Terrorists organise acts of terror against civilian population. That's not the same as partisan activity and assassination of the key figures of the enemy war machine.
A perfect sample of wishful thinking. There's absolutely no partisan movement in the Russian-held territories. However, there are quite efficient (must admit) actions of UA saboteur groups. They "perform" also deep inside Russia as several journalists and activists were assasinated in Moscow and St. Pete. Those were indeed acts of terror.
And there's another side of the shield. After UA saboteurs/agents started to commit homicides, FSB became more strict and nervous about Ukranians coming to Russia. Up to 20% of incoming Ukranians are being denied entrance to Russia.
Interesting to see an opinion of absolutely the same kind like in Israel: 'there's no armed opposition to our conquest, colonisation, and extermination: only economic and political refugees.... and few terrorists'...
I think nazies back in 1942-44 were as confident as russia today.
so many russians and russian collaborants were killed in Ru and on occupied territories, that there is definitely no sign of partizans in land with one the gloriest partizan traditions in EU
Ok, but even the russian soldiers send from occupied territory to Kursk area said that they are happy to at least to know whom to trust in the rear, because the inhabitants were much more friendly and far less dangerous. (Think this changed a bit since they looted the houses of the civilians they supposed to protect.)
There are a lot of nonsense and deliberate propaganda from both sides, it's important not to fall for it.
All these RU/UA soldiers words about war experience are done by propogandists and trolls from both sides. Generally, population from both countries is passive and indifferent. For most of people there's no difference in which state to live, same Slavic culture and traditions.
The war is on for the third year and there's absolutely no partisan movement or civil untrest in 'new" Russian territories. If the were any, there would be happy shout around all Deep State media.
All these sound but very seldom assasinations are done by UA saboteur groups which are very active (contrary to Russian).
P.S. a mayor of Kiev confirmed today that one third of Mariupol population returned from Ukraine(!!!) back to the Russian hold city. Most likely, to commence partisan movement.))))
It seems that Tom deliberately does not ban "comrade" tupolev so that all readers of the blog can see what kind of scum the representatives of the "russian world" are, a typical example of which is this old asshole.
I do think your points are valid to varied extents, but it is simply not true that there is no partisan activity, and that is easy to prove. Yes, people generally want to just get on with their lives, and that also applies for those living in RU like you. But nationhood makes no sense unless it is defended. What if Ukraine developed an uber weapon and could take over Russia? (I am talking theoretically; of course this will never happen). Should Russians just accept this and get on with their lives? War mocks individualism.
I see your point, however do not forget that new Russian territories are mainly inhabited by ethnic Russians or mixed Russo-Ukranian origin. So, all these stories about babushkas poisoning soldiers is a BS created by UA Tsipso trolls to amuse naive foreign readers. It does not mean, of course, that population is unanimously happy about RU presence, still, no signs of civil unrest. Partisan movement is quite realistic in Western, or, paradoxically, especially in Central Ukraine but not at current places.
And yes, 90% of RU population will be indifferent if by some magic Ukraine or Belarus will overtake Russia. Back in 90s RU elite was scared by enormous popularity of Lukashenko in Russia and accelerated the replacement of Eltsiyn. The culture and past is common (no matter what Kiev ashkenazi may invent), so little problems with Slavic overtaking.
Is it not because of memories of that shared past that Ukraine continues to fight for its existence? Okay, so views differ in each part of Ukraine. What you say is correct according to everything I have heard and read. I am sure, though, that more suffering will result if the occupied territories are retained by Russia than if they are regained by Ukraine.
there is already huge lack of staff for so called "local administrations": collaborants are being killed almost every day. so, teachers, administrators, police officers etc have to be "imported" from mother russia.
"volunteers" supplying occupation troops with different staff are trying to stay during the night in russian tranches or on russian territory: it is well known that their chances to survive the night with locals are minimal, especially in villages or in small towns.
are there Russian partisans doing the same to the Ukrainians? You'd expect assassinations and sabotage to be two way traffic. I've not seen mention, I hope it means Ukraine holds few traitors. There will always be some.
Ukraine has plenty of traitors but they are mostly money-motivated. This kind of assassination is not the sort of thing you do if your primary motivation is money, so I think there's asymmetry for that reason. There are people burning parked military-painted pickups for a few hundred dollars, however.
1. I wonder if it's actually easier to conduct operations in Russia than occupied territories because it may be less guarded
2. Re: "terrorists," the primary mark of terrorists vs more legitimate resistance fighters is their targets and degree of malice. Terrorists target civilians and even children specifically or indiscriminately, and may employ torture, rape, etc. What Russia is doing is terrorism.
Targeting military and government officials of an active invasion and hostile occupation (with no peace settlement) is not terrorism, even if it's assassination. It's in the realm of war and resistance activity. There would be gray areas with regards to collaborators and type of work the target was doing.
I see the word "terrorism" mentioned a few times in the comments. There are as many definitions of terrorism as their are countries, multiplied by agencies, multiplied by academics.
The only useful definitions make sure to include AUDIANCE as a necessary but insufficient element. If your audience isn't a broad swath a civilian population, it's not terrorism. Terrorizing a limited constituency of collaborators, administrators, military and government officials isn't terrorism.
For it to be terrorism you have to have a much more broad audience. Your intentions must be to terrorize the general populace. Even if you aim your attacks at a population center but your intention is to influence/terrorize a government... that's not terrorism. It's political violence, an act of war, or something else. All terrorism is political violence. Not all political violence is terrorism.
Also collateral damage might be a war crime and not be terrorism. A car bomb that kills the target but also kills 20 people at a bus stop doesn't become terrorism. Systematically targeting bus stops to terrorize the community might be.
Finally, war is not politics by other means as is often thought. But terrorism is.
So...
1. It must be political and not associated with legitimate targets of war.
2. The audience (who you want to effect) must be civilian. It does not matter what the target is, only the audience.
Russia bombing a hospital? Terrorism. They are trying to break Ukrainian will. The civil population. It's not a legit target of war.
Israel bombing a hospital with HAMAS terrorist under it. Probably not terrorism. The goal isn't to terrorize Gazans. It's to kill combatants. HAMAS is the audience. Is it a war crime? Probably. But not terrorism.
Ukraine killing anti-Ukraine activists in Russia? Not terrorism. The tactics and methods are terrorist-like. But still not terrorism. The audience is limited to anti-Ukrainian activists.
Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo? Not terrorism. But it's close. The factor is again the audience. German and Japanese populations had NO influence on Hitler and Tojo. But their war making outputs did have an influence. If Russia firebombed all of Ivano-Franko so that none of the factory workers could make drones, artillery, and missiles then that would not be terrorism. War crime? Yes.
Terrorism isn't complicated. But the surrounding circumstance can make it so.
Actually, back during the Intifada there were various suicide bombings.
Targets were buses, cafes, etc. - all condemned as terrorism.
Except that it was noted in some conservative columns that Israeli soldiers used buses for transport from bases to their homes and frequented cafes and other 'civilian' venues off duty so if there was an Israeli soldier present then by your definition it wasn't terrorism.
Of course Israel claimed there were potentially Hamas or other terrorists in the crowds during the 'March of Return' demonstrations in Gaza and that justified shooting women and children in the legs to prevent 'terrorists' from approaching the border crossings into Israel.
And then there are the soldiers who shot the three unfortunate escaped hostages who stated that there orders were to 'kill any Palestinian male of military age.' Which probably wasn't intended as 'terrorism' - just a local implementation of a 'genocide by bullets.' With an additional note that as Israel has universal conscription potentially any Israeli between 18 and 40-45 is, if not currently serving, a reservist who could be a 'legal' target.
There also is a question of the 'audience' for all of the social media videos posted by Israeli soldiers of themselves committing what would come under the heading of war crimes - if some of the intent was intimidation of Israel's 'enemies' that might well be judged to be 'terrorism.'
And there are reports that the IDF is firing artillery into northern Gaza and denying humanitarian aid specifically to 'encourage' the inhabitants to leave which also smacks of terrorism...
Back to WWII, the firebombing might not be terrorism. but Hiroshima and Nagasaki with their message that the Allies had the capability of continuing to do the same to other Japanese cites absent an unconditional surrender seems to fit the definition...
P.S. Of course my commentary here marks me as an 'anti-Semite' Muslim lover, even though I have inveighed for years on the need to combat radical Islam...
As far as I'm concerned I don't see anything "anti Semitic". As far as bus bombs, maybe soldiers there or sometimes soldiers there, means that wasn't the audience. There are places where you can always find soldiers. The bus bombs as you describe it are clearly terrorism.
I appreciate the time you spent on this comment. Thank you.
Oh... also HAMASs stated aims, previous words, and previous actions let's us know that civilians are a legit target to them. You can't ignore it. It would be like ignoring Putin's past rants on rebuilding empire, on ignoring international law and the actions of invading Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine... just to point out a single instance where Russia obeyed the rules of war. HAMAS is a terrorist organization based on past words and deeds. Every action they take is in service of their terrorist aims.
Russia is a terrorist state. It is so based on previous words and deeds. Bombing hospitals in Syria, Chechnya, and Ukraine proves it. Bombing Odesa city center last night proves it.
Thanks
Interesting. In a whole article there is no word: "terrorist".
exactly: terrorist occupation troops Ru. that's what you mean with "terrorist", am I right?
You need to find some Russian article, Comrade. Start with Pravda newspaper, it will tell you everything you need to know.
Terrorists organise acts of terror against civilian population. That's not the same as partisan activity and assassination of the key figures of the enemy war machine.
If you got real arguments, there is no need for that word. It became meaningless quite some time ago.
Thank you so very much for this fantastic read.
A perfect sample of wishful thinking. There's absolutely no partisan movement in the Russian-held territories. However, there are quite efficient (must admit) actions of UA saboteur groups. They "perform" also deep inside Russia as several journalists and activists were assasinated in Moscow and St. Pete. Those were indeed acts of terror.
And there's another side of the shield. After UA saboteurs/agents started to commit homicides, FSB became more strict and nervous about Ukranians coming to Russia. Up to 20% of incoming Ukranians are being denied entrance to Russia.
Interesting to see an opinion of absolutely the same kind like in Israel: 'there's no armed opposition to our conquest, colonisation, and extermination: only economic and political refugees.... and few terrorists'...
I think nazies back in 1942-44 were as confident as russia today.
so many russians and russian collaborants were killed in Ru and on occupied territories, that there is definitely no sign of partizans in land with one the gloriest partizan traditions in EU
Ok, but even the russian soldiers send from occupied territory to Kursk area said that they are happy to at least to know whom to trust in the rear, because the inhabitants were much more friendly and far less dangerous. (Think this changed a bit since they looted the houses of the civilians they supposed to protect.)
There are a lot of nonsense and deliberate propaganda from both sides, it's important not to fall for it.
All these RU/UA soldiers words about war experience are done by propogandists and trolls from both sides. Generally, population from both countries is passive and indifferent. For most of people there's no difference in which state to live, same Slavic culture and traditions.
The war is on for the third year and there's absolutely no partisan movement or civil untrest in 'new" Russian territories. If the were any, there would be happy shout around all Deep State media.
All these sound but very seldom assasinations are done by UA saboteur groups which are very active (contrary to Russian).
P.S. a mayor of Kiev confirmed today that one third of Mariupol population returned from Ukraine(!!!) back to the Russian hold city. Most likely, to commence partisan movement.))))
Hahahaha, this is so funny, thanks!
It seems that Tom deliberately does not ban "comrade" tupolev so that all readers of the blog can see what kind of scum the representatives of the "russian world" are, a typical example of which is this old asshole.
Could you please give us an example of Russian propaganda, from your point of view? I am very very curious.
I do think your points are valid to varied extents, but it is simply not true that there is no partisan activity, and that is easy to prove. Yes, people generally want to just get on with their lives, and that also applies for those living in RU like you. But nationhood makes no sense unless it is defended. What if Ukraine developed an uber weapon and could take over Russia? (I am talking theoretically; of course this will never happen). Should Russians just accept this and get on with their lives? War mocks individualism.
I see your point, however do not forget that new Russian territories are mainly inhabited by ethnic Russians or mixed Russo-Ukranian origin. So, all these stories about babushkas poisoning soldiers is a BS created by UA Tsipso trolls to amuse naive foreign readers. It does not mean, of course, that population is unanimously happy about RU presence, still, no signs of civil unrest. Partisan movement is quite realistic in Western, or, paradoxically, especially in Central Ukraine but not at current places.
And yes, 90% of RU population will be indifferent if by some magic Ukraine or Belarus will overtake Russia. Back in 90s RU elite was scared by enormous popularity of Lukashenko in Russia and accelerated the replacement of Eltsiyn. The culture and past is common (no matter what Kiev ashkenazi may invent), so little problems with Slavic overtaking.
Is it not because of memories of that shared past that Ukraine continues to fight for its existence? Okay, so views differ in each part of Ukraine. What you say is correct according to everything I have heard and read. I am sure, though, that more suffering will result if the occupied territories are retained by Russia than if they are regained by Ukraine.
Ah yes, those nice old grannies that were baking cakes for soldiers.
Definitely a sabotage agent funneled into the rear red riding hood style.
there is already huge lack of staff for so called "local administrations": collaborants are being killed almost every day. so, teachers, administrators, police officers etc have to be "imported" from mother russia.
"volunteers" supplying occupation troops with different staff are trying to stay during the night in russian tranches or on russian territory: it is well known that their chances to survive the night with locals are minimal, especially in villages or in small towns.
are there Russian partisans doing the same to the Ukrainians? You'd expect assassinations and sabotage to be two way traffic. I've not seen mention, I hope it means Ukraine holds few traitors. There will always be some.
Ukraine has plenty of traitors but they are mostly money-motivated. This kind of assassination is not the sort of thing you do if your primary motivation is money, so I think there's asymmetry for that reason. There are people burning parked military-painted pickups for a few hundred dollars, however.
That sounds reasonable and I hope you are right.
Excellent work Ben. Another aspect of Ukraine's resistance and a highly effective one 👍
1. I wonder if it's actually easier to conduct operations in Russia than occupied territories because it may be less guarded
2. Re: "terrorists," the primary mark of terrorists vs more legitimate resistance fighters is their targets and degree of malice. Terrorists target civilians and even children specifically or indiscriminately, and may employ torture, rape, etc. What Russia is doing is terrorism.
Targeting military and government officials of an active invasion and hostile occupation (with no peace settlement) is not terrorism, even if it's assassination. It's in the realm of war and resistance activity. There would be gray areas with regards to collaborators and type of work the target was doing.
I see the word "terrorism" mentioned a few times in the comments. There are as many definitions of terrorism as their are countries, multiplied by agencies, multiplied by academics.
The only useful definitions make sure to include AUDIANCE as a necessary but insufficient element. If your audience isn't a broad swath a civilian population, it's not terrorism. Terrorizing a limited constituency of collaborators, administrators, military and government officials isn't terrorism.
For it to be terrorism you have to have a much more broad audience. Your intentions must be to terrorize the general populace. Even if you aim your attacks at a population center but your intention is to influence/terrorize a government... that's not terrorism. It's political violence, an act of war, or something else. All terrorism is political violence. Not all political violence is terrorism.
Also collateral damage might be a war crime and not be terrorism. A car bomb that kills the target but also kills 20 people at a bus stop doesn't become terrorism. Systematically targeting bus stops to terrorize the community might be.
Finally, war is not politics by other means as is often thought. But terrorism is.
So...
1. It must be political and not associated with legitimate targets of war.
2. The audience (who you want to effect) must be civilian. It does not matter what the target is, only the audience.
Russia bombing a hospital? Terrorism. They are trying to break Ukrainian will. The civil population. It's not a legit target of war.
Israel bombing a hospital with HAMAS terrorist under it. Probably not terrorism. The goal isn't to terrorize Gazans. It's to kill combatants. HAMAS is the audience. Is it a war crime? Probably. But not terrorism.
Ukraine killing anti-Ukraine activists in Russia? Not terrorism. The tactics and methods are terrorist-like. But still not terrorism. The audience is limited to anti-Ukrainian activists.
Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo? Not terrorism. But it's close. The factor is again the audience. German and Japanese populations had NO influence on Hitler and Tojo. But their war making outputs did have an influence. If Russia firebombed all of Ivano-Franko so that none of the factory workers could make drones, artillery, and missiles then that would not be terrorism. War crime? Yes.
Terrorism isn't complicated. But the surrounding circumstance can make it so.
Actually, back during the Intifada there were various suicide bombings.
Targets were buses, cafes, etc. - all condemned as terrorism.
Except that it was noted in some conservative columns that Israeli soldiers used buses for transport from bases to their homes and frequented cafes and other 'civilian' venues off duty so if there was an Israeli soldier present then by your definition it wasn't terrorism.
Of course Israel claimed there were potentially Hamas or other terrorists in the crowds during the 'March of Return' demonstrations in Gaza and that justified shooting women and children in the legs to prevent 'terrorists' from approaching the border crossings into Israel.
And then there are the soldiers who shot the three unfortunate escaped hostages who stated that there orders were to 'kill any Palestinian male of military age.' Which probably wasn't intended as 'terrorism' - just a local implementation of a 'genocide by bullets.' With an additional note that as Israel has universal conscription potentially any Israeli between 18 and 40-45 is, if not currently serving, a reservist who could be a 'legal' target.
There also is a question of the 'audience' for all of the social media videos posted by Israeli soldiers of themselves committing what would come under the heading of war crimes - if some of the intent was intimidation of Israel's 'enemies' that might well be judged to be 'terrorism.'
And there are reports that the IDF is firing artillery into northern Gaza and denying humanitarian aid specifically to 'encourage' the inhabitants to leave which also smacks of terrorism...
Back to WWII, the firebombing might not be terrorism. but Hiroshima and Nagasaki with their message that the Allies had the capability of continuing to do the same to other Japanese cites absent an unconditional surrender seems to fit the definition...
P.S. Of course my commentary here marks me as an 'anti-Semite' Muslim lover, even though I have inveighed for years on the need to combat radical Islam...
As far as I'm concerned I don't see anything "anti Semitic". As far as bus bombs, maybe soldiers there or sometimes soldiers there, means that wasn't the audience. There are places where you can always find soldiers. The bus bombs as you describe it are clearly terrorism.
I appreciate the time you spent on this comment. Thank you.
Oh... also HAMASs stated aims, previous words, and previous actions let's us know that civilians are a legit target to them. You can't ignore it. It would be like ignoring Putin's past rants on rebuilding empire, on ignoring international law and the actions of invading Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine... just to point out a single instance where Russia obeyed the rules of war. HAMAS is a terrorist organization based on past words and deeds. Every action they take is in service of their terrorist aims.
Russia is a terrorist state. It is so based on previous words and deeds. Bombing hospitals in Syria, Chechnya, and Ukraine proves it. Bombing Odesa city center last night proves it.
Good clarifying points and examples