Scale of Russian mercenary mission in Libya exposed(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Scale of Russian mercenary mission in Libya exposed
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58009514
150 コメント
[deleted]
strange how the BBC remains completely radio silent regarding the Turkish mercenaries there, and the recent request from the Libyan Foreign Minister, for Turkish mercenaries to withdraw
Why are you distracting from Russian warcrimes? Whether or not the Turkish mercenaries are in Libya doesn't change that Wagner is killing prisoners and civilians. So why wouldn't the BBC report on this?
A war crime is what USA UK and EU did to Libya
> Why are you distracting from Russian warcrimes?
Alleged warcimes.
Alleged warcimes.
That's what journalism is, alleging something. Adding the word alleged in front of what they are reporting is only meant to distract from the allegation without adding anything substantive. Of course it's alleged. All human discourse is alleged.
> That's what journalism is, alleging something.
It's not journalism if it's based on "this anonymous guy said it's true so it's true". Wikileaks is journalism, not this.
It's not journalism if it's based on "this anonymous guy said it's true so it's true". Wikileaks is journalism, not this.
Using Wikileaks, which probably uses anonymous sources more than anyone else, to prove that BBC is not real journalism for.. using anonymous source is great. Good job.
Wikileaks has never used quotes from anonymous sources as far as I know.
They leaked actual documents.
Turks are there because they have been invited officially.
Well, but the thing in a civil war is, 2 (if not more sides) claim to be the official side.
I honestly do not dare to judge from the outside. I know it is a complicated mess, with lots of hypocrosy and lots of foreign powers playing geopolitics.
I honestly do not dare to judge from the outside. I know it is a complicated mess, with lots of hypocrosy and lots of foreign powers playing geopolitics.
But Turks got invited from the side that is officially recognized by the UN.
> Turkish mercenaries
Not mercenaries, but a standing Turkish army unit, which by the way completely stomped them.
Not mercenaries, but a standing Turkish army unit, which by the way completely stomped them.
No, mercenaries https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-africa-679a6d6fc549bd...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Libya_campaign
Turkey - Col. Okan Altınay † (Turkish military officer)[36]
Turkey - Col. Okan Altınay † (Turkish military officer)[36]
> There is little doubt that they kill prisoners - something one ex-fighter freely admits. "No-one wants an extra mouth to feed."
That's the quality journalism I expect to see from BBC, right here.
That's the quality journalism I expect to see from BBC, right here.
Wow, the comments on this article are strangely dismissive of Russian warcrimes for some reason.
[deleted]
mopsi(7)
I think it’s a mix of everything from genuine belief to trolls and people paid to post such things.
It is early US time but still mid-afternoon in Moscow. The perfect time to try to bury a story or derail any conversations into dead-ends and flaming tarpits of whataboutism.
like whataboutism about russian trolls, right?
I don’t think people who genuinely believe this are necessarily trolls.
It’s less contentious when someone defends their favorite sports team than a political organization, but I think it’s related in many ways. In the real world nothing is perfect, but everyone gives more slack to organizations they identify with be that religious, cultural, political, or personal reasons.
Of course people can be trolls and also genuinely feel this way.
It’s less contentious when someone defends their favorite sports team than a political organization, but I think it’s related in many ways. In the real world nothing is perfect, but everyone gives more slack to organizations they identify with be that religious, cultural, political, or personal reasons.
Of course people can be trolls and also genuinely feel this way.
I think you need to learn what the term 'whataboutism' actually means.
Seems plausible, it fits with the larger theme of mercenary misdoings and their use as an underhanded, unofficial military influence exercised by states. And Russia is particularly notorious for this sort of thing.
I wonder how necessary these things are geopolitically, or how they are justified by either sides. Dealing with mercenary forces and their total lack of accountability or ethics as a local civilian can only leave one disgusted, jaded, and with nothing but hatred for the nations which cause or let these things happen. Does anyone here have experience with this topic, and can say what the advantages are, if the goal is not purely to demoralize?
I wonder how necessary these things are geopolitically, or how they are justified by either sides. Dealing with mercenary forces and their total lack of accountability or ethics as a local civilian can only leave one disgusted, jaded, and with nothing but hatred for the nations which cause or let these things happen. Does anyone here have experience with this topic, and can say what the advantages are, if the goal is not purely to demoralize?
To be honest, if I was a local civilian, and someone is doing terrible things to me and my people, I don't think I cared too much about whether the people terrorising us is a mercenary or "a regular soldier" deployed by a country. There are examples of both soldiers and mercenaries getting away with horrible stuff. In the end both would leave me disgusted with both the people committing these crimes and their origin country.
[deleted]
Tangential, but this reminds me of the US practice of having military (SOF) personnel temporarily terminate their military term, sign a new contract for the three-letter-agency of choice, execute a clandestine operation, then reverse the prior steps to walk right back into the military as if nothing ever happened.
Statecraft is so strange in this way, that you or I as laymen will ask just what in the fuck is the point - but it's totally legitimate and not casus belli for our solider to magically become a spy for a day to execute an operation on another nation.
Statecraft is so strange in this way, that you or I as laymen will ask just what in the fuck is the point - but it's totally legitimate and not casus belli for our solider to magically become a spy for a day to execute an operation on another nation.
This is indeed a thing.
A more realistic answer is: To be honest, if I was a local civilian, and someone is doing terrible things to me and my people, I don't think I cared too much about whether the people terrorizing us is a mercenary or "a regular soldier" deployed by a country. I want my own "a regular solider" or mercenary to do worse to the other side.
Thing is, the soldier has a doctrine and there are rules governing just about everything. Especially if we’re talking NATO. The mercenary is by far worse because there aren’t any rules or authority to appeal to, it’s just some guy with weapons getting paid under the table and not giving a fuck. The mercenary also definitely feels less safe, less confident, so most likely more jumpy, more trigger-happy. And worst of all probably ex-military so fully skilled.
Myanmar military (which receives/buys arms from Russia mostly) is using the same tactic to squash the civilian uprising lately. They formed an armed "civilian" group called "Pyu-Saw-Htee" (one of the heroes in Myanmar's early history) and have these guys kill and arrest civilians who fight against the military rule. The military seem to think that they can avoid the blame from international observers when time comes, yet kill and jail as many civilians as they want.
Pakistan has followed this philosophy in India's Kashmir region for decades. They also used the same tactics against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s (with generous US funding, of course). For example, the 2008 attack on Mumbai[1] was planned in Karachi, Pakistan and carried out by Pakistani-trained and controlled operatives. More reading [2].
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/21/in-2008-mumbai-attacks-piles...
[2] https://abc7chicago.com/rare-extradition-in-works-for-chicag...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2014/12/21/in-2008-mumbai-attacks-piles...
[2] https://abc7chicago.com/rare-extradition-in-works-for-chicag...
plausible deniability is usually the biggest reason.
"The group was first identified in 2014 when it was backing pro-Russian separatists in the conflict in eastern Ukraine."
Same reason Russia didn't send their uniformed troops into Ukraine.
"The group was first identified in 2014 when it was backing pro-Russian separatists in the conflict in eastern Ukraine."
Same reason Russia didn't send their uniformed troops into Ukraine.
Not so much. It was glaringly obvious who these people were from day 1.
The idea here is not obvious to a person living in the free world: it is to prevent your "scary, and mighty" standing army shown as weak, and losing in case it got stomped.
Seeing the "tzar's army" being weak will inevitably invite a challenge to his power.
The idea here is not obvious to a person living in the free world: it is to prevent your "scary, and mighty" standing army shown as weak, and losing in case it got stomped.
Seeing the "tzar's army" being weak will inevitably invite a challenge to his power.
On some level it is also a huge insult from Russia by leaving just enough bread crumbs, intentionally or not, to essentially say "look, we're doing this and getting away with it; else we're not doing it". And it is part of their strategy for both cases to be equally plausible rather than to be overwhelmingly without blame.
It is disinformation-as-policy to bolster their political might without flexing their full military. The finest example of Hypernormalization.
Embarrassed that their government represents people of my heritage. Путин просто хуйло.
It is disinformation-as-policy to bolster their political might without flexing their full military. The finest example of Hypernormalization.
Embarrassed that their government represents people of my heritage. Путин просто хуйло.
I think it's more than that. If the Russian army gets a bunch of casualties, eventually the Russian population gets unhappy and starts questioning the leadership. (This happened in Afghanistan, for instance.) But if Wagner does it, then the Russian government doesn't have to take the heat for the number of Russians dead.
There were plenty of Russian soldier deaths and no one can care about those questions - the best that Russians can do in these situations is standing on their knees when facing their leadership and accept their mistakes as some deeper maneuver that will bring fruits in the future. Also, the answer to those questions of unhappy population has been given already - "It sunk".
The reason why Wagner exists is quite simple - primarily it vents out all the people who has not found their place in Russia(and prevents their use against those who are in power in Russia) and their main and primary reason to serve in Wagner is being killed in the name of Russia. They are not expected to get back - in Ukraine conflict Wagner people were bombed by Russian army, when they decided to go back. They are expendables from the day they signed up.
The reason why Wagner exists is quite simple - primarily it vents out all the people who has not found their place in Russia(and prevents their use against those who are in power in Russia) and their main and primary reason to serve in Wagner is being killed in the name of Russia. They are not expected to get back - in Ukraine conflict Wagner people were bombed by Russian army, when they decided to go back. They are expendables from the day they signed up.
Exactly, but here it's an even bigger twist about a palace coup would the standing army lose, and produce more disgruntled soldiers, and officers.
> Not so much. It was glaringly obvious who these people were from day 1.
That doesn't really matter, though. The thin veneer lets them use their veto in the Security Council, and probably gets China to do so as well.
Same scenario as OJ Simpson publishing the "(if) I did it" book. Everyone knows what's going on. No one can do anything about it.
That doesn't really matter, though. The thin veneer lets them use their veto in the Security Council, and probably gets China to do so as well.
Same scenario as OJ Simpson publishing the "(if) I did it" book. Everyone knows what's going on. No one can do anything about it.
They were uniformed except for the flags on their arms and armor.
I think they wanted people to know exactly who they are. Not only for the separatists themselves. But of course, the country gets a free card to deny involvement.
[deleted]
Seeing increasing number of non-tech related political posts here. Is it HN or ZH?
Sorry for the dumb question, what is ZH?
Regarding your observation; I might be wrong, but I think it depends on the time when political topcis are dominant and when hardcore tech stuff is being posted. It seems to me that in the (German) morning hours political stories dominate, in the evening tech stuff is dominant.
Regarding your observation; I might be wrong, but I think it depends on the time when political topcis are dominant and when hardcore tech stuff is being posted. It seems to me that in the (German) morning hours political stories dominate, in the evening tech stuff is dominant.
ZeroHedge I would guess. A news site that is nominally about financial markets. It sits in some really weird political spot as a world news site that I don‘t quite understand.
I assume https://www.zerohedge.com/
And as expected there is an influx of pro-Russian whataboutists trying to shift the blame.
[deleted]
The Russians didn't commit such war crimes before. It's very unfortunate because in Europe we would probably like to enjoy a better relationship with them. Is would be a win economically. Unfortunately things like this will only serve to lengthen existing sanctions and perhaps get Russians prosecuted by the ICC.
Who's paying these Russian nationals? Russia or Libya?
The USA has done every kind of outrage. But it'd somehow be a bit worse if Libyans were paying the USA for American nationals to come fight.
Splitting hairs, I know. Bush 41 turned a profit on the first invasion of Iraq. And there's plenty of off-the-books operations like the Iran-Contra scandal.
The USA has done every kind of outrage. But it'd somehow be a bit worse if Libyans were paying the USA for American nationals to come fight.
Splitting hairs, I know. Bush 41 turned a profit on the first invasion of Iraq. And there's plenty of off-the-books operations like the Iran-Contra scandal.
I believe “pay” is subjective here. These are paid in geopolitical tokens. Libya is a major “exporter” of refugees to Europe, and control over that “trade route” is itself a major “token” to be traded for.
Lest we forget “we came, we see, he died”
Lest we forget “we came, we see, he died”
I wonder how Wagner compares to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)
As a Russian I actually don't want to comment on such posts at all.
As I see here and in other similar topics, the main result is a "Russian paid bot/troll account" label, and it's widely accepted as a normal response.
So much for "freedom of speech". At least the "correct" point of view doesn't get muc arguments against it, right?
Agreed. The quality of HN has gone down significantly with its greater popularity. A lot of Reddit refugees bringing their baggage.
"Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean people are supposed to automatically respect or agree with whatever random thing you say. The definition is closer to "Don't kill people like Navalny because they filmed your dacha". A foreign concept in contemporary Russia.
You are wrong.
I'm not saying everybody should automatically like what I say.
The issue here is that virtually nobody (here) cares about what you say as long as you can be "labeled", i.e., labeled as a Russian bot/troll account.
That's it.
Your comment history when I replied was precisely one comment. Nobody knows what you want to say, nor what your views are. Generally, you should just say what you want to say and no worry about being down or upvoted.
But if your views are indistinguishable from a paid troll's views, that's no one's problem but yours. Maybe you should even reconsider them? At least those guys get paid for posting their talking points.
But if your views are indistinguishable from a paid troll's views, that's no one's problem but yours. Maybe you should even reconsider them? At least those guys get paid for posting their talking points.
You're saying that I should consider changing my views not to be equal to views of accounts who are called "paid trolls" by somebody.
Nice approach to self-censorship.
You completely missed his point.
No, his point was ignored and a thing he said was commented on.
Is there a meaningful distinction in this case?
Yes, you probably should. It's similar to saying that "just because I agree with what nazis say does not mean I am one!"
Sure, technically true, but still something to consider a bit.
Sure, technically true, but still something to consider a bit.
So you equating being Russian with being a nazi. Nice. Propaganda works.
> Propaganda works.
I suppose we agree about this at least, but disagree about the degree of its effectiveness on us both.
I know that I'm affected by western propaganda. Are you similarily aware?
I suppose we agree about this at least, but disagree about the degree of its effectiveness on us both.
I know that I'm affected by western propaganda. Are you similarily aware?
And that's why you're spending so much time arguing that particular thing instead of presenting your own view?
It's like crying out loud about being persecuted before anyone actually did anything to you.
It's like crying out loud about being persecuted before anyone actually did anything to you.
Contextually, the person is arguing that being called a russian troll / bot is reducing the quality of discussion and is also shutting up alternative viewpoints.
The "freedom of speech" comment is merely a vent, and such generalizations is rarely fact... just like "A foreign concept in contemporary Russia" is a vent and generalization as well.
The "freedom of speech" comment is merely a vent, and such generalizations is rarely fact... just like "A foreign concept in contemporary Russia" is a vent and generalization as well.
Don't be silenced while you still have the freedom in this forum. Even if tar and feathers come out and 70% of HN'ers hate on you, doesn't mean you're not being heard by some.
I PARTICULARLY extremely dislike the mere concept of being humiliated on a basic of association with a particular country or nation (Russia in this case).
(Any association with Russia is considered utterly negative on its own).
This doesn't smell right.
Sure, but it is unfortunately normal throughout history. Certain groups become demonized and it is fashionable to demonize them. Orwell had "2 minutes hate" in his book "1984". Jews were demonized in the late 1800s leading up through WW 2. It is now fashionable to demonize Russians. It is fashionable lately to demonize white people in USA. Notice the recent rise of the term "Karen" to describe white women behaving badly, but the non-existence of any correlary terms like "Shaniqua", "Maria", "Liu", or "Adita".
I don't think many people are going to downvote you just because you admit to being Russian. If you start parroting the Russian line, then... yeah, expect people to downvote you.
i disagree. most people here have very superficial views about geopolitics , base their opinions on political party affiliations and are often manipulated. Sophie Zhang's revelations show that
>"Russian paid bot/troll account" label"
I assume people who call you that are real bot/trolls most likely paid in Kraft dinners.
I assume people who call you that are real bot/trolls most likely paid in Kraft dinners.
Just wait until the BBC finds out about the Syrian mercenaries that NATO member Turkey brought to Libya
https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-africa-679a6d6fc549bd...
https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-africa-679a6d6fc549bd...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55238803
They have covered those mercenaries, the first bit is about a different conflict but it also covers Libya later.
They have covered those mercenaries, the first bit is about a different conflict but it also covers Libya later.
I know they know, i wonder if maybe it was worthy of being mentioned here too
FYI, your comment is pure whataboutism?[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
You know, i wasn't really going for whataboutism as much as deconstructing the messenger. You see, turkey has been using these syrian fighters (who, for all we know could be former ISIS members) as literal cannon fodder in the nagorno-karabakh war: they were thrown in the frontlines so that the enemy would shoot them and reveal their positions. In return for its involvement in libya , turkey got a maritime delineation deal that is explicitly contrary to international law. And the BBC is not an unbiased source, it is british, and UK has been steadily supporting Ankara's misdoings in recent years like, obstructing security council resolutions for both the NK war and recent cyprus developments. So yeah, what about all that? I m positive that wagner is commiting war crimes, but i fear we ve slid into an un-polar world where world order is unprincipled, opportunist and immoral.
- https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55238803
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_(GNA)%E2%80%93Turkey_mar...
- https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1165307/anastasiades-point...
- https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55238803
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_(GNA)%E2%80%93Turkey_mar...
- https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/1165307/anastasiades-point...
You didn't deconstruction, you tried to deflect. And it doesn't have anything to do with the original BBC article.
Or maybe i was just making a comment. this isn't some high school debate competition with all form but no substance
I think it's helpful to keep in mind Russia's grand global strategy, which is simple and informs everything from supporting insurgencies, climate change denialism, election interference, etc.
Putin has been in power for 20+ years and he'll remain in power until he dies (he's only 68). During this time, Russia has not seen great improvements as a society. For a few years in the early-to-mid naughts things were getting better as Russia was riding high on high oil prices and recovery from the dismal 90s. But this didn't last long - it all came crashing down in '08 and things have not recovered. Russian gdp per capita was the same in 2019 as in 2008. Covid killed masses of people which they've "cleverly" hidden with stats (it's not clever at all, you can just see the excess deaths). As the world shifts away from fossil fuels, their heavily oil-dependent budget is only going to get harder to manage. Politics-wise, any opposition figure will be killed if they become high-profile enough
Things are grim and there's no realistic hope of things improving. For all their many, many, many faults, the soviets actually aspired to improve the lives of people. They ultimately proved inept at it, but they did believe they should and could improve people's lives. Putinism has no such aspirations. Instead the idea is to breed cynicism, fatalism and nihilism into people such that no one should ever expect anything better. To have hope, to act morally and ethically, to dream is to be a fucking idiot.
Thus, Putin's MO is demonstrate to his people that the rest of the world is just as shitty as his Russia is. That no one is better than him, because everyone is a hypocrite, everyone is corrupt, everyone is a murderer. This worldview is very useful for many people in the West, hence the charges of "Russian bots" are not quite right. The scores of people defending Russia are not Russia bots, they're regular folk, they just find this worldview useful and want to import it. It's like the IRA and their trolls created a self-sustaining cycle.
Putin has been in power for 20+ years and he'll remain in power until he dies (he's only 68). During this time, Russia has not seen great improvements as a society. For a few years in the early-to-mid naughts things were getting better as Russia was riding high on high oil prices and recovery from the dismal 90s. But this didn't last long - it all came crashing down in '08 and things have not recovered. Russian gdp per capita was the same in 2019 as in 2008. Covid killed masses of people which they've "cleverly" hidden with stats (it's not clever at all, you can just see the excess deaths). As the world shifts away from fossil fuels, their heavily oil-dependent budget is only going to get harder to manage. Politics-wise, any opposition figure will be killed if they become high-profile enough
Things are grim and there's no realistic hope of things improving. For all their many, many, many faults, the soviets actually aspired to improve the lives of people. They ultimately proved inept at it, but they did believe they should and could improve people's lives. Putinism has no such aspirations. Instead the idea is to breed cynicism, fatalism and nihilism into people such that no one should ever expect anything better. To have hope, to act morally and ethically, to dream is to be a fucking idiot.
Thus, Putin's MO is demonstrate to his people that the rest of the world is just as shitty as his Russia is. That no one is better than him, because everyone is a hypocrite, everyone is corrupt, everyone is a murderer. This worldview is very useful for many people in the West, hence the charges of "Russian bots" are not quite right. The scores of people defending Russia are not Russia bots, they're regular folk, they just find this worldview useful and want to import it. It's like the IRA and their trolls created a self-sustaining cycle.
This is a good take.
To put it more succinctly, in most countries (especially in the west) there are clear lines of demarcation between the public, private and criminal sectors. (The lines aren't impermeable. But the lines exist.)
In Russia, those lines have been eliminated. One group controls all three sectors.
To put it more succinctly, in most countries (especially in the west) there are clear lines of demarcation between the public, private and criminal sectors. (The lines aren't impermeable. But the lines exist.)
In Russia, those lines have been eliminated. One group controls all three sectors.
There wouldn't be any Russian mercenaries in Libya in the first place, had it not been for the complete destruction of the country by Western forces a couple of years ago.
Well... if they can fix the current cluster-crap, created by USA UK and EU quick visit, then they deserve a prize
The US does this as well.
I've heard plenty of stories from Special Forces acquaintances...
I've heard plenty of stories from Special Forces acquaintances...