Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Men are almost invariably the perpetrators in war and the cause of it, women almost always innocent victims, so I think Clinton is right. Male violence is the root problem.

As for the Daily Mail: the woman's injuries probably offered a "better" photo, so they ran with it

I'd agree with that except for one thing: The destruction of the nova kakhovka dam. The western world has been roundly silent on the issue of the largest ecocide event to have occurred in recent history. Even going as far as offering Russia the benefit of the doubt on the issue while they "investigate". As though Russia deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.

If there's one thing we can be certain of is that Putin takes advantage of grey zones. And so far there hasn't been a red line drawn underneath this issue. If the major NATO powers came out in unison on this issue ie..... "Mismanage or deliberately mess with the Zaporizhzhia power plant and you'll face dire consequences", then I'd be more confident.

Unfortunately they haven't barring a few US senators. I really hope I'm wrong. I really do. But I'm legitimately concerned on this one. Russia doesn't give a **** how much damage they cause or how many lives they take as they play their scorched earth tactics. Not even of their own country.

If there's a nuclear threat, I would be much more confident that it's America that will be sounding the alarm.

I don't see the benefit for Russia of doing this in terms of advancing their interests in Ukraine. It's been forecast several times that radioactive fallout would affect Russian soldiers and civilians just as much as it would Ukraine's, if not worse.

The only way I see Russia making this happen is if they know they're about to face a military rout and they blow the NPP as a way of salting the earth and metaphorically spitting on the floor before making a hasty retreat.

Even at that, propaganda about would be for an internal audience only. Every possible major international partner knows it would be Russia's doing. China may not mind doing business with evil, but it probably minds doing business with insane evil because insane evil is hard to predict and will happily cut off its nose to spite its face.

That's not to mention that back channel communications do happen. Only recently we heard that report about the CIA calling Moscow to reassure them that they had nothing to do with setting up the apparent rebellion staged by Wagner soldiers. That's not to mention that back channel deals happen on things like the grain and POWs. The sides do talk, and the USA will almost certainly have outlined to Russia what happens next if they blow the plant. We can remember back to what I'll call the 'Night of NATO' when NATO countries apparently conducted a huge series of coordinated aerial exercises across Europe. It was a big flex to Russia and a reminder of what's on hand to blow their Black Sea fleet out of the water if they try to get all WMD with it.

If Putin were to OK this, I think it would make pretty much of every aspect of his own life that much worse. The price on his head would increase tenfold.

Everyone knows Russia blew that dam, they're just not willing to get into a direct confrontation over it. The thing about blowing that dam is that the consequences of doing so are pretty much contained within Ukraine. The action was heinous and the consequences were terrible, but not a world ender. Until Putin threatens to do something that would spell disaster for the world or a large portion of it, I don't think direct confrontation happens. Blowing the NPP would be on the edge of this hypothetical collection of events, as it would likely spread a huge amount of fallout across a huge area.

One massive single explosion suggests that is a fuel dump.

Ha good point.

It is a terrorist state.

None of these things threaten the world at large (or at the least, a geographical area much larger than Ukraine) in the way that blowing the NPP would, evil and reckless as these things you mention are. Putin knows this, I think, and I think he knows that he will force NATO to respond directly if Russian forces try this.

I don't remember who said it - probably Michael Clarke - that if it ever comes to a nuclear exchange, the US has basically said to Putin that they won't so much target Russia as target Putin himself. Putin, with his extreme paranoia, does not strike me as the kind of man who's ready to die, and he will know that if that NPP gets blown, whatever plans the U.S. have in place to take him out will go into action. At the point he orders the blowing of the NPP, he's becomes such an imminent threat to general world stability, that he will need to be neutralised, consequences be damned. This is why I think he wouldn't give that order.

Russian position continues to weaken in the high ground near to Klishchiivka, just a small sliver of it is held by them now. My guess is they will abandon it soon.

It's been two month of Ukraine attempting to push the Russians back from the flanks here. It's been a huge grind and it's not clear to me what is being achieved here. I assume it's an attempt to keep the Russian paratroopers fixed.

Life, gratification, death under Russian occupation.

Ukraine have certainly been superior when it comes to attacking supply hubs and logistics during this invasion. The Russian's won't run out of shells but their ability to get them to the front and use them has been greatly hampered at times.

Talk that a lack of shells is biting again with Russian commentators citing it as the reason for why will likely have to pull back out of Kilschiivka.

Prigozhin is gone. Payments stopped coming in. Useful idiots left unpaid.

Was watching that and thinking "meh...not so big".

Then the boom just got boomier....

Ahhh thank you for the update. I didn't realise all of that was happening. Just on way back from Bulgaria definitely notice a lot less people around as I presume it's the Russians not here on holiday.

My Telegram timeline seems to be stuffed with this type of thing in the last week. S-8 unguided rocket pods being mounted on some sort of vehicle.

You haven't read much history. Countries lead by Queens are historically more likely to go to war than countries lead by Kings.

Women in rare positions of power in male dominated societies often showed aggression to compensate for perceived images of weakness. Hence even in modern times people like Thatcher etc. In more equal societies that trend has largely disappeared.

All evidence and studies show that men have a much greater propensity to violence. Hence almost all murders are committed by men, almost all violent criminals are men. Despots, serial killers,mass shooters - almost always men.

You seem to have a weird anti modern woman streak (not getting any action?), but claiming that gender/sex has no link to violence is an argument you've lost before you even start.

And Putin shows classic toxic male treats: a sense of entitlement and bitter resentment over status, a desire to exact revenge on a former underling that now wants to go its own way. Delusions of grandeur, lack of empathy...

Ah yes, those poor warmongers were agentless victims of the patriarchy...

Like most modern feminists, you go straight to personal attacks when your argument is shown to be weak.

Putin isn't an evil totalitarian because of toxic masculinity. He's an evil dictator because he's an evil prick who happened to be in the right place at the right time. There's a valid argument that a woman wouldn't have been able to ascend to the same position because the Russia he came to power in was (and still is) a wildly chauvinistic society. That isn't however a valid argument that a female version of Putin in the same position wouldn't have behaved any differently than he did because women don't have the capacity to have a sense of entitlement, bitter resentment, a desire for revenge, delusions of grandeur or a lack of empathy. Hell, 15 minutes scrolling through Instagram would disabuse the most naïve individual that women certainly show those traits too.

Anyway, we're dragging this thread way off-topic so let's put a pin in it. We're clearly not going to agree on the subject: I believe men and women are equal, you clearly see men as an inferior gender whose inner nature drives them to behave like beasts that women need protecting from.