Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[andysays]

Indeed. But I think you're missing the point.

It depends what point you think is being made.

Britain and France effectively acquiesced in the annexation of the Sudetenland and the subsequent occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia, which is contrary to what another poster was saying.

Britain and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, because they had previously agreed to intervene if Poland was invaded.

The point I was making is that the agreement to intervene is the difference, and in the current situation there was no agreement to intervene if Ukraine was invaded, as there would be if Russia invaded eg any NATO country.

 

[Mr Moose]

Disappointed that theres been no sign of any Security Council proposed resolution yet to independently check what happened in Bucha. I didn’t see all the speeches but all those I did called for it.

You are right. It is important to establish the facts, but we can’t be in any doubt that civilians have been deliberately targeted, from the cluster bombings of big housing estates, to the destruction of hundreds, maybe thousands of tower blocks. Given a campaign of such ferocious hatred towards non-combatants, the absence of individual civilian killings would be extraordinary.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Disappointed that theres been no sign of any Security Council proposed resolution yet to independently check what happened in Bucha.

With Russia being a permanent member, is that even possible?

 

[agricola]

With Russia being a permanent member, is that even possible?

They’d have to veto it, which for a genuinely independent one would be telling in and of itself.

 

[LDC]

There was a UNSC meeting today to discuss it. The UN is slow and bureaucratic, it can't just get things like investigations done at the drop of a hat.

That and Russia calling for one on their terms and knowing it was likely to get refused then enables them to play on the 'look it's fake and they won't investigate' thing, and you can see how that's been taken up by plenty of people (Galloway, etc etc.).

 

[DaveCinzano]

There’s a self-fulfilling prophecy at work. We have to get the Nazis. The people resisted. Conclusion, the Nazi problem was worse than we thought. Kill them all.

Anyone who runs, is a Ukrainian nazi.

Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined Ukrainian nazi.

 

[Cid]

They’d have to veto it, which for a genuinely independent one would be telling in and of itself.

What 'genuinely independent' means is always going to open to interpretation.

 

[agricola]

What 'genuinely independent' means is always going to open to interpretation.

Indeed, though the ten current SC temporary members would be a good mix I think that would be hard to criticise as not being independent. Ask them to provide the police / forensic teams whilst Ukraine and the five permanent SC members send an observer. Give them a week and a ceasefire and let them report what they've found.

 

[Leighsw2]

Not at all. Who are you casting in the role of next up for Putin then, if Ukraine is standing in for Czechoslovakia?

Ukraine isn't 'standing in' for anything. The OP suggested that Petcha's grasp of history was 'somewhat shaky' - of the details perhaps, but they appear to have grasped the meanings of that period rather better than some on here.

 

[Cid]

Indeed, though the ten current SC temporary members would be a good mix I think that would be hard to criticise as not being independent. Ask them to provide the police / forensic teams whilst Ukraine and the five permanent SC members send an observer. Give them a week and a ceasefire and let them report what they've found.

Less who the members are, more the practical details of how that would pan out on the ground... E.g Russia would just turn around and say 'we cannot agree to a ceasefire, the nazis will use it as an opportunity to engineer x or y false flag'. Probably make demands about private interrogation etc... You get the general idea.

It needs standards of investigation and multilateral cooperation established before the crimes take place to be effective... I'd kind of assumed that would already be in place? Seems er... a bit of an oversight.

 

[xenon]

How would that even work. Investigators in the West without a military protection force. Whilst the same crimes are committed in the east of the country.

 

[agricola]

Less who the members are, more the practical details of how that would pan out on the ground... E.g Russia would just turn around and say 'we cannot agree to a ceasefire, the nazis will use it as an opportunity to engineer x or y false flag'. Probably make demands about private interrogation etc... You get the general idea.

It needs standards of investigation and multilateral cooperation established before the crimes take place to be effective... I'd kind of assumed that would already be in place? Seems er... a bit of an oversight.

TBF I don't think it does - yes, it could be messed with but doing that just makes it more obvious to the SC who is guilty.

 

[xenon]

The SC know who is entirely guilty. Prevarication is only politically expedient. Anyone denying Russian forces have committed war crimes in Ukraine is doing so for political reasons, not naivete. Still I suppose the theatre must happen. Tick all the boxes.

 

[Leighsw2]

It depends what point you think is being made.

Britain and France effectively acquiesced in the annexation of the Sudetenland and the subsequent occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia, which is contrary to what another poster was saying.

Britain and France declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, because they had previously agreed to intervene if Poland was invaded.

The point I was making is that the agreement to intervene is the difference, and in the current situation there was no agreement to intervene if Ukraine was invaded, as there would be if Russia invaded eg any NATO country.

At Munich Britain and France ceded the Sudetenland to Germany (over the heads of the Czech government who knew it would leave them defenseless as that was where their forts were) in the (sincere) belief this would lead to peace (ie. the policy of classic appeasement). Germany's occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 meant that no further pretence could be maintained that appeasement would work, hence Britain and France began to prepare for war and offered, an essentially meaningless, guarantee to Poland (who, it was clear, would be next in line for Nazi expansionism.) When the Germans invaded Poland later that year, the Western allies had no choice but to act on their guarantee and declare war, even though they did nothing to act in support of Poland, which was overrun within weeks.

Therefore the policy at Munich ('land for peace) served only to sell out the only democracy in central Europe in Prague and then to support a very nasty military dictatorship in Warsaw while managing to save neither from Nazi aggression and plunging the whole continent into war.

So, the Western allies did not 'acquiesce' in the annexation of the Sudetenland, they saw it as a constructive response to the 'problem' of Czechoslovakia; they were preparing for war from March 1939, not September; and they did not 'intervene' following the invasion of Poland, they essentially stood aside and did nothing for the next six months (an extension of the appeasement mindset in wartime).

Other than that, your history is spot on!

 

[Cid]

TBF I don't think it does - yes, it could be messed with but doing that just makes it more obvious to the SC who is guilty.

There are two problems with that... the first is kind of basic law things. Above was just me thinking on the hoof, but without a previously established framework it's not too hard to give enough evidence that conditions on the ground will make investigations inherently unfair. Russian observers will be in hostile territory... They will be vulnerable to threats from militants looking to intimidate them into presenting a certain view. As a consequence they'll need additional security details, will need safe conduct from the Belarus border etc etc. Easy to turn into a quagmire of argument.

Second is that we're working from a specific viewpoint. I'm very unsure what the viewpoint of the upper echelons of the CCP is at the moment. It shouldn't be too hard to frame this as fact finding of course, they would pretty much have to agree to that (may even want to). But it would be hard to do that rapidly I think... Hopefully there's a way.

e2a: Just so I'm clear, I absolutely think there should be a very long discussion tonight of how multilateral observers can be on the ground tomorrow.

 

[Leighsw2]

I'm not a fan of parallels with the 1930s, which are often misused and usually misleading. However, there is a real stench of Munich and the Sudetenland about some of the commentary in the West about the 'problem' of Ukraine and how we can trade the Donbas in return for 'peace'. The scenes in Burcha (and no doubt in cities and villages across the south and east of Ukraine) demonstrate the folly of that view; why the Ukrainians are fighting and why they're right to do so.

 

[A380]

At Munich Britain and France ceded the Sudetenland to Germany (over the heads of the Czech government who knew it would leave them defenseless as that was where their forts were) in the (sincere) belief this would lead to peace (ie. the policy of classic appeasement). Germany's occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 meant that no further pretence could be maintained that appeasement would work, hence Britain and France began to prepare for war and offered, an essentially meaningless, guarantee to Poland (who, it was clear, would be next in line for Nazi expansionism.) When the Germans invaded Poland later that year, the Western allies had no choice but to act on their guarantee and declare war, even though they did nothing to act in support of Poland, which was overrun within weeks.

Therefore the policy at Munich ('land for peace) served only to sell out the only democracy in central Europe in Prague and then to support a very nasty military dictatorship in Warsaw while managing to save neither from Nazi aggression and plunging the whole continent into war.

So, the Western allies did not 'acquiesce' in the annexation of the Sudetenland, they saw it as a constructive response to the 'problem' of Czechoslovakia; they were preparing for war from March 1939, not September; and they did not 'intervene' following the invasion of Poland, they essentially stood aside and did nothing for the next six months (an extension of the appeasement mindset in wartime).

Other than that, your history is spot on!

That's a very 70s analysis. It's not that 'they' did nothing for six months. That was vital time that the UK spent on ramping up military preparations, especially air defence in terms of radar installations, fighter production, pilot training and command and control.

I'm not sure if this is analogous to now, although I image (hope) 'we' are stepping up production of replacements for the anti armour missiles and Manpads we have given to Ukraine and perhaps socking up on cruise missiles and similar...

 

[Pickman's model]

Ukraine isn't 'standing in' for anything. The OP suggested that Petcha's grasp of history was 'somewhat shaky' - of the details perhaps, but they appear to have grasped the meanings of that period rather better than some on here.

Iyo

 

[Leighsw2]

That's a very 70s analysis.

Which part is 'very 70s'? the part about March-September 1939 ('we only did Munich to buy more time for rearmament, honest!') or the part about the Phony War after September 1939 ('let's not bomb Hitler, he might retaliate!')?

 

[Pickman's model]

At Munich Britain and France ceded the Sudetenland to Germany (over the heads of the Czech government who knew it would leave them defenseless as that was where their forts were) in the (sincere) belief this would lead to peace (ie. the policy of classic appeasement). Germany's occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 meant that no further pretence could be maintained that appeasement would work, hence Britain and France began to prepare for war and offered, an essentially meaningless, guarantee to Poland (who, it was clear, would be next in line for Nazi expansionism.) When the Germans invaded Poland later that year, the Western allies had no choice but to act on their guarantee and declare war, even though they did nothing to act in support of Poland, which was overrun within weeks.

Therefore the policy at Munich ('land for peace) served only to sell out the only democracy in central Europe in Prague and then to support a very nasty military dictatorship in Warsaw while managing to save neither from Nazi aggression and plunging the whole continent into war.

So, the Western allies did not 'acquiesce' in the annexation of the Sudetenland, they saw it as a constructive response to the 'problem' of Czechoslovakia; they were preparing for war from March 1939, not September; and they did not 'intervene' following the invasion of Poland, they essentially stood aside and did nothing for the next six months (an extension of the appeasement mindset in wartime).

Other than that, your history is spot on!

Italy written out of your version of history. As is the Soviet Union who eagerly grabbed half of Poland leading to its incorporation in the USSR You say first the guarantee of Poland was essentially meaningless and then you say supported a nasty military dictatorship in Warsaw. Nor sure meaningless support is really that great an asset.

I don't know what you think happened in the first six months of the war - do you think the British expeditionary force was ready to rumble in September 1939? Look back at 1991 and 2003, at the time it took to assemble and transport the British and American forces against Iraq. These things take time, and your ignorant sneering does you no favours.

After all, the declaration of war was on no receipt of an undertaking from herr hitler to withdraw his forces from Poland, not at a time convenient to Britain.

 

[A380]

Which part is 'very 70s', the part about March-September 1939 ('we only did Munich to buy more time for rearmament, honest!') or the part about the Phony War after September 1939 ('let's not bomb Hitler, he might retaliate!')?

Sorry, I understand each word but I can’t work out what it is you are asking.

 

[Dystopiary]

Aid trucks made it into Bucha today.

 

[tim]

It's normalised. likesfish posted a link to a useful article about it: Dedovshchina - Wikipedia

What's the British army term for that?
Child murder, torture and sexual abuse by British troops covered up by government, report alleges

Kenya: How British Soldiers Flout the Rules of Engagement in the Country

 

[tim]

I can't read the article as it's behind a paywall but it seems fairly obvious to me that he's talking about the permanent militarisation of society because of an existential threat (and not about repressing whatever might be Ukraine's equivalent of Palestinians).

I assume that in the future Ukraine's equivalent of the Palestinians will be Russian speakers and in particular the substantial proportion of the population who voted for Yanukovich and the party of the regions. I can't imagine that those who chose not to move to Russia or Russian-occupied areas won't experience repression.

 

[zahir]

A large part of the population are Russian speakers. It's the majority language in Kiev. They're not some kind of oppressed minority.

 

[CyberRose]

I assume that in the future Ukraine's equivalent of the Palestinians will be Russian speakers and in particular the substantial proportion of the population who voted for Yanukovich and the party of the regions. I can't imagine that those who chose not to move to Russia or Russian-occupied areas won't experience repression.

I don't know what the current situation is, but originally, the infamous Azov battalion was majority Russian-speaking...

 

[zahir]

I don't know what the current situation is, but originally, the infamous Azov battalion was majority Russian-speaking...

It still is. It's based in Mariupol, a Russian speaking city.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah sorry this is way off the mark. It's nothing like the Palestinians.

Zelensky is a Russian speaker as is the mayor of Mariupol. Lots of Ukrainian refugees ending up in eg Moldova don't speak Ukrainian or speak it minimally. I've heard from people who were in Kyiv even a couple of years ago that most people continued speaking Russian in everyday interactions. Historically places like Lviv have been the heartland of the Ukrainian language.

I assume that in the future Ukraine's equivalent of the Palestinians will be Russian speakers and in particular the substantial proportion of the population who voted for Yanukovich and the party of the regions. I can't imagine that those who chose not to move to Russia or Russian-occupied areas won't experience repression.

 

[gosub]

Yes, I'm saying that brutality, specifically the rape and murder of civilian populations, is a regular feature of war. It's disgusting and seemingly beyond comprehension but the Americans did it, the Germans did it, the Russians have done it before, the Japanese did it and even the British have done it.

Yeah true.. All true. But we also set up institutions and mechanisms for the monsters it creates.And for the first in a while happy to be on the just edge though ain't always so.. Doesn't just apply to the violence. Russell Brand was outraged today that Ukraine had made its debt payments shock horror their fighting bad guys surely they should be left off...Both sides of this conflict seem to reference the Nazis ...I was well alive before the debts UK ran up keeping my grandparents in kit while that fought proper Nazis.

Ita within the nature ofv hings. Doesn't mean it isn't horrendously crap though.

I heard A Russian POW captured very early on saying the flywheel has sated we have to try and stoo it. It was a good line.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't know what the current situation is, but originally, the infamous Azov battalion was majority Russian-speaking...

There are quite a few people voluntarily switching from speaking Russian to Ukrainian now TBF.