An attack on a children’s hospital would be caricaturally evil.
And only 2 deaths? Sounds like that could be from air defense misfiring or downing something on the way to somewhere else.
Confirms my limited collateral dammage.
I don't believe for one minute that would be the target.
That hospital could be gone if they wanted it, and the rest of Kiev with it.
It is nothing like the almost daily attacks on markets in Donetsk with countless more civilians killed.
There is a pattern, so no I don't believe anything the ukros claim.
Like the ridiculous story where they blamed Russians for targeting the nuclear plant in Zaporizia.
As if they would bomb that while it was in their possession.

[–] Shatur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Okay, maybe I rushed with "any source". 15850 are UN numbers, but 5600 comes from TASS. If look at UN numbers it's 3404. In the graph you can also see that most casualties happened in first 2 years, after that it was a cold conflict.

And only 2 deaths?

Okay, what about the Hroza strike, which killed 52 people? Or the recent attack on Kyiv after the Ukrainian college strike, when a house was struck by a drone twice - doesn't that sound like an air defense system malfunctioned?

That hospital could be gone if they wanted it, and the rest of Kiev with it.

So do Ukraine could kill civilians more actively. Surely not on the same scale as Russia, but still. This doesn't happen because it isn't practical, both in terms of media and money.

It is nothing like the almost daily attacks on markets in Donetsk with countless more civilians killed.

So do Ukrainian-controlled towns have also been hit by Russian attacks, including markets and shops.

Like the ridiculous story where they blamed Russians for targeting the nuclear plant in Zaporizia.

And I agree with you here. I don't think it was Russia. But it's not like only Ukraine tells ridiculous stories. For example, the Kakhovka Dam was blown up by an internal explosion while it was under Russian control, which is suspicious, to say the least.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It's hard to get any news here that's not from western biased sources since everything gets censored and blocked to 'keep us safe from Russian propaganda'.
So it's difficult to look into all these specific events.
But a quick look shows it was a funeral for Andriy Kozyr, a nazi POS.
Obviously there would be plenty other nazis. Not just some normal funeral.
While it's unfortunate there are civilian casualties (for which we only have accounts from one side) it can not be sold as purely hitting civilians.

And the Kakhovka Dam was indeed held by Russia.
And you believe it's not a ridiculous story that they would blow it up knowing the north (UA) ground is higher and the lower south side where the Russian troop are would flood?
It also cut off water supply for Crimea and endangered the cooling of the Zaporizia nuclear power plant.
So logic would suggest this is as much a BS as them targeting that same plant under their control.

[–] Shatur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Russia claimed that he was a neo-Nazi, but I don't see any evidence for that. It's not like Russian media aren't biased. That's how it always works: both sides try to deflect casualties they caused and present casualties caused by the other side as war crimes.

Armies sometimes take actions that damage their own side if the broader military benefit is worth it. In this case dam's destruction disrupted Ukrainian plans for a Dnipro crossing operation. It was at the time of Ukranian counter-offense. Since it was an inner explosion, I have a hard time believing that Ukrainian saboteurs came to the dam unnoticed and detonated. This was not like planting a small bomb near a road. Destroying a huge hydroelectric dam is not easy. And Russia didn't catch anyone or present any evidence of that afterwards.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Russia claimed that he was a neo-Nazi, but I don’t see any evidence for that

No, just a guy who is into Norse mythology again, the valknut tattoo is harmless as the wolfangel, black suns,etc... that show up like clockwork up in photo's from these guys.
I forgot the 'no nazis in ukraine' mantra.

damage their own side if the broader military benefit is worth it

That's some serious mental gymnastics.
Did you miss my comments about the awful consequences?
There were zero advantages to Russia.
That great announced summer offensive had no chance to begin with.
The Russians had retreated strategically in Kherson (like in the east) and made defensive preparations.
It was the time wen they changed to attrition war.
Anything ukraine sent over the Dnipro got blown up, at best some poor suckers made it long enough to make a propaganda video and plant a flag. After which they got killed anyway.
The Russians couldn't be happier having a turkey shoot from a safe distance anytime they sent another human wave in that meatgrinder. And it didn't have to be saboteurs, a Stormshadow missile or whatever the UK/US gave to their proxy army would do the trick.

[–] Shatur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean do you have a proof for that specific guy?

The mentioned consequences for Russia weren't significant. No power plant exploded and Crimea had already lived with the canal mostly blocked from 2014 to 2022. There was no rocket, it's confirmed. No one else could blow it up, that's the problem.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean do you have a proof for that specific guy?

A guy with a nazi tattoo is a nazi.
Not that it mattered to this matter of the strike, the point is that he was military and plenty of military there.
The inhabitants said they were far enough from the front and never even heard sounds of bombs.
Russia never targeted that unimportant tiny place.
Only when they had high ranking military in one place.
They aren't going to waste a 4$ million Iskander on a few peasants.

The mentioned consequences for Russia weren’t significant. No power plant exploded and Crimea had already lived with the canal mostly blocked from 2014 to 2022.

Just because there wasn't a nuclear disaster doesn't mean it wasn't immensely dangerous and criminal.
Even the biased IAEA said so.

it’s confirmed. No one else could blow it up

Yup, no country besides Russia can blow stuff up from a distance.
Especially since the entire NATO and other vassals are giving them everything they can.
Russia probably blew up their Crimean bridge too.
I'm sure the ukrainians can confirm that, and who wouldn't believe them?

[–] Shatur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 hours ago

A guy with a nazi tattoo is a nazi.

Sure. But do you have any photo such tattoo on him? Also UN reports that the strike killed 59 civilians and no legitimate military target around.

They aren’t going to waste a 4$ million Iskander on a few peasants.

So why would Ukraine waste money on their rockets to kill civilians?..

Yup, no country besides Russia can blow stuff up from a distance.

I mean, yeah, you cannot explode things from a distance without something like a rocket or a drone.