What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[B0ycey]

Why,can you trust the word of Putin?

Has Putin spoke of the event? Nope. Although to answer the question more broadly, given there is an infowar going on right now, you cannot trust the word of anyone. Which is perhaps why leaders specifically should cool down the rhetoric on claims being made... the Macron example. There is no evidence of chemical weapons being used and we should leave it there.

[Good old]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61103927

Well as ever ,we have claim ,counter claim. But it would seem if the Russians say this ship is damaged enough to take the crew off , it is damaged and very seriously. The only question is what caused this. Just a week ago the word was , Ukraine was getting anti shipping weapons. So it's possible they have hit this ship, with its capability to accurately destroy long range targets with its rockets. If the use of Neptune, or something similar  is not the explanation, just how lucky can this be for Ukraine. Because this is the destruction of a very significant piece of kit playing a big part in any planned reduction of Ukrainian capabilities.

[cromwell]

I told you already, I doubt chemical weapons were used, but if they were it had to be something mild not highly toxic. And the symptoms described suggest tear gas. But I would say it was most likely a smoke bomb and the mild symptoms (eye irritation, coughing, rashes) are due to location inside a chemical factory as this is an isolated incident. That is if you can trust the word of nationalists of course.

Why,can you trust the word of Putin?

[johnofgwent]

I see the Russians had "an unexplained fire" on one of their warships last night.

The Ukranians say it's easily explained, they hit it with some sort of military ordnance.

I think what we can definitely say is true here is a) the Russians would sooner claim Cthulhu chewed a chunk off their prize vessel than admit the Ukranians had tech capable of hitting it and b) The Ukranians would claim they were to blame if the bloody ship had actually hit a reef while patrolling off New Zealand North Island.

If I hadn't had the experience of the IRAQIS claiming to have SUNK the naval base and training facility in the home counties where I did some of the radar integration testing in the Persian Gulf, and later finding my own name among a list compiled by some towel-head version of "Lord Haw Haw" of "officers reported missing by the British", I might actually believe one of those two stories. 

I'm still puzzled by how the Iraqis got the list of names and bases for that little list. But then again, the Americans supplied various weapons and stuff to Saddam when he was a good guy fighting the Iranians so I guess they sent him the manuals too. I'm just surprised someone read them ....

[B0ycey]

Chlorine is a gas at room temperature and is highly toxic. What you're thinking of is Sodium Hypochlorite which is household bleach. The gas is used as disinfectant and also a cooling agent, if released into an outside space the affect would be minimal as it would disperse very quickly.

I told you already, I doubt chemical weapons were used, but if they were it had to be something mild not highly toxic. And the symptoms described suggest tear gas. But I would say it was most likely a smoke bomb and the mild symptoms (eye irritation, coughing, rashes) are due to location inside a chemical factory as this is an isolated incident. That is if you can trust the word of nationalists of course.

[Nick]

No what I meant was it's phosgene smells of freshly mown grass not chlorine.

Ah, yes. You're right Mr C, I forgot the names of the agents. We were taught the persistent and non-persistent agents when I was at Brize Norton but it was yonks ago. 

[cromwell]

I'm going off the reports from intelligence agencies that are suggesting a lone Russian soldier had released a gas from an industrial area, most likely chlorine.
We have to take into consideration that there are satellites looking at these regions and can detect chemicals based on their wavelength.

No what I meant was it's phosgene smells of freshly mown grass not chlorine.

[Nick]

Think your talking of phosgene gas Nick,my Grandad was gassed in WW1 by phosgene,he survived but died before his time as a result.

I'm going off the reports from intelligence agencies that are suggesting a lone Russian soldier had released a gas from an industrial area, most likely chlorine. 
We have to take into consideration that there are satellites looking at these regions and can detect chemicals based on their wavelength. 

[Nick]

Chlorine would smell like bleach Nick. It is a kind of give away. But given I doubt tear gas was used either and since there is no evidence except the testimony of nationalists, and since the attack happened in a chemical warehouse, I am not going to jump to any conclusions and neither should any world leader.

Chlorine is a gas at room temperature and is highly toxic. What you're thinking of is Sodium Hypochlorite which is household bleach. The gas is used as disinfectant and also a cooling agent, if released into an outside space the affect would be minimal as it would disperse very quickly. 

[cromwell]

This is used as a crowd control agent and wouldn't be used in warfare unless troops were very close and able to take advantage of it. Chlorine gas is extremely poisonous and will kill in small amounts, but is still non-persistent. If Russia were to use chemicals the first the Ukrainians would know about it would be a smell of fresh cut grass.

Think your talking of phosgene gas Nick,my Grandad was gassed in WW1 by phosgene,he survived but died before his time as a result.

[B0ycey]

This is used as a crowd control agent and wouldn't be used in warfare unless troops were very close and able to take advantage of it. Chlorine gas is extremely poisonous and will kill in small amounts, but is still non-persistent. If Russia were to use chemicals the first the Ukrainians would know about it would be a smell of fresh cut grass.

Chlorine would smell like bleach Nick. It is a kind of give away. But given I doubt tear gas was used either and since there is no evidence except the testimony of nationalists, and since the attack happened in a chemical warehouse, I am not going to jump to any conclusions and neither should any world leader.

[Nick]

Chlorine gas is something of an instant effect. That is to say, you would know what it was straight away without question and it would disoriented you. [highlight]The symptoms describe are of very much like tear gas[/highlight] given the people who were exposed managed to escape and describe the symptoms. But you are right about Russian soldiers not having the right equipment.

My guess it that is was a smoke bomb anyway and the symptoms described are due to it being in a chemical plant due to this being an isolated incident. Russia doesn't need to use chemical weapons on people who are cornered and can't get supplies.

This is used as a crowd control agent and wouldn't be used in warfare unless troops were very close and able to take advantage of it. Chlorine gas is extremely poisonous and will kill in small amounts, but is still non-persistent. If Russia were to use chemicals the first the Ukrainians would know about it would be a smell of fresh cut grass. 

[Scott777]

The whataboutery in this thread by some of the vilest posters I've ever experienced on message boards takes some belief.

Apparently NATO is evil, although NATO has never actually invaded anyone.

As others have pointed out, whataboutery is a silly word for 'exposing hypocrisy', where you compare different cases to show a lack of principle.

Neither Hitler nor Putin ever invaded anyone, but an alliance of individuals are always behind invasions.

[Sampanviking]

No...No Nazis in Ukraine.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtxHlOdy6fk

[B0ycey]

I will summarise on the behalf of a half asleep Boycey. Where have I said graves do not exist inDonbas? I do say the proof is thin, but not that they do not exist.
The figure you give of 14,000 is widely disputed as to its  accuracy anyway, as there have been many casualties for both sides of that argument.
If you paid attention this is not about if there are graves, it's about the nature of their contents, proof of  this in Donbas,is almost non existent.  And although yet to be assessed fully in Bucha,  at least the evidence is being examined by foreign examiners, at the moment a French team is prominent. So if you stopped trying to have so much imagined superiority.and actually addressed what actually is the point, without the silly drone and snooze comments. Maybe you might benefit from some education?
So now that the genocide argument, really doesn't work in the Russians favour ,it's because they have borrowed others misinterpretation of the term? Russia, only needs recognise that killing Ukrainians ,and dominating Ukrainian land, is genocide. This has been demonstrated for all to see, unless you are Russian, that is.

The evidence of mass graves is more than "a bit thin". Independent Western Journalists have gone to Donbass and reported on them. But given you and I seem in agreement on their existence, I am failing to understand your argument here.

As for Russias use of the term genocide,  I have told you, they see the prevention of the Russian language, eradication of Russian history and the suppression of the Russian speaking population in Donbass as genocide. The argument is no weaker or no stronger than the claim that education centres in Xinjiang is genocide. Russia is merely playing the same card the US has played as frankly the definition of Genocide has lost all meaning today.