Russia Hits Kyiv, Lviv With at Least 1 Dead; Presses Offensive in Ruins of Mariupol

Newsmax ^ | April 16, 2022

[Navy Patriot]

Russia's warplanes bombed Lviv and its missiles struck Kyiv and Kharkiv on Saturday, as Moscow followed through on a threat to launch more long-range attacks on Ukrainian cities after its Black Sea Fleet's flagship was sunk.

In besieged Mariupol, scene of the war's heaviest fighting and worst humanitarian catastrophe, Russian troops pressed recent advances, hoping to make up for their failure to capture Kyiv by seizing their first big prize of the war.

Moscow said its planes had struck a tank repair factory in the capital, where an explosion was heard and smoke seen in the southeastern Darnytskyi district. Kyiv's mayor said at least one person had died and medics were fighting to save others.

[discostu]

QUOTE IT PROVE ME WRONG!

[PeterPrinciple]

We live in a generation who wants to be told what it says and won’t learn themselves. You are obviously one of them.

[discostu]

We live in a generation of internet tough guys that think they can just push people around.

And we also live in a world of movie trailers, book blurbs, and all kinds of other information to let you know whether you want to actually consume this content.

Give me a reason to consume the content.

Or you’re just a bully.

[Drew68]

Not one voice looking for peace or a ceasefire.

Other than President Trump.

[PeterPrinciple]

Or you absolutely will not learn.

[Yaelle]

O dear Gd do not tell Europeans to bathe less. (Lived there for a decade)

[discostu]

You obviously don’t actually think there’s anything useful on that link. Or you’d have said what it was. Now really, there are more interesting and useful people in the world. I’ll give you the last word. I’m sure it will be a pointless insult and give no reason to actually watch your precious video.

[PeterPrinciple]

Just wow,

what exactly is the insult?

Don’t you get tired of letting others tell you what something says. Do you see a danger in relying on headlines and being told what something says.

Learn to go to the original source and learn something.

[Kevmo]

No.
***Yes.

Plenty of countries have sovereignty without nukes.
***Then we separate out those countries that have given up their nukes, signed a treaty towards their sovereignty. That makes one country. Ukraine. If we don’t get nuclear nonproliferation right, all those other countries are gonna try to develop nukes, because they cannot trust us nor the Russians nor the UN.

Heck most of the planet doesn’t have nukes.
***Then apply your set of rules to those who do not. YOu don’t WANT them to get nukes, then get nuclear nonproliferation right. And that means honoring the Budapest Accession to the UN Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty that we signed, Russia signed, Ukraine signed. The Ukes honored it, Russia violated it by invading twice as soon as they found out there was oil & gas reserves there, and the USA is listening to pantywaist appeasers who are looking to abrogate our responsibility towards Uke sovereignty & borders, betraying them.

And given how crazy some of those governments are it’s a good thing. Do you really want random African juntas having nukes.
***If you don’t want them having nukes then you need to make sure we get this nuke nonproliferation agreement right. And that means restoring Uke boundaries, sovereignty and condition to its 1994 borders.

I’m not scolding the Ukrainians.
***You’re just looking for ways to betray them, that’s all.

I’m pointing out the American troops and Russian troops must NOT shoot at each other.
***Then we should have never signed that nuke nonproliferation agreement. You’re back-applying a principle that was overwritten by way of signing that agreement towards sovereignty & borders.

As for nuclear non-proliferation that was the deal all the nuke countries made. Right or wrong it was the deal.
***Then we should honor that deal. The Ukes did.

We do need to keep this conventional.
***Then that means not pushing the Ukes into a nuke corner and helping them restore sovereignty, borders, and even get reparations for the violation of that nuke agreement.

Which is why we can’t get involved.
***Which is why we MUST get involved, we ALREADY were involved as soon as we signed that treaty.

Cause when Russia loses a conventional war to America it’s probably not going to stay conventional.
***You know this, how? Russia signed that agreement. Russians have access to international press and will know that Vlad is violating that agreement. There will be no support for going to WW3 nuclear war status over an agreement that Russia’s leader is obviously violating.

I noticed you didn’t answer my questions.
***I must have missed them. I usually answer every single point, just like I did here.

It’s very simple:
***As simple as a signed nuclear nonproliferation agreement?

Do you think Putin and Biden BOTH have the level of self control necessary to keep a conventional war between our countries conventional?
***Yes. Neither one wants a glass country. A glass world. Especially over Ukes.

If your answer is anything other than TOTAL confidence that
***False dilemma. Classic fallacy.

they can BOTH keep it in their pants
***Time for you to answer MY question, then: Do you think OTHER countries, having watched us betray the only country that ever really honored a nuclear nonproliferation treaty, will those countries “keep it in their pants”? I have far far less confidence in other countries than the 2 which have been living with the concept of MAD for 4 decades.

then you know exactly why we must not become an active part of this war.
***Your conclusion is based on a demonstrated logical fallacy.

[x]

But if this ever changin' world
In which we're livin'
Makes you give in and cry
Say Lviv and let die
Lviv and let die

[discostu]

I don’t trust Putin to not be a sore loser. And frankly if it goes the other way I trust Biden either.

And that’s why we can’t get into a shooting war with Russia.

It’s dead simple and has nothing to do with the non-proliferation treaty, which doesn’t say anything about using them.

[Navy Patriot]

Always did like the Bond Themes.

[Kevmo]

You had sumthin to say when I didn’t answer YOUR question, so answer mine. You trust those tinhorn African dictators to do nukes right? No, you don’t. But that’s where you push the world if we don’t get nuke nonproliferation right with the first folks who signed and implemented such a treaty.

The choice is either to trust the USA and Russia, or trust the Idi Amins of this world.

[discostu]

They aren’t the first folks to sign or implement. It was signed in 1968, Ukraine wasn’t even a country then. And South Africa got rid of their nukes first.

So your whole question is false.

[Kevmo]

Allrighty then. I’ll change that one word.

You had sumthin to say when I didn’t answer YOUR question, so answer mine. You trust those tinhorn African dictators to do nukes right? No, you don’t. But that’s where you push the world if we don’t get nuke nonproliferation right with the [second] folks who signed and implemented such a treaty.

The choice is either to trust the USA and Russia, or trust the Idi Amins of this world.

[discostu]

Your question is invalid. This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with nuclear non-proliferation. If we don’t help Ukraine this will not make the world suddenly start developing nukes.

THAT is my answer, your question is a red herring.

[Kevmo]

Your question is invalid. This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with nuclear non-proliferation.
***Okay, so the Budapest Accession to the United Nations Nuclear Non Proliferation TREATY has nothing to do with nuclear non-proliferation. I think I finally figured out where you’re coming from — and denial aint a river in egypt.

Registration Number 52241
Title Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the TREATY on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

If we don’t help Ukraine this will not make the world suddenly start developing nukes.
***Your denial-based assertion. It goes back to that a priori self-affirming assertion that the US shouldn’t get involved in European affairs, that kind of thing. It’s pretty shallow thinking.

THAT is my answer, your question is a red herring.
***You do not even know what a red herring is.

Red herring
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.[2]

The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling smoked fish to divert and distract hounds from chasing a rabbit.[3]

[discostu]

The INVASION has NOTHING to do with nuclear non-proliferation.

RED HERRING QUESTION.

Goodbye

[Kevmo]

The INVASION has NOTHING to do with nuclear non-proliferation.
***The invasion would NEVER have happened if the Ukes had not given up their nukes.

RED HERRING QUESTION.
***Is it a violation of the treaty or not? Not red herring, a very straightforward simple question, and you refuse to address it. Because your position is indefensible.

Goodbye
***One can hope.

[Cronos]

Er.. nope

The Rus peoples arose in the 9th centuries when the East Slavic tribes invited the Rurikids to rule over them and formed the Rus.

Prior to that, it was Khazar and prior to that, Iranic speaking Sarmatian and prior to that Iranic speaking Scythian territories. Not to mention parts that were East Germanic tribes, Greek city states, etc. etc.

And after the Rus coalesced, then most of the coastal areas were not Slavic but various TurkiC tribes

Not even in 1400 AD do we see "part of the Rus people's territory"

Your "always" seems to date from 1750 onwards