Theres no evidence it hit anything, other then that of the Russian government who has shown itself in this conflict that it is incapable of doing anything but lying. In fact people found where it was doing deployed and theres not even any scorch marks, everything points to the thousandeth Russian lie in this war more then anything else.
> Even the US says there was 'minimal damage'. [0]
Yes, minimal damage from flying debris from something, but it's clear from that satellite imagery nothing hit any part of an actual patriot.
> There is no evidence to the number of Kinzhals launched and to the number of Kinzhals intercepted.
Exactly, no evidence of anything but minimal damage to a patriot either. Kinda pathetic given the size of the attack that Russia cannot even take out one air defense system that they clear know where is.
the flaw in your logic is that things (!russia) does don't affect the high probability that russia is lying, which is, again, the bayesian prior
only the changing behavior of russia can change russia's history of behavior, and it can choose to change in a more honest direction anytime (but has not done so)
you're thinking about it wrong, they don't have any effect on each other, even if you think you can use one to reason about the other
if russia says A, we can assume !A due to russia's history of dishonesty, literally with no other information necessary
someone else being dishonest, even if true, doesn't make russia more honest, so we can still assume !A
indeed, because russia's history of dishonesty is so long and strong, we can stop right there, unless russia proves its probable lies are actually truthful (such is the fate of a liar)
if they don't like it, they can start being honest and keep it up for a few decades to show they've changed
Well, I equally distrust American, Ukrainian and Russian governments. All of them showed themselves as serial liars just like lots of other governments.
When two governments give mutually exclusive statements, you can't just pick one country and say this one is always lying because that would mean that you think that another habitual liar is always telling the truth. Or you can, but that just makes you a russophobe.
> I equally distrust American, Ukrainian and Russian governments.
given such a false equivalence, and even more whataboutism, it is then good that that opinion is not the opinion of most countries in the world (by UN vote)
after all, fewer than 3% of countries, representing fewer than 3% of people in the world, were willing to go on record saying they trust russia's claims and excuses when they said the same thing
> When two governments give mutually exclusive statements, you can't just pick one country and say this one is always lying
I didn't say they're always lying, I pointed out that's simply the default state until russia PROVES its claims.
can we do that? it depends: is one of them russia, a country with a long history of lying more often than telling the truth on matters such as this?
if so, then you totally can treat it as the default, because again, and for the third time: X being dishonest doesn't make russia honest, only russia being honest makes russia honest
meanwhile, you can't just ignore russia's dishonesty by resorting to whataboutism and finger pointing and 'but america/Ukraine/the west...': you must address russia's dishonesty directly.
> that just makes you a russophobe
does it though? That doesn't seem to actually be the case.
indeed, calling the world's totally normal reaction to russia's history of dishonesty "russophobia" seems a little defensive and russophilic
Only two countries voted against the Russia-proposed resolution condemning rehabilitation of nazism. Can you guess which countries? Right. The Ukraine and the US.
> Only two countries voted against the Russia-proposed resolution condemning rehabilitation of Nazism.
51 in the most recent iteration of Russia’s annual hollow ritual, that has gotten extra hollow as it has become the main current implementor of exactly the things for which the Nazis are generally condemned, from aggressive war to genocide:
The fact that it is nonbinding resolution ritually offered every year, connected to no substantive action.
> Or do you call war crimes perpetrated in Afghanistan by the US and its allies a genocide too?
No, because “genocide” has a definition, and its not synonymous with the broader category of “war crimes”. Attempts to destroy a people as a people, as Russia is fairly overtly doing in Ukraine (accompanied by propaganda, as such efforts often are, denying that the identity sought to be destroyed is legitimate) is genocide. Other war crimes – which Russia is also committing Ukraine – are, well, other war crimes.
to get back on topic: russian soldiers have been found by UN war crimes investigators to have raped, tortured, and murdered men, women, and children as young as 4, in areas of Ukraine russia controls[0]
(this child rape by russians is in addition to genociding Ukrainians in general -- and I'm not referring to russian deportation of Crimean Tatars [1], or russian killing of millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor [2])
"In her testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, remove the incubators and leave the babies to die."
hmm this isn't the entire story, >50 Nations voted against it this year and Canada and the US have consistently voted against it for 10 years.
> Only two countries voted against the Russia-proposed resolution condemning rehabilitation of nazism. Can you guess which countries? Right. The Ukraine and the US.
>> Canada and the United States (the only country to have consistently voted against these resolutions for the past 10 years) justified their opposition to this draft resolution, believing that it aimed to "legitimize a discourse based on disinformation."
If you support with money and weapons a country which renamed dozens of streets to glorify Nazi collaborators, why would you vote for the resolution condemning rehabilitation of Nazism?
There are almost 20 streets named after Bandera, the leader of OUN-B, in the Ukraine [0], including a big one in the center of the Ukraine's capital. Ukraine's ambassador to Germany compared him to Robin Hood [1].
Here is what two countries that now support Ukraine used to say before the war[2][3].
"Last week, Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine, Joel Lion, and his Polish counterpart Bartosz Cichocki wrote officials an open letter condemning the government-sponsored honoring of Stepan Bandera and Andryi Melnyk, two collaborators with the Third Reich.
The two have written on the subject before. In 2018, Lion wrote that he was shocked at an earlier act of veneration for Bandera, saying: “I cannot understand how the glorification of those directly involved in horrible anti-Semitic crimes helps fight anti-Semitism and xenophobia.”
...
Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel has told Jerusalem to butt out of the debate about honoring of Nazi collaborators."
"Israel and Poland, which have clashed repeatedly in recent years over differing interpretations of the history of the Second World War, came together on Thursday to issue a rare joint condemnation of Ukraine over its efforts to rehabilitate nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis.
The criticism came one day after Ukrainians marked the 111th birthday of Stepan Bandera, the wartime leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), a violently anti-Semitic organization that collaborated with the Nazis. Among Holocaust historians, the consensus is that the OUN and its military offshoot, known as the UPA, were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews and up to 100,000 Poles during the war (estimates vary)."
Canada and the US have consistently voted against it for over a decades or such at this point as well.
> If you support with money and weapons a country which renamed dozens of streets to glorify Nazi collaborators, why would you vote for the resolution condemning rehabilitation of Nazism?
Because the is more about Russia using its place within these organisations to try and further its own goals and justify its brutal invasion of Ukraine more then trying to combat Nazism.
I mean, the irony isn't lost on me here that Russia, a country who's main PMC force in Ukraine and abroad is named after Hitlers favourite composer, and whose leader has SS lightning bolts tattooed on his lapel is pushing a UN resolution to "combat Nazism".
fewer than 3% of countries, representing fewer than 3% of people in the world, were willing to go on record saying they trust russia's claims and excuses when they said the same thing
