza deaths will be in the 6 figures when all is said and done. Don't think that's such a hot take.
