The Invasion of Ukraine

[EACLucifer]

FWIW I think targeting governments, large corporations and oligarchs should be the starting point.

Trying to make ordinary citizens suffer till they overthrow their horrible government doesn't seem to have worked well in Cuba, Iran, Vuvuzela, DPRK, etc etc.

That'll be at least in part because for 3 of those countries there are still those who remember what the previous western-backed regimes were like.
If I was one such, I don't think I'd fancy a return to life under the shah or being america's playground with the mob running the show or having any one of a bunch of brutal CIA-backed fascist dictators.
Sanctions worked OK for sif ifrica though.

Ukranians may be happier as part of Greater Russia, than being ruled by a corrupt pseudo euro-democracy, beholden to American interests.

f.ck off fascist scum.

Mods, why is this fascist apologist still a member?

[Herainestold]

Putin is an autocratic, right wing, pseudo-capitalist, dictator. I neither like nor support him. I think he has a point about Ukraine being in the Slavic sphere of influence.
It should be left up to the people, NATO and the West should stay out of it.

[EACLucifer]

Putin is an autocratic, right wing, pseudo-capitalist, dictator. I neither like nor support him. I think he has a point about Ukraine being in the Slavic sphere of influence.

Only racist morons believe in racial spheres of influence. The people of Ukraine made it clear they did not want subject to Russia when they voted overwhelmingly for independence in the nineties, and again since. Not only do they not wish to be subject to the imperial whims of a mad revanchist racist, they are a democracy, and wish to preserve that rather being subject to Putin's fascism.

It should be left up to the people, NATO and the West should stay out of it.

It was left to them, you ignorant bellend. They made their decision, but Putin did not respect it. As of when they were invaded, they were a neutral country. Now, joining NATO is what the people want - by some considerable margin - because their decisions are not respected by the mad tyrant to their east. For the west to do nothing would be to tolerate imperialist aggression and ignore the pleas for help of a nation that desperately needs help to resist invasion.

Did you ever respopnd to the pictures showing systematic Chinese destruction of mosques, incidentally, or are you still too much of a cowardly fascist apologist?

[EACLucifer]

US and NATO both warning of full scale invasion, and in general, they've been very accurate about Russian intentions to date. Specifically warning of an offensive to target Kiev, and nothing that Kharkiv is in particular danger. That latter point is not terribly surprising, sadly. Kharkiv is near the border, and the are particularly large concentrations of Russian troops and armour.

In particular, warning signs just over the border from Kharkiv include vehicles covered in external stores and equipped with external fuel tanks, vehicles with machine guns on external mounts, which one generally does not see for manoevres, tracked vehicles driving around under their own steam, rather than moved by trailer to save wear on both the tracks and the roads, vehicles with snow camouflage applied, the movement of bridging vehicles to the border, helicopters deployed near the border in open fields, and, notably, huge amounts of vehicles of all sorts marked with a large "Z". These vary - more or less as one would expect them to if troops were just told "paint a big Z on it somewhere visible" - and there's a couple of possibilities for what that means, but most likely it's meant as an identification mark akin to a malign version of D-Day stripes, as Russia and Ukraine both have a lot of ex-soviet equipment.

There's no point waiting for them to do this. Every possible sanction should be applied immediately.

[Woodchopper]

Are we entirely 100% sure Ukraine doesn't have a nuclear warhead somewhere, hidden away at the collapse of the USSR?

What about other WMD? Did the USSR run any chemical/bio programs in Ukraine?

Very very unlikely that they could have kept one back from the Cold War. The leaders in Moscow knew how many were in Ukraine and how many were returned.

Also very unlikely that they have a secret nuclear weapons programme. Monitoring is strict and it would be difficult for Ukraine to have built nuclear bombs in secret.

Other WMD probably wouldn't be much use even if they were available. Use of a bio weapon would probably risk killing more Ukrainians than Russians. Gas is an unpredictable battlefield weapon and its use against Russian civilians would see Ukraine being perceived as an international pariah.

[sTeamTraen]

Bear in mind that their existing occupation is an occupation of hostile territory. In Syria, they've made a habit of targetting things that make civilian life possible, deliberately targetting hospitals and water treatment plants, and there is no reason to think they would behave differently towards Ukraine.

Is is possible that they might act differently to the extent that the ostensible political objective is annexation rather than elimination of a military or economic foe? There doesn't seem much point in destroying the infrastructure of a place that you are claiming to want to return to the bosom of the loving mother country. But maybe I am being hopelessly naive, especially since "no plan survives contact with the enemy".

[EACLucifer]

Bear in mind that their existing occupation is an occupation of hostile territory. In Syria, they've made a habit of targetting things that make civilian life possible, deliberately targetting hospitals and water treatment plants, and there is no reason to think they would behave differently towards Ukraine.

Is is possible that they might act differently to the extent that the ostensible political objective is annexation rather than elimination of a military or economic foe? There doesn't seem much point in destroying the infrastructure of a place that you are claiming to want to return to the bosom of the loving mother country. But maybe I am being hopelessly naive, especially since "no plan survives contact with the enemy".

I mean, that's what the Assadists claimed, and look how they and their allies behaved. I'm pretty sure Putin knows most Ukrainians detest him, he just doesn't care because he sees them as lesser.

I mean Ukrainians disliking Russians culturally known to the point it's common in jokes on both sides of the border, ie "A Ukrainian man says to another "The Muscovites have flown into space", to which the other hopefully replies "All of them?""

[El Pollo Diablo]

f.ck off fascist scum.

Mods, why is this fascist apologist still a member?

Because we didn't make support for the West a forum rule, I guess. I think he's a nipple, but talking sh.t about what Ukrainians think isn't enough for a ban.

And besides, you're doing a great job of putting him right.

[EACLucifer]

f.ck off fascist scum.

Mods, why is this fascist apologist still a member?

Because we didn't make support for the West a forum rule, I guess. I think he's a nipple, but talking sh.t about what Ukrainians think isn't enough for a ban.

Ultimately the interpretation of the rules is up to you, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.

But I don't despise him for not supporting the west. I despise him for constantly promoting a regime engaged in hideous human rights abuses against racial, religious and linguistic minorities and refusing to engage with evidence to that effect when presented with it. Unless, that is, in the time I wasn't here he actually acknowledged the pictures of the camps and the destroyed mosques.

And besides, you're doing a great job of putting him right.

Thanks, but I'm not - the f.cker's still here, still licking dictator's boots, and it's all very well showing him up for what he is, but it only really works if its done every time the f.cker pops up, and that's exhausting.

[Bird on a Fire]

I still reckon my "access to the black sea" idea has some legs.

Take way Ukraine, finish all the lovely roads from Moscow to the Ukraine border by linking them to Ukraine, and claim a big victory over the West when they relax because you don't invade the rest of the place.

I know he's said otherwise, but he is Putin.

[monkey]

I still reckon my "access to the black sea" idea has some legs.

Take way Ukraine, finish all the lovely roads from Moscow to the Ukraine border by linking them to Ukraine, and claim a big victory over the West when they relax because you don't invade the rest of the place.

I know he's said otherwise, but he is Putin.

Yeah, I don't think Russia will occupy the whole of Ukraine either, but I see it more like a film gangster cutting a finger off someone as a warning, rather than just killing them*. The advantages/disadvantages of annexing one territory over another is just deciding which finger to cut off.


*There'll be a bit in the scene where he turns to Estonia, etc. and says "look at what he made me do." and all. Also, I'm not sure how much this sort of thing actually happens in films, but it feels right.

[Woodchopper]

It's not like Russia, the US or the UK for that matter are particularly worth listening to on geopolitics. They're all full of aggressive bluster and exceptionalist b.llsh.t.

What are nice countries saying? Let's hear from, say, Finland.

This statement by Kenya is worth watching to the end: https://youtu.be/ZxZlaiuicYM

[EACLucifer]

Russia has already committed one specific warcrime - the forced conscription of men and boys in occupied territory. Compelling persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power has been recognised as a warcrime as far back as the Hague Convention, and has been reiterated since.

In addition, there's reports that some of the lads they are forcing into the conflict are far too young to be soldiers - reportedly even boys as young as fourteen.

[Sciolus]

Are we entirely 100% sure Ukraine doesn't have a nuclear warhead somewhere, hidden away at the collapse of the USSR?

What about other WMD? Did the USSR run any chemical/bio programs in Ukraine?

Very very unlikely that they could have kept one back from the Cold War. The leaders in Moscow knew how many were in Ukraine and how many were returned.

Also very unlikely that they have a secret nuclear weapons programme. Monitoring is strict and it would be difficult for Ukraine to have built nuclear bombs in secret.

Other WMD probably wouldn't be much use even if they were available. Use of a bio weapon would probably risk killing more Ukrainians than Russians. Gas is an unpredictable battlefield weapon and its use against Russian civilians would see Ukraine being perceived as an international pariah.

As I recall, when the Soviet Union fell part, Ukraine was very clear that it didn't want any nuclear weapons, as a signal of its break with the past and its independence from Russia. And without a maintenance programme, any 30-odd-year-old warheads in lurking someone's garden shed will be duds by now.

[Brightonian]

Better red than dead, as we responded to Protect and Survive leaflets back in the day.

Just remembered this from around the same time: https://www.thirdmindbooks.com/pages/bo ... nse-notice

[Imrael]

I think nuclear weapons have a shelf life? I realise this just piles another unlikeliness factor on.

[EACLucifer]

I feel absolutely helpless about all of this, and it's horrible knowing that a lot of completely innocent people are going to be killed because of a dictator, his cronies, and racism.

[Pishwish]

Tom Nichols on Ukraine's nukes.

[Gfamily]

Powerful speech by President Zelensky, reported by Max Seddon of the FT.

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/14 ... 9563709443

One for the ages.

[Woodchopper]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine in a speech on Thursday night that appeared to serve as a declaration of war.

[…]

Putin said the military operation would be intended to "demilitarize and de-nazify Ukraine," but not to occupy it.

Looks like an attempt at regime change then.

[Woodchopper]

This site has a good map which displays events as they happen. Some of the information comes from social media so the usual caveats apply. https://liveuamap.com/

[temptar]

It's not like Russia, the US or the UK for that matter are particularly worth listening to on geopolitics. They're all full of aggressive bluster and exceptionalist b.llsh.t.

What are nice countries saying? Let's hear from, say, Finland.

This statement by Kenya is worth watching to the end: https://youtu.be/ZxZlaiuicYM

Not sure I can find BOAF's op here so I am going to specifically add that Finland unequivocally condemn Russian military measures.

Bear in mind, Finland was granted independence in 1917, and that the question of territory granted independence in 1917 came up during the speech the other day. Suffice to say that this is not an abstract news item for them. Unlike the US and the UK, this is close to home and their views probably have more in common with the Baltic republics and Poland.

[secret squirrel]

So it's war then. How far will this go? I'm reminded of this quote from the end of Eric Schlosser's book 'Command and Control':

Right now thousands of missiles are hidden away, literally out of sight, topped with warheads and ready to go, awaiting the right electrical signal. They are a collective death wish, barely suppressed. Every one of them is an accident waiting to happen, a potential act of mass murder. They are out there, waiting, soulless and mechanical, sustained by our denial—and they work

[bob sterman]

So it's war then. How far will this go? I'm reminded of this quote from the end of Eric Schlosser's book 'Command and Control':

Right now thousands of missiles are hidden away, literally out of sight, topped with warheads and ready to go, awaiting the right electrical signal. They are a collective death wish, barely suppressed. Every one of them is an accident waiting to happen, a potential act of mass murder. They are out there, waiting, soulless and mechanical, sustained by our denial—and they work

If the US and Russia have been abiding by their 1994 detargeting agreement - their ICBMs and SLBMs are not currently targeted at each other. The missiles are supposedly either not currently loaded with targets or are targeted at open ocean.

https://nuke.fas.org/control/detarget/index.html

[Woodchopper]

So it's war then. How far will this go?

Since 1945 nuclear armed states and their allies have avoided all out war with each other. Instead they fought wars in and over proxies (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua etc). Despite supporting separate sides, Russian and Nato members' forces in Syria mostly avoided direct contact with each other.

If all sides continue with that unwritten rule and Ukraine continues fighting it'll probably mean that:

a) States in Europe and north America provide Ukraine with aid (financial and military) but don't directly attack Russian units.
b) Russia retaliates against states supporting Ukraine by using measures short of war, for example 'anonymous' cyber attacks or other acts of sabotage, such as damaging undersea cables or pipelines without admitting responsibility, and spreading disinformation.
c) Trade will be disrupted. There may be sustained high prices and shortages of cereal crops (Ukraine and Russia are major exporters), gas in Europe, oil everywhere, and of minerals exported by Russia or Ukraine.

But we should still be worried about the prospect of a nuclear war. People make mistakes, leaders miscalculate, conflicts can escalate. As Carl Sagan pointed out many years ago, confrontation between nuclear armed states is like "two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five".

[Edited to fix spelling and syntax]