Lawmakers Asking Whether Cyberattack Is Act of War

[motomonkey]

Previously, you incorrectly claimed that China didn't even have any sea-launched SSMs. Now after being shown that they do, you're arguing that they're nothing special. But they have much greater range than the US', so there's that. It kinda seems like you're just moving on from one made-up argument to the next.

Where did I say that? I stated that LAND based missiles with no antishipping capability are no threat. not that China had no sea based anti-ship missiles. try harder.

Everything that I posted is actually factual. Which says something about your naysaying, here. And, to be honest, your naysaying rationalizations show that you don't at-all know what you're talking about and are just bitter over some blunt truth that I posted.

To start with, Russia has only four S-400s in Syria, and they are only guarding Russia's assets at two naval ports which are a long way away from where other action has been taking place in Syria. Russia has said that their S-400 systems will only be used if their own assets become threatened - they don't belong to Syria and they won't be used for the Syrian government's purposes. When the US did its illegal strike on Syria in 2018, France/UK/US purposefully avoided the defensive perimeter of the S-400s in Syria. So, no, it isn't the least-bit surprising that they weren't used to down the illegal US cruise-missile strike on Syria, which wasn't targeting Russia and which didn't even enter within range of the S-400s. BTW, most of the missiles fired in that strike were downed by ancient Soviet-era defensive systems like the S-200. Some warheads, including a Tomahawk, were retrieved intact and given to Russia for research purposes - after they were paraded on a display for a bit.

And yet, you posted stats claiming a 400km range for the S-400, well within the engagement range of many of the missile strikes, considering the 4 batteries of S-400 can cover all of western Syria and much of the rest of the country, so no, The US didn't avoid the S-400 perimeter, Russia for whatever reason chose not to use them.
And no, the Syrian Air defense didn't shoot down 71 missiles, I've seen the sat photos of the impacts, and it's a lot more than 30. The Syrian air defense forces can't find their asses with both hands, they repeatedly miss Israeli missiles and aircraft.

Israel took-out a Syrian Russian Pantsir S1 with an F-35. The Pantsir S1 doesn't have stealth-detection capability. But that still doesn't explain why it didn't react to to an F-35 with its weapons-out. The training and status of the Syrian crew for it have been questioned by Russia (and I make no assertion as to the truth of Russia's claim):




There literally was no invasion of Crimea or Ukraine by Russia. So, you claiming that there are distraction efforts from something that didn't happen is what's ludicrous.

As for your "fake youtube video" claim, it was acknowledged as real by the US state when assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who is one of the two persons in the leaked phonecall between her and the US ambassador to Ukraine, apologized for saying "fuck the EU" in the conversation after she was condemned for it by US allies. So much for your conspiracy theory there.

No invasion of Ukraine? all those poorly disguised Russian soldiers in all those pictures were merely farmers on tractors then? all those social media posts from Russian soldiers in the invasion of Crimea and Donbass... you might believe that bullshit, but no one with a brain does.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ilitary-from-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-stages-a-coup-in-crimea

https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian-military-aggression-against-ukraine

As you can see, it is actually your claims which are BS and have no basis in reality. So, just stop.

Russian troll, you are, stop you must.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Didn't they sell s400 to saudi arabia? If it was that good, no way would they sell it, essentially, directly to the USA.

Russia also has positive relations with Saudi Arabia. And as with various US and Russia hardware, the export model of the S-400 might be modified from Russia's domestic model, to keep certain things secret.

There are advantages to exporting military hardware: It helps subsidize domestic military expenditures, it creates a line of communication and influence between contact countries, it creates motivation to keep relations positive, it encourages further military purchases that will be compatible and complimentary to already-purchased hardware. It brings different countries into a shared orbit.

So, when former US customers are starting to buy Russian arms instead, even in the face of US sanctions, it means the Russian stuff has to be really impressive. And the US, no doubt, is by its waning influence over those countries.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Where did I say that? I stated that LAND based missiles with no antishipping capability are no threat. not that China had no sea based anti-ship missiles. try harder.

Ass-covering.

What you said is, "Land based SSM's with no anti-ship capability mean nothing", in response to, "But it's the greater range of China's arsenal that gives them the advantage. Having larger vessels with more firepower on them doesn't count for much when they can't get within range to be used without being sunk."

And no, the Syrian Air defense didn't shoot down 71 missiles, I've seen the sat photos of the impacts, and it's a lot more than 30.

Again, you're showing that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll completely disprove that claim of yours later. I have something else to do right now.

The US targeted 8 sites and hit only 3. And the damage at the 3 sites hit is vastly less than it would be if they had been hit with the 126 or so missiles the US claimed were fired. Using satellite footage, the number of hits at two of the sites can be counted on one hand each. And at the last site, the main site (which was an abandoned building that the OPCW had cleared and slated for demolition a mere 3 weeks prior) had nowhere near the damage to account for 76 missiles, each with payload of 1,000 lbs of TNT. Not even remotely, remotely close.

Downed missile fragments are also filled with shrapnel holes, showing they were hit.

No invasion of Ukraine? all those poorly disguised Russian soldiers in all those pictures were merely farmers on tractors then? all those social media posts from Russian soldiers in the invasion of Crimea and Donbass... you might believe that bullshit, but no one with a brain does.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ilitary-from-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-stages-a-coup-in-crimea

https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian-military-aggression-against-ukraine

Russian soldiers in Crimea don't an invasion make. Russia never denied having its troops in Crimea, and Russia's large military base in Crimea that'd been there since the dissolution of the USSR wasn't a secret to anyone. Russia was allowed up to 25,000 troops in Crimea and had around 15,000 stationed there at the time of the US-sponsored coup in Kiev.

Read the link:

There literally was no invasion of Crimea or Ukraine by Russia. So, you claiming that there are distraction efforts from something that didn't happen is what's ludicrous.

As for your "fake youtube video" claim, it was acknowledged as real by the US state when assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who is one of the two persons in the leaked phonecall between her and the US ambassador to Ukraine, apologized for saying "fuck the EU" in the conversation after she was condemned for it by US allies. So much for your conspiracy theory there.

As you can see, it is actually your claims which are BS and have no basis in reality. So, just stop.

Way to cite Daily Beast, a CIA-partnered propaganda outlet, BTW. And one that lies in its article link - there was no coup in Crimea, the same government that was in place before the US-coup in Kiev organized the Crimean referendum and presided after its outcome and the accession to Russia.

Russian troll, you are, stop you must.

Pointing-out and debunking your BS doesn't make somebody a troll, or Russian. It makes them truthful and informed.

 

[motomonkey]

Ass-covering.

What you said is, "Land based SSM's with no anti-ship capability mean nothing", in response to, "But it's the greater range of China's arsenal that gives them the advantage. Having larger vessels with more firepower on them doesn't count for much when they can't get within range to be used without being sunk."


Again, you're showing that you don't know what you're talking about. I'll completely disprove that claim of yours later. I have something else to do right now.

The US targeted 8 sites and hit only 3. And the damage at the 3 sites hit is vastly less than it would be if they had been hit with the 126 or so missiles the US claimed were fired. Using satellite footage, the number of hits at two of the sites can be counted on one hand each. And at the last site, the main site (which was an abandoned building that the OPCW had cleared and slated for demolition a mere 3 weeks prior) had nowhere near the damage to account for 76 missiles, each with payload of 1,000 lbs of TNT. Not even remotely, remotely close.

Downed missile fragments are also filled with shrapnel holes, showing they were hit.


Russian soldiers in Crimea don't an invasion make. Russia never denied having its troops in Crimea, and Russia's large military base in Crimea that'd been there since the dissolution of the USSR wasn't a secret to anyone. Russia was allowed up to 25,000 troops in Crimea and had around 15,000 stationed there at the time of the US-sponsored coup in Kiev.

Read the link:

Way to cite Daily Beast, a CIA-partnered propaganda outlet, BTW. And one that lies in its article link - there was no coup in Crimea, the same government that was in place before the US-coup in Kiev organized the Crimean referendum and presided after its outcome and the accession to Russia.


Pointing-out and debunking your BS doesn't make somebody a troll, or Russian. It makes them truthful and informed.

Obviously, anything that doesn't agree with your Russian state sponsored propaganda is untrue, just piss off. I should have known better than to reply to an obvious troll, no mater how amusing your lies are.

 

[Verge]

Obviously, anything that doesn't agree with your Russian state sponsored propaganda is untrue, just piss off. I should have known better than to reply to an obvious troll, no mater how amusing your lies are.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...defenses-failed-intercept-missiles/537126002/

Russia, the land of facts.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Obviously, anything that doesn't agree with your Russian state sponsored propaganda is untrue, just piss off. I should have known better than to reply to an obvious troll, no mater how amusing your lies are.

Independent of anybody's wishes, it can be objectively stated that just about every last thing you've claimed proven false in this thread (and what wasn't was neither here nor there nor any topic of dispute). So, you now asininely trying to play things off as if you ever held a fact to put-down just looks more pitiful. If you don't want to have just about every last thing you claim disproved, then don't make-up everything you say, or don't base what you say on some cartoonish fantasy concocted in your own head or in propaganda media.

If you wanted a step-by-step grand-tour of your wrong claims in this thread and how each was proven false, I can certainly give you that. Just let me know. But, for now, I'll get-on with dismantling your claim regarding the illegal France/UK/US missile-strike on Syria that was nothing more than a PR stunt that exposed the weakness of US' aging arsenal. France didn't do too well in it, either (must've bought 'em from the US).


On April 14, OPCW inspectors arrived in Syria to inspect the abandoned Barzah and Jaramani research facility - at the request of the Syrian government. The OPCW had inspected the facility multiple times before and certified that it was clean and not being used for any chemical or biological weapons. And just 3 weeks prior to the war-crime April 14, 2018 France/UK/US airstrike, the OPCW published a report in which they stated the Brazah facility was empty and not being used for any weapons activity. The US knew this, and the OPCW report was public. But the US wanted a photo-and-propaganda-op to appear tough regarding an alleged chemical attack in Douma, which is now known to have not actually occurred (more on that later), and also wanted an excuse to hit various Syrian military targets.

In addition to the Barzah facility being deemed clean by the OPCW, the Syrian government had slated the empty Brazah research site for demolition. So, the illegal US strike on the compound might've saved the Syrian government some demolition costs if the Syrian government hadn't spent a lot of money shooting-down most of the US' missiles.

Because of the US' accusation that the Brazah facility was being used for chemical weapons, Syria's government invited the OPCW back to inspect it again. But US/UK/France refused to wait for the OPCW to inspect the site and targeted it - along with six other sites, just hours before the OPCW would have arrived to inspect it. That is because, in addition to being a propaganda-op, the claim of chemical weapons at the Brazah facility was a cover-excuse to illegally hit various Syrian airfields. The US knew the Brazah facility had no chemical weapons in it. The US also didn't want the OPCW to get to the Brazah facility and let the world know that the US was lying about it having any chemical weapons in it.


Russia's reported that the war-crime April 14, 2018 France/UK/US airstrike targeted seven sites with 103 missiles, with 73 being intercepted as follows:

Duvali, Blai, and Shayrat airfields were altogether targeted with 39 missiles - all missiles were successfully intercepted
Al-Dumayr military airbase was targeted with 12 missiles - all successfully intercepted
Homs airbase was targeted by 13 missiles - 10 intercepted, 3 hit
Mezzeh airbase was targeted by 9 missiles - 5 intercepted, 4 hit
Barzah and Jaramani research facility was targeted with 30 missiles - 7 intercepted, 23 hit


Syria reported that the following systems downed 73 out of 103 targets:

- Pantsir system fired 25 missiles and hit 24 targets
- Buk system fired 29 missiles and hit 24 targets
- Osa system fired 11 and hit 5 targets
- S-125 system fired 13 missiles and hit 5 targets
- Strela-10 system fired 5 missiles and hit 3 targets
- Kvadrat system fired 21 and hit 11 targets
- S-200 system fired 8 and hit no targets


The US claimed that the following vessels and armaments were used in the attack:

- cruiser Monterey launched 30 Tomahawk missiles
- destroyer Higgins launched 23 Tomahawks
- destroyer Laboon launched 7 Tomahawks
- submarine John Warner launched 6 Tomahawks
- 2 B-1 bombers launched 21 JASSM missiles
- 4 British Tornado GR4 bombers launched 16 Storm-shadow missiles
- French frigate Languedoc launched 3 MdCN land-attack missiles

And that the US/UK/France strike successfully hit all their targets as follows:

- 76 missiles on the Barzah and Jaramani research facility (which, according the OPCW were just empty buildings not used for anything and slated for demolition, and which OPCW inspectors were due to visit that day)
- 22 missiles on an alleged chemical bunker
- 7 missiles on another alleged chemical bunker

So, which claims are accurate and who's lying? It could be that none of their claims are accurate. But, right off the bat, we know that the US is lying that none of its missiles were intercepted because of the paraded photos of an intact retrieved Tomahawk warhead along with downed missile fragments filled with shrapnel holes (there are more photos including other retrieved warheads elsewhere). It's also apparent that the US lied about the success of its strike because of the number of missiles it says were fired-at and hit each site.

But the proposition that 76 1000-lbs-TNT cruise missiles worth around $150 million were used to strike the Barzah and Jaramani research compound is not only unreasonable and beyond excessive, it's also obviously not true based-on the aftermath:

For reference, here is the power of 1,000 lbs explosive armaments (at 1:10 in the video).

The Barzah and Jaramani research facilities aren't located on a large compound. Yet, all of its buildings were still partially-standing after the attack (visit this thread to view additional images):

(click for larger versions)


With 76 missiles, each packing 1,000 lbs of explosives, all landing in a compound as small as that one, there wouldn't be anything left standing. But if, as Russia claimed, 30 1,000 lbs-explosive missiles were fired at the compound and 7 were intercepted, meaning 23 hit the buildings, it might look something like it did after the illegal US-led strike.

BTW, if there had actually been chemical weapons in those buildings, it would be entirely irresponsible and dangerous to hit them with an airstrike, because the chemicals could contaminate the people, residences, and buildings around the research centre. As the US knew there weren't any chemical weapons in the building and that it was empty and slated for demolition, there wasn't a concern of that happening.


Barzah and Jaramani compound was not hit with 76 x 1,000 lbs of explosives. What the US/UK/France did with their reported strike figures is redistribute the missile targets so that they only claimed to have fired missiles at targets which were hit, hoping to hide the fact that many missiles were downed and some targets completely defended.


To recap, the US lied about:

- the purpose of the strike (it wasn't retaliation for an alleged Douma attack or to take-out a chemical weapons building - those claims were just false pretext to hit Syrian bases).
- the nature of the targets: The research facility, which the US claimed was its main target, was empty and slated for demolition, according to the OPCW who were due to investigate it one more time that day at the request of the Syrian government to prove the US allegation of it housing chemical weapons as false.
- the success of the strike. Exactly how many missiles were downed is up for questioning. But what is known is that, contrary to the US' claim, many were downed.


BTW, the alleged Douma chemical attack the US used as pretext for its illegal strike never even happened. In the past year-and-a-half, OPCW leak after OPCW leak, and OPCW whistleblower after OPCW whistleblower have revealed that the OPCW censored their research and falsified the final report on the alleged Douma incident. The OPCW's former director has defended the whistleblowers and also said the OPCW has been co-opted by the US and now serves as its propaganda tool. A former UN chief weapons inspector, who is said to have written the playbook for on-site and forensic weapons investigations that the OPCW today operates by (or is supposed to), has called OPCW co-opted by Western political interests and non-credible, and has called the OPCW's Syria investigation unprofessional, flawed, and not acceptable.

Staged suffering? Interview with boy in Douma video raises more doubts over ‘chem attack’
The OPCW and Douma: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Accused of Evidence-Tampering by Its Own Inspectors
Senior OPCW official ordered deletion of ‘all traces’ of dissenting report on ‘Douma chemical attack’ – WikiLeaks’ new leak
Media Silent as Nobel Prize Winning OPCW Found “Fixing” its Own Findings on Syria
Exclusive: OPCW chief made false claims to denigrate Douma whistleblower, documents reveal
Draft debacle: Bellingcat smears OPCW whistleblower, journalists with false letter, farcical claims
Ex-OPCW chief defends Syria whistleblowers and reveals he was spied on before Iraq war
Former OPCW Chief Says His Office Was Bugged While USA Pushed Iraq War
Ex-OPCW chief Jose Bustani reads testimony that US, UK blocked at UN, about Syria coverup

Reality is quite a bit different than the propaganda you grew-up on and console yourself with. The US lies - all the time.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...defenses-failed-intercept-missiles/537126002/

Russia, the land of facts.

The Pentagon lied to hide its embarrassment? You don't say!

And when you contrast Russia with the US, that certainly seems to be the picture, doesn't it? Conversely, the Pentagon, in its desperation to cover its humiliating failure, reached for easily-debunked propaganda. Unfortunately, it seems that the correcting facts didn't reach everyone.

 

[motomonkey]

Independent of anybody's wishes, it can be objectively stated that just about every last thing you've claimed proven false in this thread (and what wasn't was neither here nor there nor any topic of dispute). So, you now asininely trying to play things off as if you ever held a fact to put-down just looks more pitiful. If you don't want to have just about every last thing you claim disproved, then don't make-up everything you say, or don't base what you say on some cartoonish fantasy concocted in your own head or in propaganda media.

What an amazing distortion of the facts.

Exactly how did you disprove anything I stated?

The Invasion of the Ukraine? Hardly, the facts speak for themselves on that, which is why you carefully skated around the issue and concentrated on Syria, where it's more difficult to prove you are full of shit.

I don't know if you are simply some Russian teenager who is understandably patriotic and believes all the shit shoveled down your throat, an FSB whore who happens to troll Western accounts or just an idiot. Doesn't matter, you can spew your Russian crap all you want, no one believes it.

 

[Aireoth]

inb4 soapbox.

 

[Delicieuxz]

What an amazing distortion of the facts.

Exactly how did you disprove anything I stated?

The Invasion of the Ukraine? Hardly, the facts speak for themselves on that, which is why you carefully skated around the issue and concentrated on Syria, where it's more difficult to prove you are full of shit.

I don't know if you are simply some Russian teenager who is understandably patriotic and believes all the shit shoveled down your throat, an FSB whore who happens to troll Western accounts or just an idiot. Doesn't matter, you can spew your Russian crap all you want, no one believes it.

As if you ever knew a fact to be able to tell another person what one is. Maybe you think that the drivel you've posted can't be seen by others, but I assure you that it can.

I can understand that someone as dim-witted, ego-fragile, and as much a coward in the face of facts as yourself loathes to admit it when they're proven wrong, but the fact is that you've been proven wrong on all your claims - including your claim of an invasion of Crimea. And while you don't know much of anything, obviously, I know that you are a brainwashed clown and idiot.

There literally was no invasion of Crimea or Ukraine by Russia. So, you claiming that there are distraction efforts from something that didn't happen is what's ludicrous.

 

[motomonkey]

As if you ever knew a fact to be able to tell another person what one is. Maybe you think that the drivel you've posted can't be seen by others, but I assure you that it can.

I can understand that someone as dim-witted, ego-fragile, and as much a coward in the face of facts as yourself loathes to admit it when they're proven wrong, but the fact is that you've been proven wrong on all your claims - including your claim of an invasion of Crimea. And while you don't know much of anything, obviously, I know that you are a brainwashed clown and idiot.

No invasion of Ukraine? and you actually post an anonymous post on Quora as your source? omfg. Thanks, I actually LOL'd at that one. I posted a link from a an actual Ukraine site, and you post shit. oh, damn. you sure owned my ass on that one.

Anyway, Trying to derail this thread to distract from the Russian hack is cute, and a typical disinformation tactic. I'm done derailing the thread, and I'm done with you.

 

[Jinto]

Don't get why people are arguing over conventional capabilities. US is undisputedly the top dog. There may be areas that China and Russia have an advantage but there is a good reason that Taiwan is still de-facto independent and Russia has not gone further in Ukraine. Russia and China have fundamentally different objectives. Russia is a declining great power and needs to lash out to stay relevant. China is an ascendant great power and needs stability to keep its growth agenda on track. You won't see China do these kind of things because they have more to lose. Of course they do cyber attacks too, but not on such a large scale and usually for economic agenda rather than political (political is nearly always more sensitive).

Anyway is it an act of war? Yes. However I would rather fight a cyber war than a conventional war.

 

[Verge]

Never thought I would see a russian disinformation campaign on the [H]. Jeez you guys are really reaching.

 

[Aireoth]

As if you ever knew a fact to be able to tell another person what one is. Maybe you think that the drivel you've posted can't be seen by others, but I assure you that it can.

I can understand that someone as dim-witted, ego-fragile, and as much a coward in the face of facts as yourself loathes to admit it when they're proven wrong, but the fact is that you've been proven wrong on all your claims - including your claim of an invasion of Crimea. And while you don't know much of anything, obviously, I know that you are a brainwashed clown and idiot.

So an anon Quora post, linking mostly Russian news sites (absolutely state controlled), a wiki article (lol), and a single reuters article. Bravo, really convincing evidence if you only read headlines and nothing else.

Edit: most of your links are to propaganda, nice!

 

[motomonkey]

Don't get why people are arguing over conventional capabilities. US is undisputedly the top dog. There may be areas that China and Russia have an advantage but there is a good reason that Taiwan is still de-facto independent and Russia has not gone further in Ukraine. Russia and China have fundamentally different objectives. Russia is a declining great power and needs to lash out to stay relevant. China is an ascendant great power and needs stability to keep its growth agenda on track. You won't see China do these kind of things because they have more to lose. Of course they do cyber attacks too, but not on such a large scale and usually for economic agenda rather than political (political is nearly always more sensitive).

Anyway is it an act of war? Yes. However I would rather fight a cyber war than a conventional war.

Cyberwar has the potential to be more devastating than conventional war, especially in the long termco

hacking the power grid to disable power distribution during a major winter storm has the potential to kill thousands,

manipulating rail switching signals can cause massive train wrecks involving hazardous cargos that could kill many people and cripple the movement of supplies.

hacking shipping companies to reroute cargos to the wrong destination can cripple our “just in time” production at factories all over the country.

just a few examples of automated systems that we depend on that can be manipulated by a hostile nation state.

Conventional war is terrible, unrestricted cyber war in this day and age is going to be terrible also.

 

[Delicieuxz]

No invasion of Ukraine? and you actually post an anonymous post on Quora as your source? omfg. Thanks, I actually LOL'd at that one. I posted a link from a an actual Ukraine site, and you post shit. oh, damn. you sure owned my ass on that one.

Anyway, Trying to derail this thread to distract from the Russian hack is cute, and a typical disinformation tactic. I'm done derailing the thread, and I'm done with you.

If proving nonsense you made-up wrong were a Russian tactic, then the world would need more 'Russian tactics'. You were done before you started, honestly. It's rare to find someone so committed as yourself to what they know are demonstrated to be unsound and false positions. Yet, there you are.

By "Quora", mean a litany of authoritative links from the Ukrainian and Russian governments, confirming the same things, video from residents of Crimea, and a UN treaty that Ukraine is signatory to, amongst other top-level resources.

That you think posting "an actual Ukrainian site" is a free win shows the caliber of thought being dealt-with here. But, hey, if that's what works for you then it's easy to up that ante with multiple sites from the Ukrainian government's website:

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/643_076#Text
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/643_075#Text

And the Ukrainian Prosecutor General in Poroshenko's post-coup government stating and showing, in a Ukrainian news report, that Russia was asked to use its military stop the coup by then Ukrainian-president Yanukovych:



Which confirmed what Russia said.

The Ukrainian page you cited calls the coup in Ukraine merely "alleged". Yet, it was anything but. A fact any person can easily verify for themselves by checking the information in Ukraine's 1996 and 2004's constitutions:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine,_1996
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/08/constitution_14.pdf


Actual Ukrainian sites, the Ukrainian government's prosecutor confirming, on a Ukrainian news report, Russia's claim, and the actual Ukrainian constitutions. That level of veracity must be something never before dreamed-of by you.

Never thought I would see a russian disinformation campaign on the [H]. Jeez you guys are really reaching.

You never thought that braindead and long-discredited US disinformation would be confronted and debunked? You must be happy to see the day that it has been, then.

So an anon Quora post, linking mostly Russian new sites (absolutely state controlled), a wiki article (lol), and a single reuters article. Bravo, really convincing evidence if you only read headlines and nothing else.

Edit: most of your links are to propaganda, nice!

So, you're another liar who prefers self-crafted delusion to the sobering facts before them.

List of links:

1. Wikipedia page - with links to the full text of the treaty - the full treaty from the Ukrainian government's own website is linked-to in this post
2. Article featuring Crimea's government's declaration of independence
3. Russian government website featuring an interview with Putin in which he acknowledges that the coup in Kiev resulted in the end of constitutional rule among territories of former Ukraine - a fact anyone can verify in the Ukrainian constitutions [1] [2], themselves
4. Hosted on the UN's Human Rights website: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaty, which Ukraine was signatory to and would have applied to Crimea to entitle them their referendum even had Crimea still been part of Ukraine at the time (which, they weren't)
5. Reuters article in which Russia shows, to the UNSC, the letter from former Ukrainian-president Yanukovych asking Russia to use its military to stop the US-coup taking-place in Ukraine
6. Website run by Western expats living in Russia (though, the site is based in the US): Article showing screencaps from a Ukrainian news report in which the Ukrainian Prosecutor General confirms that former Ukrainian-president, Yanukovych, while still president, asked Russia to use its military to stop the US coup - he shows the same letter Russia showed to the UNSC
(the original Ukrainian news video is here)
7. Live-streamed video footage from Crimean residents travelling around Sevastopol on both the day of the "invasion" that never happened, and the day of Crimea's referendum. No troops are to be seen anywhere.
8. Ukrainian news website featuring a poll conducted in Donbass by a Kiev pollster, showing that the Donbass residents don't believe Russia is involved in their conflict with Ukraine


Too bad that the facts existed and could be pointed-out to you, hey? When your argument is entirely dependent upon the obvious lie you said simply not being pointed-out, then you're just setting yourself up for defeat. As you did here.

 

[Aireoth]

If proving nonsense you made-up wrong were a Russian tactic, then the world would need more 'Russian tactics'. You were done before you started, honestly. It's rare to find someone so committed as yourself to what they know are demonstrated to be unsound and false positions. Yet, there you are.

By "Quora", mean a litany of authoritative links from the Ukrainian and Russian governments, confirming the same things, video from residents of Crimea, and a UN treaty that Ukraine is signatory to, amongst other top-level resources.

That you think posting "an actual Ukrainian site" is a free win shows the caliber of thought being dealt-with here. But, hey, if that's what works for you then it's easy to up that ante with multiple sites from the Ukrainian government's website:

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/643_076#Text
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/643_075#Text

And the Ukrainian prosecutor in Poroshenko's post-coup government stating and showing, in a Ukrainian news report, that Russia was asked to use its military stop the coup by then Ukrainian-president Yanukovych:



Which confirmed what Russia said.

The Ukrainian page you cited calls the coup in Ukraine merely "alleged". Yet, it was anything but. A fact any person can easily verify for themselves by checking the information in Ukraine's 1996 and 2004's constitutions:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine,_1996
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/08/constitution_14.pdf


Actual Ukrainian sites, the Ukrainian government's prosecutor confirming, on a Ukrainian news report, Russia's claim, and the actual Ukrainian constitutions. That level of veracity must be something never before dreamed-of by you.


You never thought that braindead and long-discredited US disinformation would be confronted and debunked? You must be happy to see the day that it has been, then.


So, you're another liar who prefers self-crafted delusion to the facts before them.

List of links:

1. Wikipedia page - with links to the full text of the treaty - the full treaty from the Ukrainian government's own website is linked-to in this post
2. Article featuring Crimea's government's declaration of independence
3. Russian government website featuring an interview with Putin in which he acknowledges that the coup in Kiev resulted in the end of constitutional rule among territories of former Ukraine - a fact anyone can verify in the Ukrainian constitutions, themselves
4. Hosted on the UN's Human Rights website: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaty, which Ukraine was signatory to and would have applied to Crimea to entitle them their referendum even had Crimea still been part of Ukraine at the time (which, they weren't)
5. Reuters article in which Russia shows, to the UNSC, the letter from former Ukrainian-president Yanukovych asking Russia to use its military to stop the US-coup taking-place in Ukraine
6. Website run by Western expats living in Russia (though, the site is based in the US): Article showing screencaps from a Ukrainian news report in which the Ukrainian prosecutor confirms that former Ukrainian-president, Yanukovych, while still president, asked Russia to use its military to stop the US coup - he shows the same letter Russia showed to the UNSC
(the original Ukrainian new video is here)
7. Live-streamed video footage from Crimean residents travelling around Sevastopol on both the day of the "invasion" that never happened, and the day of Crimea's referendum. No troops are to be seen anywhere.
8. Ukrainian news website featuring a poll conducted by a Kiev pollster of Donbass, showing that the Donbass residents don't believe Russia is involved in their conflict with Ukraine


Too bad that the facts existed and could be pointed-out to you, hey? When your argument is entirely dependent upon the obvious lie you said simply not being pointed-out, then you're just setting yourself up for defeat. As you did here.

lol, you try so hard its amusing.

The post coup government established by russia, expats living in russia, russian news websites, and Putin himself.

The truth always sits in between. Keep beating that drum.

 

[Delicieuxz]

lol, you try so hard its amusing.

Cool. But it wasn't just a try. To succeed, I had to demonstrate that your claim was false and entertaining delusion rather than dealing with reality. And that, I have done.

The post coup government established by russia, expats living in russia, russian news websites, and Putin himself.

Not sure which part of the comment that refers to, since the only usage of "post-coup" in my comment refers to the Ukrainian government the Ukrainian Prosecutor General who was part of the post-coup government - and that government being established as post-coup by the constitutions of Ukraine... well, in addition to the leaked phonecall between US assistant secretary of state and US ambassador to Ukraine, which the US assistant secretary of state publicly acknowledged was real and apologized for after being condemned for it by EU allies.

 

[Aireoth]

Cool. But it wasn't just a try. To succeed, I had to demonstrate that your claim was false and entertaining delusion rather than dealing with reality. And that, I have done.


Not sure which part of the comment that refers to, since the only usage of "post-coup" in my comment refers to the Ukrainian government the Ukrainian Prosecutor General who was part of the post-coup government - and that government being established as post-coup by the constitutions of Ukraine... well, in addition to the leaked phonecall between US assistant secretary of state and US ambassador to Ukraine, which the US assistant secretary of state publicly acknowledged was real and apologized for after being condemned for it by EU allies.

I don't actually care at all, but I think its very amusing how much you do, that you reject others western news sources as propaganda, and then literally link state authorized propaganda from Russia. The irony is delicious.

Russia has no issue (physical or moral) killing people in other countries, then bald face denying it. They can absolutely control some expats posting news from russia even if they are using a US server!

 

[Verge]

Cool. But it wasn't just a try. To succeed, I had to demonstrate that your claim was false and entertaining delusion rather than dealing with reality. And that, I have done.


Not sure which part of the comment that refers to, since the only usage of "post-coup" in my comment refers to the Ukrainian government the Ukrainian Prosecutor General who was part of the post-coup government - and that government being established as post-coup by the constitutions of Ukraine... well, in addition to the leaked phonecall between US assistant secretary of state and US ambassador to Ukraine, which the US assistant secretary of state publicly acknowledged was real and apologized for after being condemned for it by EU allies.

Bro ya'll got better shit to worry about over there than message board fights and insults.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/europe/russia-navalny-poisoning-underpants-ward/index.html

 

[Epos7]

And that, I have done.

Citing RT and the current White House isn't terribly convincing. There may be some facts in what you've posted, but it's hard to sift them out from the propaganda. There's also the fact that Ukraine was prepared to put a government official on television to spin a false story in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money. Maybe Ukraine will say many things if the incentive is there.

 

[Delicieuxz]

I don't actually care at all, but I think its very amusing how much you do, that you reject others western news sources as propaganda, and then literally link state authorized propaganda from Russia. The irony is delicious.

Russia has no issue (physical or moral) killing people in other countries, then bald face denying it. They can absolutely control some expats posting news from russia even if they are using a US server!

Replace with 'the US', and it's even more true. However, the people running the site talking about the video are of entirely no consequence to the matter because the video screencaps show the letter, and the original video source is available and already given a couple of times: (the original Ukrainian news video is here)

The only sources I've dismissed as propaganda, are propaganda. When a propaganda source makes an unsubstantiated claim (especially one I debunk with official and verified information), it can be said to be propaganda. There is a difference between a claim and confirmation. For example, that the coup in Kiev was an illegal coup is confirmed by Ukraine's constitution. That the US was involved in that coup is confirmed by the leaked US ASS & Abassador to Ukraine phonecall, which the ASS Victoria Nuland confirmed is real and apologized for after being condemned by US allies over its content.

Citing RT and the current White House isn't terribly convincing. There may be some facts in what you've posted, but it's hard to sift them out from the propaganda. There's also the fact that Ukraine was prepared to put a government official on television to spin a false story in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money. Maybe Ukraine will say many things if the incentive is there.

Neither are cited as sources in the list of links I gave above. Only RT presents an English translation of one of the sources, which itself isn't RT but is the democratically-elected Crimean government which governed before the US-coup in Kiev, which declared Crimea's independence, and which organized Crimea's referendum and continued governing after the referendum. No need to sift - the entire list of links is factual.

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General showed and read the letter from Yanukovych to Russia's government to argue that Yanukovych was a traitor. He didn't show it to confirm what Russia said - however, that was the unintended consequence of him showing the letter. Yanukovych has also confirmed the letter is real.

 

[Wat]

Not so. Russia, China, and the US are about on-par with each-other in terms of raw military power. But the US is behind both of them in missile and anti-missile technology, and that's a massive and all-impacting deficiency to have. It is currently rendering the US' entire surface-navy fleet of no consequence against Russia or China - because the US has no defences against hypersonic

You don't brag about weapons when you have the advantage. You chest-thump when you can't compete.

R&d on hypersonics has been going on for a long time. Funded by those $700 toilet seats you used to hear about.

 

[Wat]

Do the Russian missiles support real time ray tracing? If not I dont give a damn

 

[Delicieuxz]

You don't brag about weapons when you have the advantage. You chest-thump when you can't compete.

R&d on hypersonics has been going on for a long time. Funded by those $700 toilet seats you used to hear about.

I'm not one for bragging about weapons, but I think it can be said that you also don't brag about weapons when you can't because they don't compete. You also don't sanction other countries against buying a competitor's weapons when yours offer the advantage - because then people prefer to buy yours and there's no need for threats.

Yes, R&D on US hypersonics has been going on a very long time, and the US tested a prototype glider earlier this year. I expect it will be a year or so before that one enters into service.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Not so. Russia, China, and the US are about on-par with each-other in terms of raw military power. But the US is behind both of them in missile and anti-missile technology, and that's a massive and all-impacting deficiency to have. It is currently rendering the US' entire surface-navy fleet of no consequence against Russia or China - because the US has no defences against hypersonic missiles, and none of the US navy's surface vessels can approach close enough to be of any use without entering the range of Russia's and China's missiles. And the US' war-capability is overwhelmingly dependent upon its surface-navy fleet.

If actual war broke-out between China and the US, the US would evacuate its surface ships from the South China Sea pronto, because its vessels there are nothing but sitting ducks right now.


Here's a November 2018 US Congress report's conclusion:

Despite Record Spending, the U.S. Military Would Be at 'Grave Risk' in a War With Russia or China

A new analysis suggests the Pentagon would almost certainly endure a "decisive military defeat" if faced with war against Russia or China.
…
In nearly every critical capability, from anti-air denial systems to cyber, Russia and China are matching and even outpacing the U.S., and those nations' advances complicate the Pentagon's ability to wield what the authors call "the hard-power backbone" of military hegemony—namely, the ability to deploy overwhelming military force, as it has in the past through amphibious operations (World War II) and air superiority (the Global War on Terror).

If a conventional invasion of North Korea would prove a bloodbath for U.S. troops, which experts are indeed predicting, a conflict with Russia and China would be disastrous.

Well, you have to consider the source too. Military reporting like this almost always has one angle or another (war hawk vs pacifist).

Conventional wisdom is that China will eventually catch up and surpass our military abilities, but that this is at least 10-15 years away.

Russia? No.

As the article points out, we may have a temporary readiness issue, due to having our forces deployed abroad for decades now, but this is not a structural long term deficit.

But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, as "all out war" like in WWII, where both sides are in it to win no matter the cost is unlikely to happen. Modern wars are smaller engagements and when the public gets tired or pissed, politicians have to back out of the conflict.

Russia and China both field capable enough military forces to make a war politically impossible.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I remembered this discussion the other day, and it stuck with me, so I decided to follow up:

The Soviet Union was a superpower and was numerically superior to the US in the past, but all of that fell apart 30 years ago. Only small portions of the military resources they had back then are still usable today. Since 2008, Russia has been massively revamping their armed forces. 90% of all armored units and half of all air units disappeared and were replaced with smaller numbers of modern and effective weapons, and they are continuing to modernize. On paper the Russian military is a million men strong, but in reality there are probably only about 750,000 of them and depending on their role and location, only about 30-70% of them have access to modern equipment.

All of that said, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu does look like he is straight out of central casting for a Golden Eye era bond villain, and looks like someone you may not want to mess with

The Russians certainly do have some effective military capabilities. They have put down two uprisings in Chechnya, carried out a limited conflict with Georgia, annexed Crimea and support a low-intensity conflict in eastern Ukraine. At the same time, they have helped Iran save the regime in Syria by providing air support from a borrowed air base and providing special forces as advisers to work together with Syrian and Iranian units and also have some naval units off the coast.

But that is probably the limit of what they can do today. The capability of their most effective modernized units is quite impressive, but those units are not available in the volumes required in a sustained conflict with a major power. In addition, some of these new modernized weapon systems haven't quite lived up to the propaganda. When they tried to use the new Kalibr cruise missile against the rebels in Syria, the missiles - instead of hitting their intended targets - ended up in a wide spread pattern all the way from from the eastern Mediterranean to Iran. Since that embarrassment, Kalibr has only rarely been used.

The U.S. certainly doesn't have the military it had during the cold war either. It has been greatly retooled to fight insurgency conflicts instead of highly capable and modern adversaries. Even so, the U.S. has an overwhelming force projection capability, and would absolutely stomp Russia in a conflict in a proxy country in the Middle East, Africa or Latin America.

Russia would do better in the the immediate area around their neck of the woods, but they would still be at a disadvantage, and they probably wouldn't do anything like that, as the likely targets, the Baltic states, Ukraine or Georgia that are all members of NATO or border NATO countries.

You have to keep in mind what Russia's goals are in all of this. They want to posture as a superpower without actually being one in porder to get more considerations and prestige on the global stage. Putin's goal almost certainly is to sabre rattle every now and then as a distraction whenever things unfavorable to him happen domestically. Nothing rallies the homeland like a foreign war, right?

In the unlikely event that we would wind up in a shooting war with Russia it is an open question if other bad players on the world stage like China, Iran would side with them and support them.

The truth is that there really isnt an ideological conflict between the United States and Russia anymore. Putin's party that rules safely and unthreatened in Russia and is quite far from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The occasional sabre rattling may serve Putin's domestic agenda, but he isn't foolish enough to take it any further than that. Especially since by the time either side would be at risk of being defeated on the home front things would go nuclear. No one would want that.

These publications you quote suggesting that Russia would beat the U.S. in a shooting war are likely just using scare tactics, motivated by wanting greater budgets and military spending.

China is rapidly growing and will be a real concern as a military opponent in time which we have to take seriously, but Russia? No. The cold war is over.

 

[DarkSideA8]

China is rapidly growing and will be a real concern as a military opponent in time which we have to take seriously

China likely does not want a repeat of or their own version of the US Soviet Cold War. However, a regional hegemony does look like a goal - one that sees them as almost solely in control of the naval traffic from Australia to Kamchatka.

Where the Soviets were adventurous in an overt military and soft power way, the Chinese approach is distinct. Look to how they're moving into SA and Africa and even Hong Kong - the money and officials go in overtly, but super fit military age workers show up and objectors mysteriously disappear until people get the point.

 

[Krenum]

China doesn't need to win a war militarily, they've already imbibed themselves with all the leaders and organizations around the world & with the US politicians (literally).

 

[Delicieuxz]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I remembered this discussion the other day, and it stuck with me, so I decided to follow up:

The Soviet Union was a superpower and was numerically superior to the US in the past, but all of that fell apart 30 years ago. Only small portions of the military resources they had back then are still usable today. Since 2008, Russia has been massively revamping their armed forces. 90% of all armored units and half of all air units disappeared and were replaced with smaller numbers of modern and effective weapons, and they are continuing to modernize. On paper the Russian military is a million men strong, but in reality there are probably only about 750,000 of them and depending on their role and location, only about 30-70% of them have access to modern equipment.

All of that said, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu does look like he is straight out of central casting for a Golden Eye era bond villain, and looks like someone you may not want to mess with

The Russians certainly do have some effective military capabilities. They have put down two uprisings in Chechnya, carried out a limited conflict with Georgia, annexed Crimea and support a low-intensity conflict in eastern Ukraine. At the same time, they have helped Iran save the regime in Syria by providing air support from a borrowed air base and providing special forces as advisers to work together with Syrian and Iranian units and also have some naval units off the coast.

But that is probably the limit of what they can do today. The capability of their most effective modernized units is quite impressive, but those units are not available in the volumes required in a sustained conflict with a major power. In addition, some of these new modernized weapon systems havent quite lived up to the propaganda. When they tried to use the new Kalibr cruise missile against the rebels in Syria, the missiles - instead of hitting their intended targets - ended up in a wide spread pattern all the way from from the eastern Mediterranean to Iran Since that embarrassment, Kalibr has only rarely been used.

Personally, I don't think that this was a thread that needed to be bumped. However, I don't think your assessment that Russia's current deployments represent their maximum ability is accurate. Russia's military is largely designed as a defensive force, but its offensive reach and capability has grown as a result of its development of defensive capabilities and has eclipsed the US in some very crucial ways.

In terms of raw firepower, Russia and the US are about equal in strength: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

But Russia has some crucial advantages in military tech that can nullify a huge amount of the US' conventional military strength. Areas of technology in which Russia has surpassed the US include missile, anti-missile, radar, electronic warfare, nukes. The first three mentioned things adding-up to much better aerial denial capability.

One significant aspect of the missile category being hypersonic missiles - which the US still doesn't have one of and which no country can yet defend against. The lack of ability to defend against hypersonic missiles means 1 successfully-fired missile = 1 successful hit. And that spells either irrelevancy or extermination for the US' surface navy, which the US essentially depends upon to project its military might, and which makes-up a huge amount of the US' total firepower - I was thinking I recollected around 1/3rd of US military might, but I can't verify that right now. The US navy and airforce each represent a quarter of the US' active-duty personnel.

The US recently failed a real-world test of a hypersonic missile, though successfully imagined firing a hypersonic missile. When the US finally does have a hypersonic missile in service, it still won't represent an ability to defend against them. Not that Russia needs hypersonics to neutralize the US' surface navy, providing battle is taking anywhere close to Russia's territory, as Russia (and China, and even Iran) can easily overwhelm the defensive capabilities of any ship with land-based missiles (some of which could be difficult to intercept even without being hypersonic). No matter how good a system's missile-tracking is, it can still only track and engage so many targets at once, and a ship's supply of defences is relatively extremely-limited when compared to land-based stores of any medium-strength military. Which is why carriers are regarded as obsolete tech against any modern army - they simply can't get close enough to a country with semi-modernized missiles to be of any use without being easily sunk. Bringing carriers to a fight against a modernized opponent is like facing-off against an army equipped with guns while you have the sharpest, lightest, and most durable swords in existence - you'll still lose.

The Kalibr missile has been in service since 1994, and it has been used to effect in Syria. There was some naysaying over the success of a flex-shot Russia did from the Caspian Sea, but that was almost 1,000 miles away. I don't know if there's any confirmation that some of the missiles crashed in Iran, but Russia claimed its targets in Syria were destroyed. But the missile continued to be used a lot in Syria afterwards.

One non-hypersonic missile Russia recently added to its arsenal which can challenge US defences is the 9M729, which the US alleged violated the INF and then used that allegation as pretext for unilaterally withdrawing from the INF. Though, Russia has denied the allegation and invited the US to a briefing on the missile, though the US refused the invitation and shortly-thereafter tested an INF-violating system of its own, suggesting that the US had been planning a withdraw from the treaty to pursue weapons prohibited by it, and only accused Russia of violating the treaty as an excuse.


Russia has 1.014 million active personnel and 2 million reservists. If they're active, then that shouldn't be just on-paper. The US has 1.4 million active personnel and 845,500 reservists. But after a point, personnel numbers probably aren't nearly as important as technological advantage.

The U.S. certainly doesn't have the military it had during the cold war either. It has been greatly retooled to fight insurgency conflicts instead of highly capable and modern adversaries. Even so, the U.S. has an overwhelming force projection capability, and would absolutely stomp Russia in a conflict in a proxy country in the Middle East, Africa or Latin America.

Russia would do better in the the immediate area around their neck of the woods, but they would still be at a disadvantage, and they probably wouldn't do anything like that, as the likely targets, the Baltic states, Ukraine or Georgia that are all members of NATO or border NATO countries.

You have to keep in mind what Russia's goals are in all of this. They want to posture as a superpower without actually being one in porder to get more considerations and prestige on the global stage. Putin's goal almost certainly is to sabre rattle every now and then as a distraction whenever things unfavorable to him happen domestically. Nothing rallies the homeland like a foreign war, right?

In the unlikely event that we would wind up in a shooting war with Russia it is an open question if other bad players on the world stage like China, Iran would side with them and support them.

The truth is that there really isnt an ideological conflict between the United States and Russia anymore. Putin's party that rules safely and unthreatened in Russia and is quite far from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The occasional sabre rattling may serve Putin's domestic agenda, but he isn't foolish enough to take it any further than that. Especially since by the time either side would be at risk of being defeated on the home front things would go nuclear. No one would want that.

These publications you quote suggesting that Russia would beat the U.S. in a shooting war are likely just using scare tactics, motivated by wanting greater budgets and military spending.

China is rapidly growing and will be a real concern as a military opponent in time which we have to take seriously, but Russia? No. The cold war is over.

Russia's military is stronger than China's. So, if China is a real concern then Russia should logically be more of one. However, the comparisons of Russian and US and Chinese military capabilities don't directly come from the respective governments making their own claims, but from 3rd-party analysis of the involved tech. With something like hypersonic missiles vs ships that can't defend against them, it's a no-brainer how that plays out. No matter how much the US has invested into its surface navy, they're currently simply obsolete sitting ducks against Russia or China - and even countries like Iran which can, simply using overwhelming firepower against a ship's defences, easily sink anything in the Persian Gulf should war actually break-out between Iran and the US.

It isn't just the US government reporting Russia's capabilities vs the US' own (and the November 2018 US Congress assessment I linked-to previously in the thread was supposedly put-together by an independent 3rd-party for Congress, for whatever that's worth). All serious analysis (not meaning Quora and internet forums of chest-thumpers) seems to have a similar view.

US ‘gets ass handed to it’ in WW3 simulations with China, Russia: analysts

The U.S. repeatedly “gets its ass handed to it” in World War III simulations, according to the global research organization RAND.

"In our games, when we fight Russia and China … blue gets its ass handed to it,” RAND senior researcher David Ochmanek said during a panel discussion at the Center for a New American Security think tank last week.

Russia could overrun Baltic states in 36 hours if it wanted to, Nato warned

World War III: If Russia Invaded the Baltics NATO Couldn't Stop Them
Russia could be winner in WWIII ‘nightmare scenario’ by capturing northern Europe & blocking NATO counterattack – Swedish experts


I don't think that Russia is sabre-rattling. In each of its military ventures in the past 2 decades, Russia has been responding to events created by others:

- Georgia invaded South Ossetia (which had been independent from Georgia ever since Georgia became independent from the USSR) in 2008 and was killing South Ossetian civilians as well as Russian peace-keepers (who were in S Ossetia by UN mandate), the EU blamed Georgia for the brief conflict
- a war in Syria started in 2011 by the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar who sponsored terrorists (the CIA program had $1 billion in funding per year) in Syria as a failed bid to overthrow Assad over contrasting pipeline plans: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the US, UK, and Turkey wanted a pipeline to Europe that served them and their regional partners and goals, and which would deny Iran oil revenues, while Syria and Iran planned a pipeline that would deliver Iranian LNG to Europe and bypass the others mentioned (except for Turkey) - Russia didn't enter the conflict until December 2015
- Russia mobilized its forces already stationed in Crimea, with the support of the Crimean people, and by request of the last-acting president of former Ukraine, in response to a US-backed coup in Kiev
- Russia's minimal assistance in Donbass (which Putin acknowledged is happening) is helping them defend against Ukraine, while Ukraine is the aggressor (and has on many occasions targeted civilians [2] [3] [4]) who has been unilaterally attacking Donbass to try to force it into submission of a government which Donbass has never been in legal association with (post-coup Ukraine has no constitutional continuity with pre-coup Ukraine)
- Russia's recent military buildup and drills on their western border near Ukraine was responsive to Ukraine having been amassing its military around Donbass for the previous month, and responsive to Ukraine's president signing a decree formed March 11 by Ukraine's defence council on retaking Donbass and Crimea, and responsive to Ukrainian news media reports that military and defence council insiders said that Kiev is planning an assault on Donbass (where many Russian citizens live) but that the plans will be abandoned if Russia gets involved

I don't think that Russia is looking for a fight or wanting one. But they're clearly willing to respond to situations which threaten their interests. But every time they react to a situation, it's framed as them being an aggressor, because that's how propaganda goes. Russia is a geopolitical rival of the US government and NATO, and so US government and NATO actions are framed in their respective media as justified and good-guy stuff, whereas actions by Russia are framed as aggressive and unprovoked and without merit. But that's just narrative, and the truth is much more the opposite.

 

[Jandor]

If the case had been brought to justice in the 80s, it would have been considered as an Act of Fun. The guys whining about an attack would have been laughed at, treated as incompetent.

This is the US bringing everything to justice and international justice. EU bureaucrats are starting to act the same. I am sick of it.
And that thing about melding into another country elections. LOL. Every country and every citizen in every country is melding into another country's elections.
I'm melding into other countries' elections on internet, just trying to convince people on forums and Reddit. This is freedom of speech and it easily counterweights money spend in campaigns. If there would be a crowd attack software over internet to favour in elections the candidate I prefer, I would participate : I'm completely against using computers and internet for the vote.
I was part of an attack like more than 10 years from now against a Chinese official media who was completely annoying about Tibet. I lend the computers of my company to organise the attack through several VPN and TOR. China regime is my enemy and the tibetans, peaceful people, trying to regain their freedom are my friends. So I am a hero !
This is how everything works, pure reality. Considering it otherwise is some bureaucrat utopia.