Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[friedaweed]

piss poor

That's only two words. You need a turd

 

[maomao]

need a turd

That's mine.

 

[editor]

piss poor

Take a look at his last 5 posts in this thread and you tell me - in the feedback forum of course, else you'll get a warning - exactly how much things like videos of Simon and Garfunkel contributed to the discussion about Russia and the Ukraine invasion.

 

[Smangus]

Take a look at his last 5 posts in this thread and you tell me - in the feedback forum of course, else you'll get a warning - exactly how much things like videos of Simon and Garfunkel contributed to the discussion about the Russia and the Ukraine invasion.

I think we may need a bridge over troubled water here

 

[editor]

I'd be grateful if people quit the comedy stuff and let this discussion get back to the awful shit that's going down in Ukraine.

 

[WouldBe]

If the USA did the same in Mexico, or if/when China did/does the same in Taiwan or Kashmir, I can't imagine the same defence springing up from the UK left. Not at all.

I'm sure some on here would find a way to blame NATO for it.

 

[kebabking]

Sounds like the Russians are digging in. Wondering if they hope they can hold these lines over winter. Some of them are 60km behind the current front line. A question to those that know more then me (kebabking?) How effectively could you hold such fixed lines if your opponent has drones, western intelligence and very accurate missle systems. I'm assuming anything they dig can't withstand a hit from something delivered by HIMARS?

Ukraine: Putin claims he ‘shares pain’ of troops’ mothers - live

President meets women ahead of Russia’s Mother’s Day

www.independent.co.uk

On paper, they're fucked. There's an American saying that applies in this situation - if you can see it, you can hit it, and if you can hit it, you can kill it - however there are a couple of things which will/might mitigate their fuckedness.

Firstly, they still have a reasonably effective ground based air defence system over the Russian deployed force. Ukrainian UAV/drones have taken a right beating, and at a tactical level, it's Ukrainian operated drones which are giving the Russians such a headache.

Secondly, the winter weather, and the increasing distance of the fighting from where western intelligence gather aircraft are permitted to fly, will reduce the consistancy of the picture of the picture the Ukrainians are able to put together. An RC-135 doesn't care about snow, but the further away it is, the less it hears. Ukrainian drones, which fly at low level, are however very much effected by weather.

The third is, appropriately enough, Napoleon's Third Factor: the Moral Component. How will Russian troops cope with a winter in the field when it's clear that shit has gone south, their logistics are shit, and their ammunition dumps keep blowing up? The answer is, we don't know - but Russian troops have been here before and come through, albeit with horrific casualties and brutality, and (and this is a slightly controversial point) Russian troops, and particularly the newly mobilised, come from the poorest stratas of a state with fairly low living standards. Being hungry, being cold, having poor equipment, training, leadership, medical support and being treated pretty brutally are not going to be new experiences for them.

I think it's going to be a hard winter for all concerned. I don't think it's going to be easy for the Ukrainians, i don't think the Russians are going to fold, and I think the stakes are getting higher for Putin, but OTOH, underestimating the ability and morale of the Ukrainian army is a fools game.

 

[The39thStep]

On a brighter note here are some photos of American and Russian armed forces bumping into each other in Syria last month

 

[Dystopiary]

ANYWAY, lots of vatniks (and their imperialist running dogs) are having fits of the vapours about the fact that, while a group of Russian soldiers were apparently surrendering, one of them opened fire, with the result that the Ukrainians taking their surrender returned fire, and killed most or all of them.

The usual breathless cries of "war crime" are being uttered, conveniently forgetting the growing number of unarmed civilians who have been tortured to death by Russian soldiers.

That could well count as a war crime though, shooting any of the PoWs other than the one who fired at them.

 

[existentialist]

Verdi

That could well count as a war crime though, shooting any of the PoWs other than the one who fired at them.

Theoretically, yes. But if you watch the video, you can tell that the Ukrainian forces are - quite understandably - very much on a battle footing: this is not a quiet, negotiated surrender, but them pulling out surrendering troops and getting them down on the ground ASAP. There's a prone rifleman covering the group while (presumably) the one with the camera is ordering people around. And then yer man pops around the corner and starts spraying the Ukrainian troops with fire. At a group of pumped-up, armed, soldiers who are on a knife-edge for trouble. They reacted according to training - neutralise threats, protect their lives, react, react, react.

Whatever comes of this, it will not - cannot - be seen as a case of surrendering troops being "executed" in cold blood. Perhaps, ideally, to those of us sitting in comfy chairs and judging it with the benefit of hindsight, they could have resolved the situation with fewer casualties. Perhaps, if it was SAS doing a hostage retrieval operation in a sanitised environment, they would have been geared to a different threat and dealt with the shooter more "surgically". But they weren't. I really don't think they can be held responsible to the point of being indicted for war crimes.

 

[LDC]

Quite sickeningly hilarious all those going on about what a war crime this is/might be it is are the very same people that had no problem with Russia executing a bunch of prisoners without trial not so long ago. Some on here were even pleased about it.

 

[Dystopiary]

Theoretically, yes. But if you watch the video, you can tell that the Ukrainian forces are - quite understandably - very much on a battle footing: this is not a quiet, negotiated surrender, but them pulling out surrendering troops and getting them down on the ground ASAP. There's a prone rifleman covering the group while (presumably) the one with the camera is ordering people around. And then yer map pops around the corner and starts spraying the Ukrainian troops with fire. At a group of pumped-up, armed, soldiers who are on a knife-edge for trouble. They reacted according to training - neutralise threats, protect their lives, react, react, react.

Whatever comes of this, it will not - cannot - be seen as a case of surrendering troops being "executed" in cold blood. Perhaps, ideally, to those of us sitting in comfy chairs and judging it with the benefit of hindsight, they could have resolved the situation with fewer casualties. Perhaps, if it was SAS doing a hostage retrieval operation in a sanitised environment, they would have been geared to a different threat and dealt with the shooter more "surgically". But they weren't. I really don't think they can be held responsible to the point of being indicted for war crimes.

OK. It must have been a very difficult situation to find themselves in if they had a split-second life-or-death decision to make. I'm definitely not going to look at the video footage though.

 

[TopCat]

are the very same people that had no problem with Russia executing a bunch of prisoners without trial not so long ago. Some on here were even pleased about it.

Who do you refer?

 

[kebabking]

UnderAnOpenSky - an addition, because you were interested in weapons effect of GMLRS.

This (twitter, obvs..) is a video of the effects of the M31A1 Alternative Warhead, which instead of a unitary warhead (a 200lb big bang) or the now banned explosive sub-munitions (lots of little bangs), is in effect like a shotgun shell: it detonates above its target, and sends a cone of tungsten balls to its target.

Its designed to destroy unarmoured targets - vehicle parks, aircraft flight lines, radars, fuel dumps, ammunition dumps, logistics hubs, railway infrastructure, troops in the open, gun lines - though in truth it would also fuck up any tank that got in the way...

(Pendant point: though HIMARS tas taken the public imagination, it's only one of three types of GMLRS launcher in service in Ukraine - the UK and German systems fire twice as many rockets, though it's exactly the same rocket, from the same pod, controlled by the same fire control system)

 

[SpookyFrank]

Sorry to come back to this but 'unilaterally invaded' is a pointless tautology surely? Has an invasion ever happened by agreement of both parties?

Iraq was invaded by agreement among multiple parties, Afghanistan etc etc.

 

[The39thStep]

OK. It must have been a very difficult situation to find themselves in if they had a split-second life-or-death decision to make. I'm definitely not going to look at the video footage though.

Theres no actual video footage of the soldiers deaths ( thank heavens ) . All there is a video before when they have surrendered and are on the ground and then the other soldier firing . The other video show the bodies of the soldiers .

Nafo types have suggested that the Russian firing (edit : might be DPR) after the other soldiers have surrendered is committing a war crime . Others have suggested that the surrendered soldiers were shot in the head and may have had hands cut off.

Surely unless video does emerge of how those soldiers died any commentary is purely based on conjecture , speculation and bias ?

 

[Pickman's model]

Iraq was invaded by agreement among multiple parties, Afghanistan etc etc.

Yeh but significantly the Iraqis and the kabul government weren't party to the decisions to invade

 

[existentialist]

OK. It must have been a very difficult situation to find themselves in if they had a split-second life-or-death decision to make. I'm definitely not going to look at the video footage though.

I did watch the footage - because it hadn't occurred to me that it might be gory - and, while it wasn't, it was still very disturbing knowing what was about to happen. Which, of course, is not a luxury those - Russians and Ukrainians - necessarily had in the moment. War is horrible.

 

[Spymaster]

UnderAnOpenSky - an addition, because you were interested in weapons effect of GMLRS.

This (twitter, obvs..) is a video of the effects of the M31A1 Alternative Warhead, which instead of a unitary warhead (a 200lb big bang) or the now banned explosive sub-munitions (lots of little bangs), is in effect like a shotgun shell: it detonates above its target, and sends a cone of tungsten balls to its target.

Its designed to destroy unarmoured targets - vehicle parks, aircraft flight lines, radars, fuel dumps, ammunition dumps, logistics hubs, railway infrastructure, troops in the open, gun lines - though in truth it would also fuck up any tank that got in the way...

(Pendant point: though HIMARS tas taken the public imagination, it's only one of three types of GMLRS launcher in service in Ukraine - the UK and German systems fire twice as many rockets, though it's exactly the same rocket, from the same pod, controlled by the same fire control system)

Thermobaric stuff would clear out dug-in positions pretty quickly.

Is that considered an unconventional escalation?

 

[existentialist]

Thermobaric stuff would clear out dug-in positions pretty quickly.

Is that considered an unconventional escalation?

AFAIK, thermobarics against military "aren't nice", it's thermobarics against civilians that are beyond the pale.

 

[CNT36]

Thermobaric stuff would clear out dug-in positions pretty quickly.

Is that considered an unconventional escalation?

Hopefully.

 

[kebabking]

Thermobaric stuff would clear out dug-in positions pretty quickly.

Is that considered an unconventional escalation?

Nope, we've used them in Afghanistan.

NBCR would be our 'not-conventional' weapons, but within our conventional weapons, there aren't any lines, it's simply about what works on a particular target from a particular delivery system.

(We also use concrete bombs - take the explosive filling out and fill with concrete - good for bashing targets in built up areas, with much less likelihood of damage to stuff or people you aren't interested in harming. Think of a Toyota Hilux hitting something at about Mach 1...)

 

[elbows]

Yeh but significantly the Iraqis and the kabul government weren't party to the decisions to invade

And Blair wanted the cover of a UN agreement to invade but didnt get it and had to resort to blaming France for that.

 

[elbows]

Its depressing to hear that almost half the energy system has been disabled in Ukraine. The consequence of Russia changing their approach after failing miserably with their original plans.

 

[mojo pixy]

piss poor

You know what's really piss poor? That I could post this, off the top of my head...

So why didn't Putin / Russia (right now I can't see any clear difference) start negotiations years ago around spheres of influence, NATO expansion, "buffer states", neighbours joining the EU, etc etc all the stuff we're saying "contributed" to this war? I mean, explicitly and publicly and in full view like a statesperson. Why solve the problem by military means? Was there really no other way for him to address these "concerns"?

Why does Ukraine have to negotiate now, not to lose bits of itself, when Russia wouldn't negotiate before to maintain its sphere of influence / check NATO expansion? Why has Putin's state been murdering dissidents, threatening neighbours and promoting conspiracism for years?

There's a massive double standard here, where Russia is being treated as if it's a nation without agency, so weak it had no choice but to lash out. While other states have to give up bits, Russia gets to just take them. Fine, if we want to live with that, personally it's unlikely to affect me me me, but why would anyone argue that this state is behaving in any way legitimately? If the USA did the same in Mexico, or if/when China did/does the same in Taiwan or Kashmir, I can't imagine the same defence springing up from the UK left. Not at all.

...and nobody's got a fucking thing to say about it.

 

[existentialist]

Nope, we've used them in Afghanistan.

NBCR would be our 'not-conventional' weapons, but within our conventional weapons, there aren't any lines, it's simply about what works on a particular target from a particular delivery system.

(We also use concrete bombs - take the explosive filling out and fill with concrete - good for bashing targets in built up areas, with much less likelihood of damage to stuff or people you aren't interested in harming. Think of a Toyota Hilux hitting something at about Mach 1...)

"passive kinetics"

 

[existentialist]

So why didn't Putin / Russia (right now I can't see any clear difference) start negotiations years ago around spheres of influence, NATO expansion, "buffer states", neighbours joining the EU, etc etc all the stuff we're saying "contributed" to this war? I mean, explicitly and publicly and in full view like a statesperson. Why solve the problem by military means? Was there really no other way for him to address these "concerns"?

Why does Ukraine have to negotiate now, not to lose bits of itself, when Russia wouldn't negotiate before to maintain its sphere of influence / check NATO expansion? Why has Putin's state been murdering dissidents, threatening neighbours and promoting conspiracism for years?

There's a massive double standard here, where Russia is being treated as if it's a nation without agency, so weak it had no choice but to lash out. While other states have to give up bits, Russia gets to just take them. Fine, if we want to live with that, personally it's unlikely to affect me me me, but why would anyone argue that this state is behaving in any way legitimately? If the USA did the same in Mexico, or if/when China did/does the same in Taiwan or Kashmir, I can't imagine the same defence springing up from the UK left. Not at all.

I think the sideshows ran away with the thread. But I completely agree with what you're saying - this is not about Russia-as-victim. And I think the China/Taiwan thing is probably exercising a few diplomat/international relations minds, because there are broadly similar moral ambiguities waiting to happen there.

 

[elbows]

You know what's really piss poor? That I could post this, off the top of my head...

...and nobody's got a fucking thing to say about it.

Its not actually a question of Russia not being willing to negotiate in the past, its a question of whether the parties they would negotiate with were going to consider any of their demands to be reasonable. I doubt this distinction will make much difference to what stance people will end up taking here on such matters.

Macron talked to Putin when war was looming, though I didnt study the details. Perhaps we should if we want to get into this particular angle. I know what the likes of Chomsky says about this but I doubt his angle will do the full story complete justice. Might offer some clues though.

 

[mojo pixy]

Its not actually a question of Russia not being willing to negotiate in the past, its a question of whether the parties they would negotiate with were going to consider any of their demands to be reasonable.

Well of course the past is the past, there's no going back. But likewise no way to be sure that Russian concerns over EU / NATO expansion wouldn't have been taken seriously had Putin chosen to try negotiating over it all at some point. The point is, he never even tried. Just let the resentment build up till there's nothing left to do about it but have a tantrum.

 

[elbows]

Well of course the past is the past, there's no going back. But likewise no way to be sure that Russian concerns over EU / NATO expansion wouldn't have been taken seriously had Putin chosen to try negotiating over it all at some point. The point is, he never even tried. Just let the resentment build up till there's nothing left to do about it but have a tantrum.

A brief skim over news articles from February and March suggest that the NATO stuff is exactly what Putin wanted to talk about and make demands about and go on and on about for hours and hours. We'd only have heard about the next stage of that if there had been any appetite to negotiate over such things from our own side. And since there was very little progress, I cannot make any claims about exactly how far those demands would have stretched. We didnt even reach the stage where this would have been spelt out as bluntly in our media as I am doing. Nor am I suggesting that we should have had those negotiations or offered loads on that front.

eg: In Moscow, Macron found a different, tougher Putin

And even Chomsky does not paint those particular talks as something the US etc scuppered. He instead refers to the earlier possibilities based on the Minsk agreement in order to make his usual complaint, and makes it clear that Putin rejected Macrons efforts. This quote is from a very recent interview:

Prior to Putin’s invasion there were options based generally on the Minsk agreements that might well have averted the crime. There is unresolved debate about whether Ukraine accepted these agreements. At least verbally, Russia appears to have done so up until not long before the invasion. The U.S. dismissed them in favor of integrating Ukraine into the NATO (that is, U.S.) military command, also refusing to take any Russian security concerns into consideration, as conceded. These moves were accelerated under Biden. Could diplomacy have succeeded in averting the tragedy? There was only one way to find out: Try. The option was ignored.

Putin rejected French president Macron’s efforts, to almost the last minute, to offer a viable alternative to aggression. Rejected them at the end with contempt — also shooting himself and Russia in the foot by driving Europe deep into Washington’s pocket, its fondest dream. The crime of aggression was compounded with the crime of foolishness, from his own point of view.

He then moves on to later peace efforts, once the war was already underway, in order to insinuate that the US & UK scuppered those.

Thats from Chomsky: Options for Diplomacy Decline as Russia’s War on Ukraine Escalates

So I'd probably have to go back to the Minsk stuff instead in order to pick at the detail of any viable pre-war negotiations.