Stop acting like a clown. I didn't say "it will definitely be cool", someone said that before me. I suggested one of the reasons why it might be possible.
Second. "Innocent, unsuspecting crew". What kind of kindergarten is this? This is a war between Russia and NATO. Once they find out with a missile at a ship, then the next time they will ask what kind of cargo it is and where it is taking them. They might even feel ashamed that they became involved in murders due to their naivety.
Third. Maybe the Russians should stop behaving like this because they are being deceived everywhere? Why should only the Russians be honest, while the rest can just make money on war?
Maybe they should have, taking your word for it, coming from Russia that is. Although I honestly doubt real Russkiy thinks and feels that way, caring only about himself and with disregard to other people of different nationalities.
But, as you said, it's just my opinion, although based on observations and available information about the development of the situation on the ground so far.
So, FWIW.
P.S. RF also made money out of this conflict, especially the military-industrial complex. And where exactly were they really "deceived"?
P.S.
Why do you think that RF effectively murdering more or less innocent and likely ignorant crew of some non-Ukranian cargo ship, as I understood this 'news' and as most of the crew of such a non-military ship would most likely be, would "definitely be cool"?
None of the multiple versions I came across had any death toll mentioned. No idea where is your assumption coming from.
My comment was related to "60 modernized Abrams tanks, more than 300 Stinger MANPADS, about 150 Block1 anti-tank systems, more than 200 tons of small arms - rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, field artillery modules, communication systems and satellite terminals Starlink, howitzer shells, etc.", designated to prolonging the war, sunk. There would be also other concerns not taken into account, like pollution, navigation danger if it was actually close to the shore, unexploded munitions and likely some more I'm not aware of. So I'm surprised you took it so seriously when it was obvious, I believe, that it wasn't a serious statement based on hard data and scrupulous analysis.
Staying in the same lighthearted mood, given that the news was likely fake, it would be even better to pirate the ship, assuming the cargo was fully operational and useful. But I don't think Russia is there yet.
Staying in the same lighthearted mood, given that the news was likely fake, it would be even better to pirate the ship, assuming the cargo was fully operational and useful.
So I'm surprised you took it so seriously when it was obvious, I believe, that it wasn't a serious statement based on hard data and scrupulous analysis.
Well, it obviously wasn't obvious to me that you were joking, sort of, and living in a city where basically every other man and quite a few women are profi sailors, and the statement coming personally from you, it touched/pushed on my emotional buttons.
My bad, definitely, and thanks for clarifying and pointing that out.
Well, it obviously wasn't obvious to me that you were joking, sort of, and living in a city where basically every other man and quite a few women are profi sailors, and the statement coming personally from you, it touched/pushed on my emotional buttons.
There's that, but truth be told, there's also sort of internal conflict that got stirred up with your statement, bringing to the fore sort of resentment and disgust with myself when I made similar statements like, "cool, they got what they deserved", apparently being insensitive to the real suffering of ordinary people who found themselves basically 'in wrong places at wrong times'. Eh...
As unfair or frustrating it feels on occasion, that's how things are. It's not about who "should". Either you have morals, are human and honest, and others' conduct doesn't affect your morals, opportunistically or otherwise; or you are some greedy, selfish reactive machine always ready to exploit others' humanity. Well, that's two opposite directions on the scale, real life goes somewhere in between, though it's an important individual choice within which half of the scale one is living their life.
There's that, but truth be told, there's also sort of internal conflict that got stirred up with your statement, bringing to the fore sort of resentment and disgust with myself when I made similar statements like, "cool, they got what they deserved", apparently being insensitive to the real suffering of ordinary people who found themselves basically 'in wrong places at wrong times'. Eh...
That's what I suspected. The proof though is in the doing IMO. To have those sentiments and quiet wishes is not a mortal sin. Acting on them is a different story and here you have the famous trinity: "right, wrong and specific situation".
Moral relativism? So long as you reflect and accept objective perspectives. OSIT
*edit to add: At least that’s what I believe is our goal individually and as a community. Correct me if I’m off track.
Even Caesar used a battle tactic of not letting women, children and injured leave a city under siege. Caesar was probably more directly in a position where he could actually lose but in a wider sense of facing the West/Deep State in general, Putin possibly has to be careful about getting bogged down in the Ukraine too.
Well, you guys have messed up here!. I'm can't even tell which is a joke and which is a serious conversation.
I am very interested in one specific question: "And where exactly were they really "deceived"?" (for some reason it was not possible to insert a quote) Did the author ask this question jokingly or does he seriously believe that Russia's opponents are all completely refined gentlemen and behave exclusively as refined gentlemen should? I think that the author of this question, judging by his reaction to the fate of the mythical sailors, should understand that such questions, asked seriously, strongly "touch the nerve" of Russians, in particular me, and asking such questions seriously can be either a person thoroughly soaked in Western lies, or someone who "is not in the theme".
As it is, the list of deceptions and attempts at deception can be written here in small print, separated by a comma on half a page, and it is easier to ask: "where have they not been deceived?"
Ну вы, ребята, и напутали тут!. Уже и не разберешь, где шутки, а где серьезный разговор. Меня вот очень интересует один конкретный вопрос: "And where exactly were they really "deceived"?" (почему то не получилось вставить цитату) Задал ли автор этот вопрос в шутку или он всерьез считает, что оппоненты России все сплошь рафинированные джентльмены и ведут себя исключительно, как и положено рафинированным джентльменам. Я думаю, что автору этого вопроса, судя по его реакции на судьбу мифических моряков, должно быть понятно, что подобные вопросы, задаваемые всерьез, сильно "задевают за живое" русских, в частности меня и задавать подобные вопросы всерьез может либо человек, насквозь пропитанный западной ложью, либо тот, кто "не в теме". А так список обманов и попыток обмана можно здесь расписать мелким шрифтом, через запятую на полстраницы и проще спросить: "где их не обманули?"
As unfair or frustrating it feels on occasion, that's how things are. It's not about who "should". Either you have morals, are human and honest, and others' conduct doesn't affect your morals, opportunistically or otherwise; or you are some greedy, selfish reactive machine always ready to exploit others' humanity. Well, that's two opposite directions on the scale, real life goes somewhere in between, though it's an important individual choice within which half of the scale one is living their life.
What you're describing is peacetime morality - that luxury where everyone gets to make choices. But war, especially an existential one, is a system where personal excuses change nothing. If a thousand sailors refuse to ship weapons on principle, another thousand will take the job - for money or under pressure. And Ukraine will use those weapons to shell Donetsk, Kherson, Russian children.
The difference between Russia and the West is in how we view suffering.
For Russia, civilian deaths - even enemy ones - are a tragedy. For the West, it's just "collateral damage." Remember the Falklands? Britain sank the General Belgrano with 323 sailors aboard even as it was retreating. Or Iraq, where NATO's "mistakes" killed tens of thousands. Their media calls this "the price of freedom," while a Russian strike on military supplies gets labeled "terrorism."
To the sailors:
Why hasn't Russia sunk your ships yet? Not because we're weak.
Our reputation is all that stops the West from painting us as pure evil. This isn't kindness - it's pragmatism. China, India, Africa still support us precisely because we haven't become a "copy of the USA."
You're pawns. If NATO decides tomorrow to sink your ship under a false flag to create a casus belli, you'll be gone and we'll get blamed. Is that fat contract really worth it?
Ask yourselves:
Do you truly believe you're not part of this war when you dock at Constanța with your "scrap metal" cargo? Or are you just betting that Russians will be "more moral" than those paying for your voyage?
P.S. As Suvorov said: "Fight not with numbers, but with skill." Russia fights smart - that's why we haven't targeted you yet. But if the West decides anything goes, the response will be brutal. Your "innocence" won't stop a missile. This isn't a threat - it's the law of war that the West wrote over centuries. Russia is just done playing by their rules.
P.P.S. Online translator DeepL stopped working in Russia, so there may be problems with the text for some time, sorry.
Russian forces have struck four Ukrainian defense industrial facilities producing long-range missile systems after Ukraine planned to deliver strikes deep inside Russia with NATO's permission, the Federal Security Service said.
Well, you guys have messed up here!. I'm can't even tell which is a joke and which is a serious conversation.
I am very interested in one specific question: "And where exactly were they really "deceived"?" (for some reason it was not possible to insert a quote) Did the author ask this question jokingly or does he seriously believe that Russia's opponents are all completely refined gentlemen and behave exclusively as refined gentlemen should? I think that the author of this question, judging by his reaction to the fate of the mythical sailors, should understand that such questions, asked seriously, strongly "touch the nerve" of Russians, in particular me, and asking such questions seriously can be either a person thoroughly soaked in Western lies, or someone who "is not in the theme".
As it is, the list of deceptions and attempts at deception can be written here in small print, separated by a comma on half a page, and it is easier to ask: "where have they not been deceived?"
Ну вы, ребята, и напутали тут!. Уже и не разберешь, где шутки, а где серьезный разговор. Меня вот очень интересует один конкретный вопрос: "And where exactly were they really "deceived"?" (почему то не получилось вставить цитату) Задал ли автор этот вопрос в шутку или он всерьез считает, что оппоненты России все сплошь рафинированные джентльмены и ведут себя исключительно, как и положено рафинированным джентльменам. Я думаю, что автору этого вопроса, судя по его реакции на судьбу мифических моряков, должно быть понятно, что подобные вопросы, задаваемые всерьез, сильно "задевают за живое" русских, в частности меня и задавать подобные вопросы всерьез может либо человек, насквозь пропитанный западной ложью, либо тот, кто "не в теме". А так список обманов и попыток обмана можно здесь расписать мелким шрифтом, через запятую на полстраницы и проще спросить: "где их не обманули?"
The question was meant as it was asked, where exactly was the RF really deceived, and not where the West tried to deceive.
With all the games West has played, I basically haven't seen the case where they outplayed or really deceived the RF.
Maybe only at the very beginning of the conflict when the RF withdrew its forces from Kiev based on signed agreement in Istanbul, IIRC, when the Zelenski regime later played dumb like nothing happened after BJ and the gang 'advised' them to do so and keep fighting. Although, even in that case, I suspect that Putin and crew knew something like that might happen and were ready for such possible development, based on their actions afterwards, so not really deceived afterall.
What you're describing is peacetime morality - that luxury where everyone gets to make choices. But war, especially an existential one, is a system where personal excuses change nothing. If a thousand sailors refuse to ship weapons on principle, another thousand will take the job - for money or under pressure. And Ukraine will use those weapons to shell Donetsk, Kherson, Russian children.
The difference between Russia and the West is in how we view suffering.
For Russia, civilian deaths - even enemy ones - are a tragedy. For the West, it's just "collateral damage." Remember the Falklands? Britain sank the General Belgrano with 323 sailors aboard even as it was retreating. Or Iraq, where NATO's "mistakes" killed tens of thousands. Their media calls this "the price of freedom," while a Russian strike on military supplies gets labeled "terrorism."
To the sailors:
Why hasn't Russia sunk your ships yet? Not because we're weak.
Our reputation is all that stops the West from painting us as pure evil. This isn't kindness - it's pragmatism. China, India, Africa still support us precisely because we haven't become a "copy of the USA."
You're pawns. If NATO decides tomorrow to sink your ship under a false flag to create a casus belli, you'll be gone and we'll get blamed. Is that fat contract really worth it?
Ask yourselves:
Do you truly believe you're not part of this war when you dock at Constanța with your "scrap metal" cargo? Or are you just betting that Russians will be "more moral" than those paying for your voyage?
P.S. As Suvorov said: "Fight not with numbers, but with skill." Russia fights smart - that's why we haven't targeted you yet. But if the West decides anything goes, the response will be brutal. Your "innocence" won't stop a missile. This isn't a threat - it's the law of war that the West wrote over centuries. Russia is just done playing by their rules.
P.P.S. Online translator DeepL stopped working in Russia, so there may be problems with the text for some time, sorry.
Things in reality are much more complex than that.
Regarding sailors on merchant or cargo ships, most of them don't know and won't know what kind of cargo was loaded in multitude of containers on the ship they are working on. What you 'suggest' basically comes down to stop working on ships alltogether, which is not really an option, is it?
And regarding the RF and Putin being painted as pure evil in the West, they already are, no 'reputation' stopped that from already been done.
From my perspective, the RF hasn't attacked 'civilian' ships and other transportation means outside of Ukraine, potentially carrying weapons and other military stuff into Ukraine, exactly because they are smart, and more focused on the job at hands and achieving their goal than falling for provocations and Western baits which might make things much worse for everybody. I agree, not because the RF is weak.
It IS a war with NATO, but a covert one, while the population in the EU is being primed as we speak and since the very beginning of the conflict that any minute now the RF and Putin are going to invade.
The RF has its objectives for starting the SMO and they were clearly stated, and they basically haven't changed. Being ruthless and like carpet bombing Ukraine, won't make those objective being met, at least not in the manner that would be more beneficial than detrimental for the RF, but also for Ukraine or at least for those parts of Ukraine that still might gravitate towards good relations with the RF, OSIT.
In a very real sense, there is also the potential future that is wise to keep an eye on.
Moral relativism? So long as you reflect and accept objective perspectives. OSIT
*edit to add: At least that’s what I believe is our goal individually and as a community. Correct me if I’m off track.
Not relativism, but a matter of the hierarchy of values. The cliché example explains it.
Telling the truth is right, lying is wrong. Would it mean than you should betray your comrades to an enemy during interrogation to follow the rule? No, if loyalty and comradeship is higher up on your moral ladder. The specific situation matters.
Not relativism, but a matter of the hierarchy of values. The cliché example explains it.
Telling the truth is right, lying is wrong. Would it mean than you should betray your comrades to an enemy during interrogation to follow the rule? No, if loyalty and comradeship is higher up on your moral ladder. The specific situation matters.
Agreed on all points. I was fishing around in my head for the appropriate term. I believe I did get reflection and observing from objective perspectives part right. But yes, “moral relativism” implies that from an individual’s pov, doing something most would consider wrong could be justifiable. I was trying to make the case that from the pov of a country undergoing an existential threat, moral relativism has a place. However in the case of the sailors or civilian society, there is no room nor reason for parsing what would be immoral, because it’s clear as day. I’m still trying to dredge up the correct term from my head. But if something is morally questionable or downright wrong, there’s no wiggle room to be found.
On a side note, I ask everyone please try to bear with me. Due to issues with my medications, I’ve not slept nor eaten in several days. A condition which usually results in excessive “wordiness” (or just plain blathering on) and poor aim when trying to nail a point. I should be asleep but it’s just not forthcoming. Needless to say I will be enforcing an absolutely no posting until having slept mandate effective immediately. Apologies for the noise
What you're describing is peacetime morality - that luxury where everyone gets to make choices. But war, especially an existential one, is a system where personal excuses change nothing. If a thousand sailors refuse to ship weapons on principle, another thousand will take the job - for money or under pressure. And Ukraine will use those weapons to shell Donetsk, Kherson, Russian children.
The difference between Russia and the West is in how we view suffering.
For Russia, civilian deaths - even enemy ones - are a tragedy. For the West, it's just "collateral damage." Remember the Falklands? Britain sank the General Belgrano with 323 sailors aboard even as it was retreating. Or Iraq, where NATO's "mistakes" killed tens of thousands. Their media calls this "the price of freedom," while a Russian strike on military supplies gets labeled "terrorism."
@f1esk, I agree with what you say and didn't mean anything else, so not sure about your "let's be real".
That's what I meant by the scale representation I used in my previous post. The "West" doesn't care about it and moves along it left and right as it suits them. Hence a lot of unnecessary killing done to achieve their non-existential goals. The 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia that posed no threat is just another "price of freedom" case.
(BTW as a digression, but I'm not sure everyone knows it, Jared Kushner@family have no problem whatsoever with building another "Trump Tower", luxury hotel-apartment-commercial complex, on the bulldozered bombed-out ruins of the Yugoslav Army HQ in downtown Belgrade that were left untouched as a national memorial of the NATO "intervention".)
On the other hand, Russia restricts herself to "necessary killing" when her very existence in endangered. By that, she stays on the moral side of the scale as much as humanly and strategically possible. Not because of moral relativism (so commonly used on the western side) but because the survival of the nation is of the highest value. No doubt it comes with a price of, possibly, lower 'efficiency', but not without benefits on many levels, conscience included.
As for the thousands of sailors, understandably it makes no difference for Russia since the final outcome stays the same. But I think it matters for the individual sailors in karma/moral terms - if they care.
Regarding sailors on merchant or cargo ships, most of them don't know and won't know what kind of cargo was loaded in multitude of containers on the ship they are working on. What you 'suggest' basically comes down to stop working on ships alltogether, which is not really an option, is it?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
