Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[CrutyRammers]

BikeBikeBIke said:

deckster said:

You've been reading and contributing to this thread several times daily for quite some time now.

And you're really, genuinely, asking "why would Russia lie"?!??

Yes. I'm asking why and nobody is giving me a rational answer.

Why would Russia want to set a trap to sink a civilian ship when they can achieve the same thing by refusing to open Odessa and save themselves a missile?

So that the approach to oddessa gets demined and demilitarised, then they can walk in?
Or just because they're dicks, in the same way they offer civilians humanitarian corridors, then shell them. Why do that?

[MOTORVATOR]

BikeBikeBIke said:

deckster said:

You've been reading and contributing to this thread several times daily for quite some time now.

And you're really, genuinely, asking "why would Russia lie"?!??

Yes. I'm asking why and nobody is giving me a rational answer.

Why would Russia want to set a trap to sink a civilian ship when they can achieve the same thing by refusing to open Odessa and save themselves a missile?

The interesting point of your post is that you appear to have fallen into an acceptance that Russia have any right to blockade it in the first place. Easiest way to provide shipping from Odesa is for Russia to withdraw completely from illegally occupied areas and give international commitment that it respects Ukraine sovereignty at least over undisputed territory.

Why haven't they offered that or are all the Odesa Lightermen and Dockers Nazis that need to be eradicated as well?

[BikeBikeBIke]

CrutyRammers said:

So that the approach to oddessa gets demined and demilitarised, then they can walk in?

The plan only works if Ukraine can be sure they don't have the resources to take Ukraine with aid of a marine assault. If that's not certain Ukraine will just say no. So that's not a motive here.

CrutyRammers said:

Or just because they're dicks

Not good enough.

CrutyRammers said:

, in the same way they offer civilians humanitarian corridors, then shell them. Why do that?

That's a fair point. I'd hope Russia have better control of their ships than they do of their grunts but yes, that is a risk. I'd chance it if I were a merchant seaman and millions of people could be saved from starvation. I'm sure others would too.

[BikeBikeBIke]

MOTORVATOR said:

The interesting point of your post is that you appear to have fallen into an acceptance that Russia have any right to blockade it in the first place.

I haven't appeared to, and I haven't done so. (...and it wasn't the interesting part of my post either.) Apart from that, spot on.

[deckster]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Yes. I'm asking why and nobody is giving me a rational answer.

Why would Russia want to set a trap to sink a civilian ship when they can achieve the same thing by refusing to open Odessa and save themselves a missile?

We shouldn't believe Russia because Russia has been shown, over and over, to lie. Continually and consistently. At this point we should take absolutely nothing they say to be true.

Then you ask why they would want to set a trap, which is a different question. But it pre-supposes that there is a reason to a Russian lie, which I think is why you have been met with universal incredulity. They don't need a reason to lie. They don't need to be setting a trap. They lie because it's what they do, because it's what they are used to doing. Because, as I said yesterday, much of what they say is for home consumption so they can perpetuate the bigger lie that it's the West that is the aggressor, that Russia is the reasonable party, and that they are fighting an honourable war in defence of the motherland.

The best lies are, as we know, based in truth. Russian lies are not. Russian lies are just meaningless noise.

[MOTORVATOR]

BikeBikeBIke said:

MOTORVATOR said:

The interesting point of your post is that you appear to have fallen into an acceptance that Russia have any right to blockade it in the first place.

I haven't appeared to, and I haven't done so. (...and it wasn't the interesting part of my post either.) Apart from that, spot on.

It's you and your sanctions that caused this clusterfk in the first place.

MOSCOW, May 26. /TASS/. Moscow finds the West’s rhetoric on Russia’s Ukrainian grain blockade unacceptable, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday.

"We flatly reject this rhetoric, and we ourselves accuse the West of a number of illicit steps it has taken to cause the blockade," Peskov said.

"They should retract the illegal decisions they have made resulting in blocked freight, grain exports, etc.," the presidential spokesman said in response to a question about whether Western countries should lift their anti-Russian sanctions to unlock grain deliveries.

Although I'm bloody sure the vast majority of the sanctions came subsequent to the invasion of Snake Island (blockade) not before? Dmitry and his mates can't even lie straight in bed.

Edited by MOTORVATOR on Thursday 26th May 13:20

[Byker28i]

CrutyRammers said:

MOTORVATOR said:

CrutyRammers said:

No details yet, but "[russian] Defence ministry says it will open safe corridor to allow foreign ships to leave":

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-ukrain...

Also Olaf Scholz saying all the right things, again. Shame the actions don't appear to match the words.

There is no such thing as a safe corridor provided by Russia. Only external military presence is going to be sufficient for Ukraine to demine it's ports as they are not that stupid.

Very good point

There was talk of foreign navys providing escorts, like the Royal Navy

[CrutyRammers]

BikeBikeBIke said:

CrutyRammers said:

So that the approach to oddessa gets demined and demilitarised, then they can walk in?

The plan only works if Ukraine can be sure they don't have the resources to take Ukraine with aid of a marine assault. If that's not certain Ukraine will just say no. So that's not a motive here.

CrutyRammers said:

Or just because they're dicks

Not good enough.

CrutyRammers said:

, in the same way they offer civilians humanitarian corridors, then shell them. Why do that?

That's a fair point. I'd hope Russia have better control of their ships than they do of their grunts but yes, that is a risk. I'd chance it if I were a merchant seaman and millions of people could be saved from starvation. I'm sure others would too.

Not sure I share your assumption that shelling retreating civillians is the work of rogue army elements as opposed to orders from the top.

[Byker28i]

saaby93 said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Seriously?

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3489142-russi...

No Ukranian water is going to be safe for any shipping without a protective force in place.

When Russia state anything it must be taken with a quizzical mind to why they have done that. They wouldn't even be anywhere near Snake Island today if they didn't want to control and blockade Odesa.

Why would they lie about this?

(Assuming the original report is true, which is in doubt.)

what weapons do they have on snake island ?
If we rule out surprise and precision

fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope?

[MOTORVATOR]

Byker28i said:

There was talk of foreign navys providing escorts, like the Royal Navy

Apparently Russia won't agree to that although why they have any voice in it is beyond me. They 'may' agree to Turkey but seems they have an opinion on that as well.

[BikeBikeBIke]

deckster said:

Then you ask why they would want to set a trap, which is a different question.

Same question.

[CrutyRammers]

A few sources now reporting that it's Turkey who is holding talks in order to open a corridor.

[EddieSteadyGo]

BikeBikeBIke said:

deckster said:

You've been reading and contributing to this thread several times daily for quite some time now.

And you're really, genuinely, asking "why would Russia lie"?!??

Yes. I'm asking why and nobody is giving me a rational answer.

Why would Russia want to set a trap to sink a civilian ship when they can achieve the same thing by refusing to open Odessa and save themselves a missile?

Because it helps give them leverage.

At present, there is a blockade, which the Russians say on the one-hand could be lifted if western sanctions could be relaxed. On the other hand, they say there is no blockade and Russia is perfectly happy to support a 'humanitarian corridor'.

Except because they won't be getting the sanctions lifted, that corridor is highly likely to be "leaky". In the fog of war, attributing blame would be impossible - was it a stray mine, or a missile or an accident? However, I'm sure the Russians would be happy to be "persuaded" to improve the corridor and make it safer, if they got what they want.....

Think of it like this... it's like the Russians giving someone a bh-slap... unless they get what they want. All the while retaining some level of plausible deniability so they can't be formally accused of acting like total gangsters.

[BikeBikeBIke]

CrutyRammers said:

Not sure I share your assumption that shelling retreating civillians is the work of rogue army elements as opposed to orders from the top.

I don't know how/why that happens and I've yet to hear a good explanation so I'm offering no explanation. Bit lax of me to write what I wrote.

FWIW I would hop on a grain ship that had been publicly offered safe passage by Russia & Ukraine but I would refuse to use a corridor offered to retreating civilians.

[BikeBikeBIke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

deckster said:

You've been reading and contributing to this thread several times daily for quite some time now.

And you're really, genuinely, asking "why would Russia lie"?!??

Yes. I'm asking why and nobody is giving me a rational answer.

Why would Russia want to set a trap to sink a civilian ship when they can achieve the same thing by refusing to open Odessa and save themselves a missile?

Because it helps give them leverage.

At present, there is a blockade, which the Russians say on the one-hand could be lifted if western sanctions could be relaxed. On the other hand, they say there is no blockade and Russia is perfectly happy to support a 'humanitarian corridor'.

Except because they won't be getting the sanctions lifted, that corridor is highly likely to be "leaky". In the fog of war, attributing blame would be impossible - was it a stray mine, or a missile or an accident? However, I'm sure the Russians would be happy to be "persuaded" to improve the corridor and make it safer, if they got what they want.....

Think of it like this... it's like the Russians giving someone a bh-slap... unless they get what they want. All the while retaining some level of plausible deniability so they can't be formally accused of acting like total gangsters.

Right. So you're saying Russia would publicly say that the corridor was open, but maintain the blockade by covertly sinking some of the ships to deter all shipping.

I'm not convinced covertly sinking the ships is even possible, but ok, it's the first attempt at a plausible reason. I guess I have to concede.

I'd still chance it.

(Of course it seems clear Russia haven't made this offer so it's all academic.)

[EddieSteadyGo]

BikeBikeBIke said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

deckster said:

You've been reading and contributing to this thread several times daily for quite some time now.

And you're really, genuinely, asking "why would Russia lie"?!??

Yes. I'm asking why and nobody is giving me a rational answer.

Why would Russia want to set a trap to sink a civilian ship when they can achieve the same thing by refusing to open Odessa and save themselves a missile?

Because it helps give them leverage.

At present, there is a blockade, which the Russians say on the one-hand could be lifted if western sanctions could be relaxed. On the other hand, they say there is no blockade and Russia is perfectly happy to support a 'humanitarian corridor'.

Except because they won't be getting the sanctions lifted, that corridor is highly likely to be "leaky". In the fog of war, attributing blame would be impossible - was it a stray mine, or a missile or an accident? However, I'm sure the Russians would be happy to be "persuaded" to improve the corridor and make it safer, if they got what they want.....

Think of it like this... it's like the Russians giving someone a bh-slap... unless they get what they want. All the while retaining some level of plausible deniability so they can't be formally accused of acting like total gangsters.

Right. So you're saying Russia would publicly say that the corridor was open, but maintain the blockade by covertly sinking some of the ships to deter all shipping.

I'm not convinced covertly sinking the ships is even possible, but ok, it's the first attempt at a plausible reason. I guess I have to concede.

I'd still chance it.

(Of course it seems clear Russia haven't made this offer so it's all academic.)

It isn't a definitive as being "open" or "closed". The Russians could say they recognised the need for a humanitarian corridor - but they doesn't mean they guarantee safe passage - for one thing, the water has been mined, so no-one could really guarantee that anyway until any mine sweeping activity has been completed.

The idea it would be safe to travel on is delusional.

[BikeBikeBIke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

deckster said:

You've been reading and contributing to this thread several times daily for quite some time now.

And you're really, genuinely, asking "why would Russia lie"?!??

Yes. I'm asking why and nobody is giving me a rational answer.

Why would Russia want to set a trap to sink a civilian ship when they can achieve the same thing by refusing to open Odessa and save themselves a missile?

Because it helps give them leverage.

At present, there is a blockade, which the Russians say on the one-hand could be lifted if western sanctions could be relaxed. On the other hand, they say there is no blockade and Russia is perfectly happy to support a 'humanitarian corridor'.

Except because they won't be getting the sanctions lifted, that corridor is highly likely to be "leaky". In the fog of war, attributing blame would be impossible - was it a stray mine, or a missile or an accident? However, I'm sure the Russians would be happy to be "persuaded" to improve the corridor and make it safer, if they got what they want.....

Think of it like this... it's like the Russians giving someone a bh-slap... unless they get what they want. All the while retaining some level of plausible deniability so they can't be formally accused of acting like total gangsters.

Right. So you're saying Russia would publicly say that the corridor was open, but maintain the blockade by covertly sinking some of the ships to deter all shipping.

I'm not convinced covertly sinking the ships is even possible, but ok, it's the first attempt at a plausible reason. I guess I have to concede.

I'd still chance it.

(Of course it seems clear Russia haven't made this offer so it's all academic.)

It isn't a definitive as being "open" or "closed". The Russians could say they recognised the need for a humanitarian corridor - but they doesn't mean they guarantee safe passage - for one thing, the water has been mined, so no-one could really guarantee that anyway until any mine sweeping activity has been completed.

The idea it would be safe to travel on is delusional.

So now you're saying they wouldn't offer safe passage, which nullifies your point, because they wouldn't be lying.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I asked why they'd lie and you offered a reasonable(ish) explanation. So that pretty much settles that.

I'd still chance it.

[Byker28i]

MOTORVATOR said:

Byker28i said:

There was talk of foreign navys providing escorts, like the Royal Navy

Apparently Russia won't agree to that although why they have any voice in it is beyond me. They 'may' agree to Turkey but seems they have an opinion on that as well.

but they don't get a choice. Then of course if they attack a Nato ship...

[BikeBikeBIke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

The idea it would be safe to travel on is delusional.

Not doing it will kill far, far more people.

I'm no hero but I'd take the punt and they only need a few hundred merchant seamen world wide who feel the same as me.

Obvs this purely hypothetical because it turns out Russia haven't made the offer and I'm sure there are 40 million other reasons it won't happen.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Byker28i said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Byker28i said:

There was talk of foreign navys providing escorts, like the Royal Navy

Apparently Russia won't agree to that although why they have any voice in it is beyond me. They 'may' agree to Turkey but seems they have an opinion on that as well.

but they don't get a choice. Then of course if they attack a Nato ship...

FFS if we won't give Ukraine elderly jets there's no way we're going to deploy our Navys with crew.