Russian Invasion Of Ukraine - misinformation thread

(01-05-2022 22:47 )crankshaft Wrote:  at one point in the video, a Ukrainian woman is said to direct the National Guard fighters to where the "saboteurs and collaborators are or were"

Said by who? Can you provide the translation?

And, assuming you can, do you have evidence they were killed rather than arrested?

(02-05-2022 02:15 )BarrieBF Wrote:  

(01-05-2022 22:47 )crankshaft Wrote:  No, it wasn’t at great length. The Russians didn’t get to make their presentation, only make a relatively short statement.

Ukraine President Zelenskyy gave an impassioned speech to the Security Council on 5 April. It amounted to 2130 words. The Russian Ambassador spoke 3630 words that day, which I personally wouldn't class as a short statement.

(Note: word counts based on the texts available on the UN's own website).

It was a short statement by comparison as compared to a full meeting on the Bucha murders as a stand alone subject, in which the Russians would have had much more time to go into whatever details they wished to present. Of course, the Bucha issue was subsumed into a general meeting on the situation in Ukraine. It is normal practice that a permanent member of the Security Council has their request for a meeting on a particular issue of major humanitarian concern granted by the chair.

(02-05-2022 03:01 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(01-05-2022 22:47 )crankshaft Wrote:  at one point in the video, a Ukrainian woman is said to direct the National Guard fighters to where the "saboteurs and collaborators are or were"

Said by who? Can you provide the translation?

And, assuming you can, do you have evidence they were killed rather than arrested?

You must at least be able to answer the first one, surely. Assuming you have a source.

(02-05-2022 10:11 )crankshaft Wrote:  It is normal practice that a permanent member of the Security Council has their request for a meeting on a particular issue of major humanitarian concern granted by the chair.

That's a half truth. To put it correctly, when a Security Council meeting is requested it's normal practice to grant it WITHIN 48 HOURS. The Russian request was made on Sunday for a meeting on Monday and the UK was entitled to decline that request and offer a meeting on Tuesday instead.

As Ambassador Woodward stated for the UK: "The presidency’s proposal was to schedule the meeting either alongside the meeting today — well
within the 48-hour limit that is the convention of the Security Council — or to hold the meetings sequentially, one after the other."

So Russia's request for a meeting WAS handled in line with normal practice. Woodward again: "I wish to be clear that we did not reject the request for a meeting. So as far as the presidency is concerned, we did everything in line with the provisional rules of procedure and with precedent."

(01-05-2022 22:47 )crankshaft Wrote:  there is highly convincing circumstantial proof to show Azov Battlion radicals and other far-right nationalists have also killed scores of people

I've looked through your posts to find this 'highly convincing' evidence that you speak of. It seems to consist of the following statements.

"some of these deaths could be reprisal attacks against 'Russian collaborators' by members of the Azov Battalion who arrived in Bucha a few days after the Russians left"

"there is extremism in it’s ranks and they have been responsible for a so-far unknown number of war crimes"

"Azov Nazis entered Bucha on Apr 1/2"

"Azov gangs are known for such atrocities. The infamous Azov member Sergey "Boatsman" Korotkikh is reported to have, around the time, posted a video titled "The BOATSMAN BOYS in Bucha." It appears that Ukrainian Nazis asked permission to shoot people without blue armbands. Were Boatman and his Nazi friends given the green-light to go around and shoot civilians who'd been Russian collaborators?"

"Finally, re: the video filmed off Ukrainian army personal entering into the city - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7yIyNBMpQY&t=2s at one point in the video, a Ukrainian woman is said to direct the National Guard fighters to where the "saboteurs and collaborators are or were"

I can't see anything here that amounts to 'highly convincing circumstantial proof'. To me it comes across as nothing more than speculation.

(29-04-2022 22:28 )crankshaft Wrote:  It appears that Ukrainian Nazis asked permission to shoot people without blue armbands.

It's probably worth clearing up this issue with the blue armbands. They are worn by the Ukraine military in this conflict to distinguish themselves from the Russians, as their uniforms of the two sides look very similar.

In the video that crankshaft's referring to the dialogue goes like this:

Speaker 1: Can I shoot those guys without blue armbands?
Speaker 2: Hell yes.
Speaker 1: Christ, one of them's in such a hurry to get away, he ran over his pal.
Speaker 2: Yes talk about panic.

It seems likely to me that those guys without blue armbands being referred to were fleeing Russian soldiers, and not civilians or 'people'. There's no reason why civilians would have been wearing blue armbands anyway.

(02-05-2022 13:11 )BarrieBF Wrote:  

(02-05-2022 10:11 )crankshaft Wrote:  It is normal practice that a permanent member of the Security Council has their request for a meeting on a particular issue of major humanitarian concern granted by the chair.

That's a half truth. To put it correctly, when a Security Council meeting is requested it's normal practice to grant it WITHIN 48 HOURS. The Russian request was made on Sunday for a meeting on Monday and the UK was entitled to decline that request and offer a meeting on Tuesday instead.

As Ambassador Woodward stated for the UK: "The presidency’s proposal was to schedule the meeting either alongside the meeting today — well
within the 48-hour limit that is the convention of the Security Council — or to hold the meetings sequentially, one after the other."

So Russia's request for a meeting WAS handled in line with normal practice. Woodward again: "I wish to be clear that we did not reject the request for a meeting. So as far as the presidency is concerned, we did everything in line with the provisional rules of procedure and with precedent."

You're being deliberately obtuse over this point. You chose to ignore what I actually said previously. I was not denying that UK as chair did not grant the meeting. The question was over the timing of this meeting. Since there was a meeting already set for 5th April, the Russians expected their request would be granted for the monday or would supersede the already-arranged meeting on the Tuesday. As I already said, they were offered a separate meeting to discuss the situation in Bucha to be scheduled alongside the already prearranged meeting on Ukraine on the 5th April, but the Russians rejected this on the grounds that they believed the situation in Bucha deserved it’s own stand alone meeting which, if following on from another meeting, would constrain the time that could be allocated to discussing the issues.

(18-05-2022 17:48 )crankshaft Wrote:  the Russians rejected this on the grounds that they believed the situation in Bucha deserved it’s own stand alone meeting which, if following on from another meeting, would constrain the time that could be allocated to discussing the issues.

And it obviously wouldn't have constrained the time. They could have had a meeting which went on for however long they liked. The meeting on 5 April began at 10:05 and ended at 13:10. A whole afternoon was still available. And if that wasn't enough they could have had a meeting on Wednesday. There was never any time limitation.

The offer from the UK was to either schedule the requested meeting alongside the Tuesday meeting or to hold the meetings sequentially. Sequentially means one after the other and does not mean any time constraint would have been applied. The Russians could have had a meeting lasting for absolutely as long as they wanted.

(03-05-2022 14:39 )4waydiablo Wrote:  

(01-05-2022 22:47 )crankshaft Wrote:  there is highly convincing circumstantial proof to show Azov Battlion radicals and other far-right nationalists have also killed scores of people

I've looked through your posts to find this 'highly convincing' evidence that you speak of. It seems to consist of the following statements.

"some of these deaths could be reprisal attacks against 'Russian collaborators' by members of the Azov Battalion who arrived in Bucha a few days after the Russians left"

"there is extremism in it’s ranks and they have been responsible for a so-far unknown number of war crimes"

"Azov Nazis entered Bucha on Apr 1/2"

"Azov gangs are known for such atrocities. The infamous Azov member Sergey "Boatsman" Korotkikh is reported to have, around the time, posted a video titled "The BOATSMAN BOYS in Bucha." It appears that Ukrainian Nazis asked permission to shoot people without blue armbands. Were Boatman and his Nazi friends given the green-light to go around and shoot civilians who'd been Russian collaborators?"

"Finally, re: the video filmed off Ukrainian army personal entering into the city - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7yIyNBMpQY&t=2s at one point in the video, a Ukrainian woman is said to direct the National Guard fighters to where the "saboteurs and collaborators are or were"

I can't see anything here that amounts to 'highly convincing circumstantial proof'. To me it comes across as nothing more than speculation.

I was not setting out in my posts to write in the manner of a submission to the Human Rights Council to present the evidence of war crimes of the Azov Battalion. I was merely writing a response on an internet thread.

There have been many reports (ignored by western media) of Russophone people from Mariupol reporting that Azov Battalion fighters allegedly attacked Russophone civilians trying to escape Mariupol during the height of the Russian military offensive against the Ukrainian army and Azov fighters in Mariupol in March and April this year. There are also allegations by the Russians that Azov fighters used residents as human shields in residential areas in their military defence against the Russians who surrounded the city early on in the conflict (in the first few days)

Since 2014, Azov fought on the front lines against pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk, the eastern region of Ukraine. 8000 civilians are reported to have been killed over the course of the last 8 years in the areas of Donetsk and Lugansk in the war against Russian separatists since 2014.

Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit whose members – estimated at 900 – are ultra-nationalists and accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology. The unit was led by Andriy Biletsky, who served as the leader of both the Patriot of Ukraine (founded in 2005) and the SNA (founded in 2008). The SNA is known to have carried out attacks on minority groups in Ukraine. In 2010, Biletsky said Ukraine’s national purpose was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [inferior races]”. Biletsky was elected to parliament in 2014. He left Azov as elected officials cannot be in the military or police force. He remained an MP until 2019.

In 2015, Andriy Diachenko, the spokesperson for the regiment at the time said that 10 to 20 percent of Azov’s recruits were Nazis. The unit has denied it adheres to Nazi ideology as a whole, but Nazi symbols such as the swastika and SS regalia are rife on the uniforms and bodies of Azov members. For example, the uniform carries the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol, which resembles a black swastika on a yellow background. The group said it is merely an amalgam of the letters “N” and “I” which represent “national idea”.

(18-05-2022 18:49 )crankshaft Wrote:  

(03-05-2022 14:39 )4waydiablo Wrote:  I can't see anything here that amounts to 'highly convincing circumstantial proof'. To me it comes across as nothing more than speculation.

I was not setting out in my posts to write in the manner of a submission to the Human Rights Council to present the evidence of war crimes of the Azov Battalion. I was merely writing a response on an internet thread.

Does 'highly convincing circumstantial proof' have a different meaning in an internet thread then?