Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Russia Struck a Children's Hospital in Kyiv - Evidence Laid Out" video.

Thank you - most informative. However, does this mean that the hospital was the target? Surely it is more likely that the missile was jammed, or co-ordinated wrongly? There is absolutely no percentage for the Russians in deliberately carrying out acts like this. The reverse is true since the tremendous sympathy they arouse is generally translated into further support for Ukraine.
9
@It1nt Sorry, but I really can't see this. Those missiles are damned expensive and if Russia really wanted to terrorise civilians they would blitz them killing thousands - not just the odd handful here and there.
5
And Ukrainians kidnap and torture people who speak Russian.
2
@It1nt Natural cynicism. Unless they are being used to conceal military targets there is no point in bombing things like hospitals and schools. And the numbers of civilian deaths in Ukraine point conclusively to them being collateral damage. Also, as a general point, I feel that demonising Russia merely detracts from the actual political and military issues involved here.
2
@It1nt But surely the Russians would still be targeting important sites such as power stations, munitions factories etc with the same result? So why a hospital? I'm not suggesting for a moment that they would hesitate to bomb a hospital they knew it was being used to house a military target, but as far I am aware there is no suggestion of that in this instance.
1
@andrewbrock4636 I'm not sure that it has.
1
@SomethingBlonde-oc7sc They don't do it very well then. In World War II the British and the Americans killed thousands of German civilians every night for several months.
1
@It1nt There seems no tactical reason for them, for one thing. I fully accept that civilians are going to get killed but if Putin really wanted to target civilians directly in order to bring the country to its knees the number killed would be far, far greater than it is. Secondly Ukraine has a good record for turning such events into PR exercises and considerable doubt hangs over several of their claims. It is a nonsense to pretend that Russians are evil demons and Ukrainians are angels. They come from the same stock and their behaviour has been equally reprehensible in many instances.
1
@It1nt There seems no tactical reason for them for one thing. If Putin wanted to bring Ukraine to its knees by terrorising civilians he would kill them by the tens of thousand. The numbers we hear about are entirely consistent with missiles going astray - both incoming and those designed to bring them down. Also Ukraine is very good at PR and question marks hang over many of their claims. I do not think Russians are any better or worse than Ukrainians, quite frankly. UN reports on the situation of the start of the war back in 2014 record horrifying incidents against civilians committed by both sides. Demonising Russia is simply a way of justifying Western support for something which is basically a quarrel between two countries with a very intertwined history.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD You are rather making my point. In Syria they razed cities to the ground. They are not doing that in Ukraine.
1
@It1nt I imagine they are designed to reduce the ability to respond to strikes by destroying things like fire-engines. And naturally enough, yes, people are going to get killed.
1
@It1nt Are you suggesting they can't use bombers in Ukraine? What exactly is stopping them? (Honest question, by the way)
1
@thomaslunde5014 If Russia wanted to target civilians tens of thousands would be dead. Those who have died have done so as victims of strikes on legitimate targets. The numbers involved prove this.
1
@It1nt OK, but why is Ukraine constantly begging for more air defences then? You may be right, but I tend to think that not sending the bombers in is a deliberate act. Plenty would get through and, as we know, the Russians are careless about losses. If you read the essay Putin wrote before the invasion he makes it very clear that he regards the Ukrainians as being the same people as the Russians and wishes them no harm. He regrets their wish to turn their face to the West, and will not prevent them. But they can't have Donbass and Crimea. He regards these territories - with some justification - as being essentially Russian and their being included in the new country of Ukraine back in early 90's was a mistake. There is still a chance that the future will see Russia and a smaller Ukraine resuming reasonable relations. Mass civilian casualties would be a barrier to that.
1
@It1nt Then why is Ukraine constantly asking for more air defence systems? I'm sure Russian bombers could get through, even with substantial losses and, as we know, Russia isn't scared of losses. No, I'm pretty sure that Putin was being honest when he said in his essay on Russia/Ukraine relations published shortly before the invasion that he regards the Ukrainians as being the same people as the Russians and that while he regrets their decision to turn to the West he will not stand in their way - but they can't take Donbass and Russia with them. That's all this war is about: maintaining Russia's hold on the vast mineral riches of Eastern Ukraine. Putin doesn't want to crush Ukraine. He just wants Kiev to give back to Russia territory which he believes to be essentially Russian.
1
@It1nt So why are the constantly asking for more air defence systems? I think Russia could easily blitz Ukraine , even if sustaining great losses. But I genuinely believe Putin doesn't want to. It's not that kind of war. (This is my fifth attempt at replying to you, by the way. YouTube deletes my more detailed reasoning.)
1
@It1nt I'm afraid I'm not much up on the nuts and bolts of military hardware, but I have read Putin's essay on Russian/Ukrainian relations published before the invasion and I believe him when he says that they are essentially the same people, and he wishes them no harm. This war seems to me to have been largely concerned with reducing Ukraine's military capabilities in order to protect Russia's commercial interests in Eastern Ukraine. It is not a war of conquest, as such. Large-scale civilian casualties would not be appropriate in this context - but it might well be that, as you say, that this is not attainable anyway.
1
@It1nt Putin is pragmatic, not emotional. Ukraine has a large Russian population, concentrated mainly in the East, where their immediate forebears were imported to work the mines and industries. The people they replaced were mainly Tatars, not Ukrainians. The colonialism has already happened, but Russia is reluctant to see its fruits disappear into the pockets of Western companies. Families quarrel, and this war is an example of that.
1
@It1nt You make some very valid points. As far as the Imperial and Soviet symbology is concerned these -like the oft-quoted "Kiev in three days" - are designed to encourage the troops more than anything. Yes, the family quarrel has got very much out of hand, but it is difficult to see how either side could have backed down once the compromises of the Minsk treaties were abandoned. Although there is a cultural element to this war it is, like all wars, mainly concerned with the ownership of resources - and the resources involved are pretty huge. Donbass is sitting on several trillions of dollars in gas, coal, iron and rare earth minerals. The area has been exploited by Russians - not Ukrainians - ever since salt was found there back in the 16th century. Even after Ukrainian independence these resources were generally channelled through Russian interests. The prospect of them being nationalised and then coming under EU or American or Black Rock control was more than Russia could reasonably be expected to accept.
1
@It1nt You make some valid points but sadly, once again, the insane YouTube algorithm takes exception to something in my response. But I will keep trying.
1
@It1nt The Soviet and Imperialist symbols - like the oft-quoted "Kiev in three days" were designed to encourage the troops into believing they were taking part in a national crusade.
1
@It1nt Although there are some cultural elements in this war it is -like most wars - mainly concerned with control of resources. And the resources in this instance are huge with Donbass sitting on several trillions of dollars in coal, gas, oil, iron and rare earth minerals. The discovery of half a million tonnes of lithium ore around Mariupol may well have brought matters to a head.
1
@It1nt The mineral extraction industry in Eastern Ukraine is and always has been primarily a Russian concern. The threat of it being nationalised and its profits taken over by foreign interests was more than Russia could reasonably have been expected to accept.
1
@It1nt The family quarrel could, I think, have been settled without bloodshed if the terms of the Minsk treaties had been adhered to. Regional autonomy for the two Donbass republics, allowing them to continue to trade with Russia, would have prevented the grim necessity of war.
1
@It1nt The Minsk compromise would have been a viable solution, but it clearly did not fit in with Western ambitions. Tragically, there is every chance that Russia will gain by force more than it asked for peacefully and hundreds of thousands of people will have died to no purpose. There is a very real sense in which we are the bad guys here.
1
@It1nt The point is that Russia does not agree that Donbass and its mineral wealth actually belongs to Ukraine. They say that giving the new country of Ukraine the same boundaries as the former SSR was a huge mistake. As long as the Kiev government allowed Russia to continue to exploit the resources there was an uneasy peace. Ukraine joining the EU and allowing foreign companies to take over was more than Russia was prepared to put up with. It's not that Russia wants more minerals. It wants to keep hold of those it already has - and which generations of Russians have laboured to extract from the earth.
1
@It1nt No treaty last forever and the Russia of today is not the Russia of 1993. The Budapest accords were signed by a drunkard in the chaos of the collapse of the Soviet empire in circumstances which have radically altered since then. There is nothing about the 21st century which makes it any different to any other century in this regard. Putin has attempted for more than 20 years to peacefully redress the inbalances created by Budapest. The Minsk Accords were designed to do so and would have provided a viable and workable solution to the problem. Sadly though the notion of removing billions of dollars a year from the Russian economy has provided too great a temptation for Western agencies who have shamefully staged a proxy war costing thousands of lives in a vain attempt to realise their ambitions.
1
@It1nt The Treaty of Windsor is an exception to the general rule though! Just think how many thousands of treaties have failed or been abandoned since then. Thirty years is a pretty good run, in fact. As far as your second point is concerned yes, there is a bit more to this than money I suppose - although I think that the final balance sheet, assuming Russia wins, will put them in a greater profit than if they had meekly agreed to give up their mining interests. There is the matter of national pride to consider. Ever since the collapse of the SU the West has put continual pressure on the Russian Federation to accept a subsidiary role in world affairs - to accept US dominance in fact. This Putin has refused to do. The notion of giving up Donbass to largely American interests and allowing Ukraine to becoming yet another NATO outpost was a red line he would not allow to be crossed. And I think the US and the West were very wrong and really very immoral to attempt to do so.
1
@It1nt Attempt number 2! Damn YouTube. The Treaty of Windsor is an obvious exception. Think how many thousands of treaties have been broken or abandoned since then. Thirty years is a pretty good run. It's more than just money, I think - although if Russia wins it will almost certainly recover its investment in the war. There is the question of national pride. Ever since the collapse of the SU the Russian Federation has been under pressure to bow the knee to America. Moving in on Donbass and attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO was just a step too far. A line was crossed which should not have been crossed. This dreadful war is the result.
1
@It1nt Attempt No 3. What happened to free speech, YouTube? The Treaty of Windsor is an exception. Think how many thousands of treaties have been broken or fallen by the wayside since then. I don't know, but I think Russia will come out on top financially if it wins. That aside, there is the question of national pride to consider. Ever since the collapse of the SU the Russian Federation has been put under pressure to bow to US hegemony. It has refused to do so. Losing Donbass to foreign interests and having Ukraine join NATO would have been an unbearable humiliation for Russia. more.....
1
@It1nt Forcing Russia and Ukraine into conflict is the truly immoral act in this whole shameful business. Setting one tribe against another and writing treaties which cannot help but be broken is a technique developed by America when they were used to commit genocide against the original inhabitants of their land. These techniques have been employed in the present situation, I'm sad to say. As ever the motive is the acquisition of wealth and resources belonging to others.
1
@It1nt Does America have the right to tell other countries what they can and can't do? They seem to have considerably more experience of it that the Russian Federation. In fact, setting one tribe against the other and writing treaties which are doomed to fail have been part of the armoury of that great nation ever since they were used to help exterminate the original population of the land. Russia does not want all of Ukraine. As you rightly say, that would mean a permanent state of civil war. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are being rebuilt with an investment that far exceeds anything they ever got under Kiev. It will now take a great deal and a great deal more bloodshed to prevent them returning to permanent Russian rule. As to the economic and demographic consequences - they remain very much to be seen. We are at a watershed in human affairs. American hegemony is under threat and new alliances are being created. Who knows what the world will look like in twenty years time?
1
@It1nt YouTube continues to block my replies to such an extent that I cannot reply meaningfully to your points. Bit like being in Soviet Russia, really.
1
@It1nt America seems to spend far more time telling other countries what to do than the Russian Federation does.
1
@It1nt Russia does not want Ukraine. It just wants its borders to be realistically set, and not in accord with the borders of the former SSU which was, of course, a Russian construct anyway.
1
@It1nt I think $10+trillion under the ground in Donbass will soften any financial blows. In any case, Russia is a criminal enterprise and nobody not in the know has any idea how its economy actually works.
1
@It1nt Pride may be an immoral reason to hurt people, but then so is greed to possess what others have worked for over the centuries.
1
@It1nt Setting one tribe against another and writing treaties designed to fail have been techniques employed by America ever since they were used to help commit genocide in the Indian Wars.
1