Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

I think you're right, tbh.

Whilst there's a clear difference between supplying Russian made planes from the EU for use by Ukrainian pilots, and NATO pilots enforcing a no-fly zone in Typhoons and F16s, I doubt the Russians would be particularly swayed by the nuance, and I expect that's what's led to the climbdown over supplying the jets.

No, there is quite a difference. A no fly zone means a we fly zone and means war with Russia. The supply of weapons and planes still doesnt qualify for that category.

All the talk about the no fly zone is just because the Ukrainians keep asking for one but it isnt going to happen and so we just get a load of noise about it instead.
 
Well the targeting of their TV means Russia werent lying when they said earlier today that they were going to take down Ukraine comms.
 
China's problem is their claim that people should keep their noses out of other country's domestic affairs and this is being touted as a domestic affair, in the same way as Tibet and Taiwan are domestic affairs. So they can't show public displeasure at Putin's actions, but by abstaining at the UN they are not backing the mantra or the other 'communist' large state. Safe to say that China does not approve of this at all.
 
On the international law stuff - any decent lawyer will tell you that that doesn't really exist. At the inter-state level, it's all politics. The "international laws" are norms, at best, nothing more.

In terms of historical precedent for supplying people and kit, plenty of volunteer foreigners flew for the Brits in WW2 with US supplied planes. There is precedent there but ultimately it's probably a common sense question of fact and degree. If they are flying from bases in a "neutral" country to attack Russian assets while nominally flagged as Ukrainian but while actually being flown by Poles etc - that feels a bit much, to be honest. You could construct a logical and defensible argument to reach into that "neutral" country quite easily.

The no-fly zone idea is bonkers. A surefire sign that the advocate in question is completely out of their depth.
 
No, there is quite a difference. A no fly zone means a we fly zone and means war with Russia. The supply of weapons and planes still doesnt qualify for that category.

Not the point I was making. I know what a no-fly zone is and who would have to enforce it.

Bimble was asking about the difference between a NFZ and pumping EU jets into Ukraine for use by their pilots. From a Russian perspective the answer could quite reasonably be "not a lot", in terms of how things escalate.
 
Actually, looking at the history a bit more closely, it seems as if the fight was probably more advanced than I remembered before they got involved. Precedent there but perhaps not that useful.
 
According to Socialisticheskaya Alternativa, there have been a lot of these kinds of open letters. In fact they are saying that a majority of people in Russia may be against the war.

"While people are getting angry, the regime is trying to stop discussion. Ten media outlets have been told to stop using the words “war” and “intervention” when covering Ukraine, or they will be shut down. Access to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are being restricted. The number arrested for participating in anti-war protests is now almost 3,000. But opposition to the war in Russia appears to be growing. Letters written by different groups, medical workers, teachers, students, IT workers, artistic workers are collecting thousands of signatures, while a general petition against the war has already been signed by a million people."

I'd read about an open letter from the clergy just, though not many signatories at time of report.
 
As someone said earlier, what the Ukrainians would really need isn’t a ‘no fly zone’ but a ‘we fly zone’.

Given the Russians, sensible from their prospective, investment in ground based air defence systems, that would get very messy very quickly.
 
As someone said earlier, what the Ukrainians would really need isn’t a ‘no fly zone’ but a ‘we fly zone’.

Given the Russians, sensible from their prospective, investment in ground based air defence systems, that would get very messy very quickly.
i think it's already sufficiently messy
 
Not the point I was making. I know what a no-fly zone is and who would have to enforce it.

Bimble was asking about the difference between a NFZ and pumping EU jets into Ukraine for use by their pilots. From a Russian perspective the answer could quite reasonably be "not a lot", in terms of how things escalate.

The point you are making is directly related to the point I was making - there is a vast difference in terms of the Russian perceptions of that stuff. One instantly crosses a major, well understood red line. The other does not, even though it might seem weird to us that supplying arms etc is not seen in that category, thats just how the rules and red lines about such things in war have developed over many decades. Plus I thought the stuff earlier about a change of mind in regards supplying planes was a misunderstanding anyway, and those planes were still supplied. But I havent had time to look into that myself today.
 
Last edited:
Academics are Cunts 2: Electric Boogaloo

This Tonra lad has resigned a position (though not his job) over shame at his employer's position on Ukraine

"Prof Tonra explained to The Irish Times that he understood the muted UCD response to the invasion of Ukraine was linked to the presence of the Chinese Government-funded Confucius Institute on campus, increasingly a source of controversy among academics.


“My understanding is that the university didn’t make a stronger statement on Ukraine for fear someone would come back and say, ‘Why didn’t you say the same about China?’” he said."


Relevant to the role Chinese power (soft and hard) may be playing in all this.
 
Putin seems to have calculated correctly that Western governments are not going to get into a shooting war with Russia for the sake of bringing Ukraine into the EU and Nato. It seems like he's miscalculated somewhat about how easy it would be to occupy Ukraine - am I reading that right?
 
As someone said earlier, what the Ukrainians would really need isn’t a ‘no fly zone’ but a ‘we fly zone’.

Given the Russians, sensible from their prospective, investment in ground based air defence systems, that would get very messy very quickly.

No fly zone has always been a euphemism for a we fly zone, in every conflict in which the term has been used that I'm aware of.
 
China's problem is their claim that people should keep their noses out of other country's domestic affairs and this is being touted as a domestic affair, in the same way as Tibet and Taiwan are domestic affairs. So they can't show public displeasure at Putin's actions, but by abstaining at the UN they are not backing the mantra or the other 'communist' large state. Safe to say that China does not approve of this at all.
My sense is one of the tensions in the higher echelons is those who thought perhaps China's interests were best suited by a rules-based international order, hence finally coming into line with e.g. WTO stipulations despite some sacrifices of national interests and a mix of old school go your own way like Mao and even Deng who of course attacked Vietnam to tell them not to get too cosy with the Soviets and new hawks who think the country is big enough to make its own rules and force them on others where they can. Outcome of this will give a fillip to one side or the other.
 
Putin seems to have calculated correctly that Western governments are not going to get into a shooting war with Russia for the sake of bringing Ukraine into the EU and Nato. It seems like he's miscalculated somewhat about how easy it would be to occupy Ukraine - am I reading that right?

Sort of. On the first point not much calculation is required, there are pretty well defined red lines when it comes to Russia vs NATO countries, which have been drawn very clearly over many decades as a result of mutually assured destruction via nuclear weapons. Indeed part of the rationale for invading Ukraine in the first place is to take the opportunity to get it back within the Russian sphere of influence before the opportunity to do so is permanently lost via it moving into the realm beyond one of those red lines (eg by joining NATO or being more closely integrated into the EU etc).

In terms of miscalculations about the ease with which they could win in Ukraine, the most optimistic possible scenarios have failed to materialise for Russia, but they probably werent banking on those and its still incredibly early, so I am waiting till at least a few weeks have passed before forming any conclusions about that. Russia has been sloppy with its initial attempts but these failings dont necessarily represent a massive setback or something unexpected. And they've certainly been used for propaganda and morale-boosting purposes on the Ukrainian side and in the west, to the extent that those aspects have tended to dominate the news narrative in ways which could mislead people as to the extent that Russia are 'losing'.
 
Back
Top Bottom