You are telling me all I need to know about your expertise and intentions here. — apokrisis

By stating what is absolutely obvious to anyone whose conception of war isn't based on newspaper articles? Ok! :grin:

Looked a bit odd to me; seems to check out though...

• Newsweek (Sep 26, 2022): Mobilized Russians Asking How to 'Surrender' Through Hotline: Official

• Business Insider (Sep 27, 2022): Russians are calling up the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense asking how to surrender, Ukraine says

• New York Post (Oct 5, 2022): Thousands of Russian soldiers calling ‘I Want To Live’ surrender hotline: Ukraine

1000s?

Originally opened around May 21, 2022...

I guess, why not?

• Al Jazeera (Jul 11, 2022): Putin expands fast-track Russian citizenship to all of Ukraine

By stating what is absolutely obvious to anyone whose conception of war isn't based on newspaper articles? — Tzeentch

My choice is between understanding what I can glean from named public sources or believing some random internet “military expert” pushing apologist talking points. The decision isn’t hard. And you keep making it easier.

Published sources agree that US intelligence warned there would be an assault on Antonov airport to establish an air bridge. US intel proved itself good enough that is would have warned in the decapitation plan was a feint.

The Russians would of course have to have suppressed the Ukraine air defences before the transport planes could land. The Ilyushins have flares and electronic countermeasures, showing they are intended to have some chance of landing in defended forward areas. But the Russian assault started with a missile bombardment meant to help neutralise the AA.

The problem was that the same US advance warning allowed the Ukrainians to shift everything before the softening bombardment and the Russians were left blasting empty fields.

Things went to shit for the Russians rapidly after that. Hostomel was a key target because there was a decapitation plan. It was not a feint. But the paratroopers couldn’t gain control and the Ukraine air defences were intact and so landing the Ilyushins would have indeed been suicidal and so was aborted.

This is publicly available history now. But keep up with your bogus military analysis for which have failed to provide a shred of credible support.

As Russia launched its invasion, the U.S. gave Ukrainian forces detailed intelligence about exactly when and where Russian missiles and bombs were intended to strike, prompting Ukraine to move air defenses and aircraft out of harm’s way, current and former U.S. officials told NBC News.

That near real-time intelligence-sharing also paved the way for Ukraine to shoot down a Russian transport plane carrying hundreds of troops in the early days of the war, the officials say, helping repel a Russian assault on a key airport near Kyiv.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-intel-helped-ukraine-protect-air-defenses-shoot-russian-plane-carry-rcna26015

The aircraft is equipped with a defensive aids suite, comprising radar warning, jammers, infrared flare cartridges, chaff dispenser and two guns with a fire-control radar. Aerial bombs or radio beacons are suspended from external bomb racks on detachable pylons.

https://charter.capavia.com.tr/en/ilyushin-il-76/

experts say there is one place, more than anywhere else, where Putin’s vision of a lightning strike victory ran aground: Antonov Airport.

This sprawling cargo airport and military base 15 miles northwest of downtown Kyiv was supposed to be the principal staging ground and logistics hub for a battle-defining Russian thrust into the heart of the capital.

The Ukrainian government was supposed to fall and President Volodymyr Zelensky was supposed to be killed, captured or forced into exile. Experts said that Putin probably planned to install a puppet leader.

“They needed to get into the middle of Kyiv as quickly as possible and raise the Russian flag over a government building,” said John Spencer, a retired U.S. Army major who now chairs urban war studies at the Madison Policy Forum think tank in New York. “At that point you’ve won the war. Yes, you may start the greatest insurgency in history. But you’ve won the war.”

He said capturing the airport was “critical” to the Russian strategy. Antonov has a long runway, ideal for flying in supplies and troops on heavy transport planes.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-10/battered-ukraine-air-field-was-key-to-russian-plan-to-take-the-capital-the-airport-fell-but-resistance-continued

The Russians would of course have to have suppressed the Ukraine air defences before the transport planes could land. — apokrisis

SEAD strikes to facilitate landing large, slow-moving cargo planes on the frontline?

What scale of suppression do you have in mind? A nuclear strike on Ukraine?

You understand that even MANPADS, IR AA or unguided AAA batteries would be having a turkey shoot?

The Ilyushins have flares and electronic countermeasures, showing they are intended to have some chance of landing in defended forward areas. — apokrisis

"Some chance of landing"?

Such measures are intended to give the plane a slight chance of getting away in case it gets engaged, not to land under fire. You're absolutely crazy if you think a cargo plane would be doing such things intentionally.

They're flying piñatas. And you're suggesting to land 18-20 of them under fire while loaded up with battalions worth of men and material. Oof.

My choice is between understanding what I can glean from named public sources or believing some random internet “military expert” pushing apologist talking points. — apokrisis

No. Your choice is admitting you're way out of book, or continuing to pretend you're not and fencing with newspaper articles. :roll:

And for the record, you can continue linking articles that state experts supposedly said things - those have zero value. Link instead to the actual expert saying it, accompanied by that which they base themselves on.

OK, let's clear up a few potential blocking differences.

Firstly, death is death. If your loved one dies from childhood cancer it's not somehow less emotionally painful than if they die in a cluster bomb attack on a school. They're no less dead, it's often not even any less physically painful. Dead's dead. So a 'world order' as you put it, in which (for example) the EPA can be given backhanders to approve chemicals they know have a risk of cancer such as to cause, on average, 100 more deaths a year than otherwise, is no different to a world in which an aggressor uses cluster bombs in their annual war and kills 100 children in a school. 100 children needlessly dead in both cases.

Secondly, Ukraine is not part of the same 'world order' as the West (in terms of the freedoms and benefits you're talking about). It comes out below Russia on many Human Development Indices, it's around the same level in terms of political corruption (though better than Russia in this case), it's the world's main hub of illegal arms dealing and it has a huge far-right problem. Ukraine fighting Russia is not New World vs Old World. It's Old World vs Old World. To establish a new world order there we'd have to overthrow both governments. Getting one to beat the other is irrelevant to that project.

Those aside, I agree with the thrust of what you've written, that some kind of system needs to be in place to ensure peace and that system needs to be enforced against infraction, by (often) war.

But that's not what's happening here. As @boethius mentioned way back (some hundred pages at least) if the UN or NATO had pulled their finger out of their arse earlier and stopped this thing in its tracks (either full NATO membership fo Ukraine, or perhaps even troops on the ground), then we wouldn't be here. We're here because the new world order doesn't really want to establish peace at all, it profits from war. It's in their financial best interests that Russia is tied up in a long protracted war and that Ukraine have only just enough ability to resist to keep acting as a lucrative market for weapons. It's not remotely helping 'fight the good fight' to have an army just about strong enough to hold off the enemy but not quite strong enough to repel them, and keep it that way for as long as possible. If we're serious about stopping Russia, then stop Russia. Put 100 battalions of UN/NATO troops on ground to enforce a peace and see how many atrocities get committed under that watch. But we're not serious about stopping Russia. We're serious about dragging out the war long enough to cripple them.

The best commentary I have heard paints Putin as the head of a crime mob who has become stuck in escalation mode by his miscalculations. Partly Ukraine is just about staying domestically popular. But also, he actually does seem to have a personal and irrational hatred of the West’s imposition of a global rules framework, so would be happy to smash it.

Putin may not actually have planned to go further than smash the emergence of such order right on his own doorstep. Maybe Poland, the Baltic States, Finland, could all be left as no kind of real threat to the Russian kleptocratic, fossil fuel, crime syndicate at all. — apokrisis

This I agree with in the most part. We might quibble about the proportions of motivation, but I think broadly this is right.

the whole planet should find Putin worth stopping - but in the context of the degree to which he threatens the world order that we need to construct, rather than the degree that it protects the world order that underpinned a fossil fuel consumption based model of humanity these past 70 years. — apokrisis

Absolutely. The argument is about method, not outcome.

Putin needs to be prevented, not only from committing more war crimes, but from running his kleptocracy in which human rights are serially abused. The question is whether a continued ground war fought using Ukrainian troops with a drip feed of US weapons and a global propaganda effort is the best method.

The reasons I don't think it is, are;

1) The pre-war Ukrainian regime was barely better then the Russian one. The regime post-war isn't likely to be an improvement. so getting Ukraine to fend off Russia does little to prevent the aspects of Putin's regime we want to stop, and prolongs rather than foreshortens the commission of war crimes.

2) For whatever reason, Russia put on the table an opening demand that was barely any different from the status quo. Ukraine could have agreed to it and noticed almost nothing. So (again, not knowing the reasons Russia made such a mild offer) there is an opportunity for an enforced peace on those terms. Enforced peace is almost universally a less harmful state of affairs than war.

3) Even in the worse case scenario that Russia had some card such that a peace deal on those terms gave it some control it didn't already have, dealing with the human rights abuses in a state controlled by Russia is no harder than fighting a ground war against them. We haven't made the situation any worse. We still need to achieve the same thing, only now we get to do it not in a war zone. It is universally easier to manage any situation outside of hostilities than it is whilst they are ongoing.

Ukraine is a democracy, while Russia is not. It makes a difference in my book, and obviously for Ukrainians.

Yet Ukraine does get to have a say in what it people believe. — apokrisis

This is so bizarre.

Ukraine get's a say in what its individual citizens believe?

What's Ukraine other than just the collection of individual citizens? at least when it comes to beliefs and saying things?

And you mention freedom all the time ... isn't freedom of thought the first and most fundamental?

Yet Ukraine does get to have a say in what it people believe. — apokrisis

And the whole planet should find Putin worth stopping - but in the context of the degree to which he threatens the world order that we need to construct, rather than the degree that it protect the world order that underpinned a fossil fuel consumption based model of humanity.[/quote]

Thanks for finally confirming the obvious, that proponents of the Ukrainian war effort do not evaluate Ukrainian well being, but rather a larger "international order". That you want Ukrainians to fight for an entirely new international order, rather than protect the existing one, is definitely an interesting spin.

But if I understand you correctly, your argument is meant to solve the problem that a forever war with Russia, never compromising in order to weaken the Russian state (which I have no issue accepting it does), is obviously not in the interests of Ukrainians by simply overlooking their interest by simply saying Ukrainian state speaks for Ukrainians and says what they believe (certainly no one else is talking about Ukrainian beliefs, seen as the opposition parties and media have been banned) and the Ukrainian state wants Ukrainians to keep fighting (without ever any compromise), so that serves your objective and Ukrainian state clearly agrees to be a tool in this wider "international order" game, and so all is well.

Yet the fact is that the battlefield here is limited: Ukrainian troops will stop at the Russian border. The West can keep up such aid as it's giving now for quite a while. And now the mobilized troops can basically be formed into meaningful units for a spring offensive. Putin can likely continue the war longer than anticipated. Still, a collapse is also possible, although rather unlikely. — ssu

Yes, "collapse" has been predicted since literally day 2 of the invasion. Of course, always "possible" as you note.

Making gains at the very edges of Russian occupied territory is extremely debatable in significance.

Russia is certainly focused its defensive efforts most in the land bridge from Russia to Crimea to the Canal. Taking Kherson, as I've stated far before this new offensive started, would only be step 1, and a long way to go from there as you note.

The actual status of the military situation I think boils down to what cost for the Ukrainians have these gains come at and if such losses are sustainable.

Yet the fact is that the battlefield here is limited: Ukrainian troops will stop at the Russian border. — ssu

It should also be noted that this is an immense strategic advantage for Russia, as although Ukraine is limited in this way, Russia is not. A Russian offensive can enter Ukraine at any point along the Russian-Ukraine border, and perhaps Belarus as well.

The actual front line is the entire border, which allows tactical moves such as flanking the forces in Kharkiv by an offensive coming to their North as well as strategic moves of a salient somewhere in the North again.

Certainly human, political and material costs have been high for the Russians, which the media points out in fine detail, but what is left out of Western media is the costs to the human and material costs to the Ukrainians, and political costs to the West.

The key point will be the winter and it seems to me that the Kremlin and Russian forces has succeeded in "keeping it together" until then.

Political pressure with Russia is definitely reached a maximum (but clearly not a breaking point), but there is also the other side in that pressure is also mounting within EU countries, and winter hasn't even arrived yet.

I agree that the Russia plan is likely exactly as you say to see winter through and then launch a winter / spring offensive before the melt and testing the EU's appetite for another year of the war.

Nuclear threats remain, fortunately for now, clearly in the deterrence "utility" of downward pressure on the amount and kinds of arms to Ukraine.

Ukraine is a democracy, while Russia is not. It makes a difference in my book, and obviously for Ukrainians. — Olivier5

Russia is also a democracy, and arguably a bit more democratic than Ukraine at the moment, to the extent you can argue Russia hasn't banned as much opposition parties and media.

Also, Ukraine stopped the fundamental freedom of movement of military age men essentially day 1 of the war, whereas Russia has not. "Voting with your feet" has been multi decades war cry of supporters of the status quo in the West, particularly the US, and that way of voting has been denied to a large section of Ukrainian society.

You may say "but of course the Ukrainian state doesn't want men to leave!" but that's a totalitarian argument and not a democratic one.

There is also not much controversy over the opinion that Putin is supported by a majority of Russians.

Compared to the US senate, that's a "point for democracy" in favour of Russia.

Sure, the Russian state makes use of propaganda that affects the opinions of Russians, but the idea the US state doesn't do likewise would be laughable, and the idea Ukraine isn't also propagandising its own citizens would be a total break with reality.

"Who's more democratic" between these 3 parties is not some truism you can just throw out there, and Ukraine is certainly not a contender for "exemplary democracy".

Apologists for Ukraine when it comes to their language laws, banning opposition media and major parties, purging any dissidents, banning men from leaving the country, will say that of course they need to do these things to fight Russia.

Maybe so, but the corollary is they are not fighting for democracy, but for totalitarian principles.

And "extreme nationalists" (aka. Nazi's) in Ukraine are quite coy about saying the war is good for society as it allows them to reduce "friction".

Russia is also a democracy — boethius

LOL

What criticism of Russian democracy does not also hold for Ukraine? Or for the US for that matter.

If you say some people think Russian elections are fixed ... I hate to break it to you, but some people say US elections are fixed, and that "Trump won" for example.

But, you don't even need fraudulent elections for minority rule if you have a setup like US electoral college and senate anyways.

And the whole idea of "fighting for democracy" is completely laughable when the US / NATO is allied with the likes of Saudi Arabia and various other kings, despots and tyrants.

If the West was going to "democratise the world" Russia would be far down on the list.

Of course, the first step would be changing the policy of overthrowing democratically elected governments that have policies "against US interests", and I think it's safe to say we're a long way away from that.

If people want to refer to WWII allied idealism ... then "we had elections even in a war and kept freedom of movement and freedom of speech and didn't ban opposition parties and so on (well, kept to freedom quite a bit anyways)" was a big part of that argument that the allies were fighting for democracy against tyranny.

The Nazi argument for tyranny was that it makes a more efficient war fighting machine.

So, anytime Ukrainian sympathisers excuse Ukrainian anti-freedom policies in that it's needed to fight the war, that's literally what the Nazi's said.

What criticism of Russian democracy does not also hold for Ukraine? — boethius

That the same guy heads the country for decades.

That most opposition figures have been killed or jailed, and their parties persecuted.

That all free press is banned from the country.

That entire regions have been massacred like Chechnya.

That one can go to jail for 15 years for criticizing the war, even if only by wearing a tshirt.

Ukraine is a democracy, while Russia is not. It makes a difference in my book, and obviously for Ukrainians. — Olivier5

I'm not going to repeat the argument that @boethius has already made against the distinction you're trying to make. Though I will emphasise the main point that Ukraine is not currently a democracy, so claiming that supporting Ukraine is supporting democracy is just factually inaccurate.

What I'll add is that what makes a difference 'in your book' is irrelevant to your argument here.

Fine, the democratic process is top goal in your book, Ukraine was slightly better than Russia on that front according to some official measures. In your book, that makes it an important victory if Ukraine defeat Russia here. In your book.

Your argument, however, is not that. Your argument here has always been that alternative views are ludicrous. Not that they just have different top goals. That they are so wrong as to be apologist, Putin's supporters, or even fucking FSB agents!

If all you've got to support your argument is that, in your book, democracy is the number objective, then you've no ground at all on which to argue that alternative views must be apologist. We simply have a different number one objective. For me, it's human rights. On that score, Ukraine is a hairs breadth different from Russia, and a Ukraine in mountains of debt to the US would probably be even worse.

Democracy is not a cure for human rights violations because its essentially nationalist and populist and does nothing to prevent off-shoring human rights abuses to minorities or foreign nations.

SEAD strikes to facilitate landing large, slow-moving cargo planes on the frontline?

What scale of suppression do you have in mind? A nuclear strike on Ukraine?

You understand that even MANPADS, IR AA or unguided AAA batteries would be having a turkey shoot? — Tzeentch

Just produce evidence to back your speculation.

And you're suggesting to land 18-20 of them under fire while loaded up with battalions worth of men and material. — Tzeentch

No one suggested that. So strawman. Step 1 was suppress air defence and secure the runway and its surrounds. Step 2 was fly in the troops and gear when it was reasonably safe. Or given Russian competence, just take a chance or two.

Again, the counterfactual is that no one in any of the reporting raised this as something making the Russian plan impossible. But I’m sure you will construct some further conspiracy story on that.

And for the record, you can continue linking articles that state experts supposedly said things - those have zero value. — Tzeentch

You can’t even link to a single media report. Surely Russian media might help you there?

That the same guy heads the country for decades. — Olivier5

What kind of argument is this?

Merkel was Chancellor of Germany from 2005 to 2021.

Also, the whole point of introducing term limits in the US was so that someone genuinely popular with the people (due to serving average people's interest rather than elites) couldn't be in power so long as to be able to implement effective policies. It's completely anti-democratic that someone who's popular cannot stand for election.

That most opposition figures have been killed or jailed, and their parties persecuted. — Olivier5

Sure ... and that's not true for Ukraine? And, in both cases the argument will be the same that they are foreign controlled operators.

And again, isn't this the bread and butter of the CIA to get rid of political opposition, democratic or otherwise, around the world?

That all free press is banned from the country. — Olivier5

Same as Ukraine.

That entire regions have been massacred like Chechnya. — Olivier5

Isn't the Ukrainian war on the Donbas since 2014 an exact analogous situation?

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with democracy. A people can be for war. US has massacred whole countries, literally millions dead, with democratic support.

... Indeed, I seem to remember the US having their own little internal disagreement that resulted in far more dead than in Chechnya, and that the whole American civil war thing is one of the greatest example of democracy "winning".

That one can go to jail for 15 years for criticizing the war, even if only by wearing a tshirt. — Olivier5

Again, is it more free in Ukraine?

Likewise again, if a majority of Russians are in favour of such policies, it's still democratic.

The equating "democracy" with "anything I think is good" is not a sound argument. Democratic process (to one standard of democracy or another) can result in things I think are bad ... but it's still democratic.

What kind of argument is this? — boethius

An argument against people staying in power too long, nominating puppets to reign in their place, and changing the constitution to retain power beyond set limits. Power corrupts.

Same as Ukraine. — boethius

Nope. A lot of independent journalists operate there. Likewise, Ukrainian opposition has not been persecuted, and the war in Dombass has nothing to see with the mass killings in Chechnya.

Just produce evidence to back your speculation. — apokrisis

That isn't speculation. You don't seem to be aware of what SEAD is, how it functions and the obvious issues it faces when targetting non-emitting anti-aircraft platforms.

No one suggested that. So strawman. — apokrisis

Oh, what is this then, and I quote:

By some accounts, Russia had intended to land 18-20 Ilyushin IL-76 transport planes at the Hostomel airfield invasion’s opening hours. An aerial convoy this size could have potentially brought two entire battalion tactical groups (BTGs) worth of troops and equipment to the capital’s doorstep within the first hours of the invasion.

Doesn't sound like these "expert" sources assumed any intention by the Russians to wait until the area was "reasonably safe", does it?

Again, the counterfactual is that no one in any of the reporting raised this as something making the Russian plan impossible. — apokrisis

Likely because they have absolutely no clue of what they're talking about.

What's next?

Experts telling us the Russians "intended" to sail cruise ships up the Dnieper to stage an amphibious assault on Kiev?

What a bunch of dummies, those Russians. :lol:

Aren't we glad we have these "experts" telling us all about their silly intentions.

An argument against people staying in power too long, nominating puppets to reign in their place, and changing the constitution to retain power beyond set limits. Power corrupts. — Olivier5

So you're saying Robert C. Byrd serving in the US senate over half a century (51 years) establishes US is not a democracy?

Furthermore, your argument is simply that there's flaws and corruption in the Russian democratic system ... but that's true for Ukraine and the US.

Nope. A lot of independent journalists operate there. Likewise, Ukrainian opposition has not been persecuted, and the war in Dombass has nothing to see with the mass killings in Chechnya. — Olivier5

What are you talking about?

Ukraine shuts TV channels it accuses of spreading ‘Russian disinformation’ — Financial Times

Ukraine: Zelenskiy bans three opposition TV stations — DW

Is the exact opposite of journalists being "free to operate there".

That isn't speculation. You don't seem to be aware of what SEAD is, — Tzeentch

Jeez. You really don’t do good at argument. Russian aviation soon discovered just how bad they were at SEAD and had to stop sacrificing planes. But I guess you will say the early phase of them taking unacceptable losses was just a “feint” and not another miscalculation. :grin:

By some accounts, Russia had intended to land 18-20 Ilyushin IL-76 transport planes at the Hostomel airfield invasion’s opening hours. An aerial convoy this size could have potentially brought two entire battalion tactical groups (BTGs) worth of troops and equipment to the capital’s doorstep within the first hours of the invasion.

Got any more expert sources to share with us, bud?

Is the exact opposite of journalists being "free to operate there". — boethius

Enemy operatives spreading propaganda cannot be classified as "free press". They are on a mission to disinform.

Where’s the contradiction? The cruise missiles were supposed to have done a large part of the job even before the paratrooper first wave. The second wave would have wanted to follow as fast as possible, not wait a few weeks.

Again, why have paratroopers ring a cargo airfield unless you planned to use that airfield pretty soon. You think it would have been held long by the assault force? And for what purpose?

I realise it is pointless stating the obvious all the time. You have your talking points and can’t deviate from the script. I’m finding it quite amusing,

Enemy operatives spreading propaganda cannot be classified as "free press". They are on a mission to disinform. — Olivier5

Was there due process that they were actually "enemy operatives" or then what is the classification "enemy operatives" based on?

Likewise, what's the definition of "enemy propaganda" other than anything the Ukrainian state doesn't like?

More to the point, since when did freedom of the press not include the freedom to propagandise?

since when did freedom of the press not include the freedom to propagandise? — boethius

Since WW2. It is forbidden in many democratic countries to spread hateful lies by way of press.

Since WW2. It is forbidden in many democratic countries to spread hateful lies by way of press. — Olivier5

With. Due. Process.

And "hateful lies" is not even enough to be convicted of hate speech or slander.

Where's the proof, in a fair court, these 3 TV stations were spreading "hateful lies"? And what law was even broken.

Again, in the "name of freedom" no fundamental freedom is worth preserving in Ukraine for that fight.

Where’s the contradiction? The cruise missiles were supposed to have done a large part of the job even before the paratrooper first wave. — apokrisis

And how exactly did you envision GPS-guided cruise missiles taking out MANPADS and mobile anti-air platforms? Bomb every single building, ditch or treeline in and around Kiev?

Also, cruise missiles? Are you sure about that? What can you tell me about the use of cruise missiles in SEAD operations?

Again, why have paratroopers ring a cargo airfield unless you planned to use that airfield pretty soon. — apokrisis

The question is:
- Whether they were going to use it to land cargo planes, and the answer to that question is obviously no.
- Whether that proves they were intending to occupy and hold Kiev, which is what you argued and why you mentioned this in the first place.

I’m finding it quite amusing, — apokrisis

I'm having trouble hearing you from inside that hole you're digging for yourself.

Where's the proof, in a fair court, these 3 TV stations were spreading "hateful lies"? — boethius

How many journalists were assassinated by the regime, or jailed, or beaten up? How much if their equipment was confiscated?

According to RSF, there's vast difference between the two countries in terms of freedom of press and violence towards journalists.

It is forbidden in many democratic countries to spread hateful lies by way of press. — Olivier5

And what exactly do you think Putin said about the press he banned? That it was spreading the truth but he didn't like it?

The point of a free press is that it is free from the government it may criticise. That is not the case if it's that same government who gets to unilaterally decide if what they're publishing are 'hateful lies'. I would hazard a guess that's close to the exact wording Putin used about the press he banned.

According to RSF, there was avast difference between the two countries in terms of freedom of press and violence towards journalists. — Olivier5

Fixed that for you.

600 to 1,000 casualties a day, and you're talking about a few beatings and some stolen kit?

600 to 1,000 casuslties a day, and you're talking about a few beatings and some stolen kit? — Isaac

I am talking about freedom of press, as you know. It is an important democratic principle. It's not about 'kits'.