Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Rob Ray]

I'm a bit nonplussed by this whole argument tbh. Like I'm against the introduction of more cluster munitions into any theatre of war for the same reason I'm against phosphorus or Agent Orange. Russia doing that stuff doesn't justify anyone else joining in.

But that doesn't really conflict with the view that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine it'll continue down an expansionist path creating further wars, or that it should be prevented from inflicting the human rights crimes on all of Ukraine that it has done to the 20% of the country it already holds, and therefore that the people in Ukraine deserve solidarity in defending themselves.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

That's a really peculiar post which doesn't seem to respond to the quote from me

What else do you expect a few minutes before midnight on a Friday evening?

 

[TopCat]

Whatever the Russians use should be used against them, but more effectively and in greater numbers.

A clear answer. I can see the logic

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm a bit nonplussed by this whole argument tbh. Like I'm against the introduction of more cluster munitions into any theatre of war for the same reason I'm against phosphorus or Agent Orange. Russia doing that stuff doesn't justify anyone else joining in.

But that doesn't really conflict with the view that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine it'll continue down an expansionist path creating further wars, or that it should be prevented from inflicting the human rights crimes on all of Ukraine that it has done to the 20% of the country it already holds, and therefore that the people in Ukraine deserve solidarity in defending themselves.

The argument proposed in the second paragraph seems to me one that's made to gull the credulous. Even if putin wins it will take years to restore the Russian army to the power it possessed before the war began in terms of personnel, morale, equipment and competence. There would be no swift drive to the channel or great sweep through the baltic states. How do proponents of this putin is the new Hitler/great dictator square their extravagant claims of untamed russian expansionism with the facts of great Russian losses of materiel and personnel and treasure? Does anyone now honestly believe the Russian war machine will ever roll into any of its Western neighbours save Belarus?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The US and UK interventions over the past three decades in Iraq and Afghanistan have been on a similar scale to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Arguably true. There is a big psychological difference (which doesn't help those unfortunate millions who are on the receiving end). Russia behaves in this fashion with its immediate neighbours, with its own citizens and with those it claims are its own citizens. Save Mariupol from the Nazis by destroying the place. Save Ukrainians from themselves by kidnapping their children.

 

[TopCat]

That's a really peculiar post which doesn't seem to respond to the quote from me

He is sure you agree with all that though.

 

[Kaka Tim]

When agreements were made to try and ban cluster munitions I think most people were working on the assumption that the nations using them would be doing the attacking - NATO countries, Russia, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia- in "asymetetric" conflicts against "insurgents" or "rebel provinces" - so conflicts like iraq, syira, yemen where the people on the reciving end were armed with nothing more than IEDs, rocket launchers and Ak47s. In that situation its about trying to curb the worst effects of the aggresors weaponary. I dont think anyone really enviasged they would looking at a mid 20th centuray style conventional war where the defenders were a modern state figthing an existnetial struggle with a similar level of weaponary to their attackers.
The ukranians are going to use every means at their disposal to defend themselves against an invader who has no quams whatsover what weapsons they are using and are actively targetting civilians - its ridiculous to expect them to do anything else. Seeing as the cluster munitions are going to used on Ukranian land and it will be them who have to deal with the consequences the "right to self defence" argument kind of trumps any moral quams. The line as to what the west should be giving Ukraine is probably up to the point where it could be used to do sigjnificant harm on Russian civilians - WMDs and such.
In this scenario cluster munitions are not significantly more immoral or harmful then all the other horrible ways that ukaiune is having to defend itself. Bullet wounds, shrapenel, incineration, bombs, drone strikes, being buried alive, drowned, roasted to death inside a tank - its all horrific. But the consequnces of not doing so are even more horrific death and destruction on an even greater scale.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Just listened to (Radio 4 this morning: all the talking heads supported cluster bombs, the foreign correspondent rabidly so. The general (Sherif?) was pure Strangelove. This narrative is being pushed by hawks not war opponents

Reading between the lines, the Uke ‘offensive’ clearly not going well.

The Saintly Princess Dianas campaign against them not mentioned. Fancy that. What price an interviewer asking Prince Willy Wonker about pissing on his mothers legacy by the use of such bombs? After all the UK has banned them so he wouldnt be challenging protocol……no, thought not

 

[Pickman's model]

When agreements were made to try and ban cluster munitions I think most people were working on the assumption that the nations using them would be doing the attacking - NATO countries, Russia, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia- in "asymetetric" conflicts against "insurgents" or "rebel provinces" - so conflicts like iraq, syira, yemen where the people on the reciving end were armed with nothing more than IEDs, rocket launchers and Ak47s. In that situation its about trying to curb the worst effects of the aggresors weaponary. I dont think anyone really enviasged they would looking at a mid 20th centuray style conventional war where the defenders were a modern state figthing an existnetial struggle with a similar level of weaponary to their attackers.
The ukranians are going to use every means at their disposal to defend themselves against an invader who has no quams whatsover what weapsons they are using and are actively targetting civilians - its ridiculous to expect them to do anything else. Seeing as the cluster munitions are going to used on Ukranian land and it will be them who have to deal with the consequences the "right to self defence" argument kind of trumps any moral quams. The line as to what the west should be giving Ukraine is probably up to the point where it could be used to do sigjnificant harm on Russian civilians - WMDs and such.
In this scenario cluster munitions are not significantly more immoral or harmful then all the other horrible ways that ukaiune is having to defend itself. Bullet wounds, shrapenel, incineration, bombs, drone strikes, being buried alive, drowned, roasted to death inside a tank - its all horrific. But the consequnces of not doing so are even more horrific death and destruction on an even greater scale.

This isn't a mid-c20 conventional war as ought to be clear to anyone who has observed eg the importance of drones and guided weapons to the conflict let alone the internet.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

When agreements were made to try and ban cluster munitions I think most people were working on the assumption that the nations using them would be doing the attacking - NATO countries, Russia, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia- in "asymetetric" conflicts against "insurgents" or "rebel provinces" - so conflicts like iraq, syira, yemen where the people on the reciving end were armed with nothing more than IEDs, rocket launchers and Ak47s. In that situation its about trying to curb the worst effects of the aggresors weaponary. I dont think anyone really enviasged they would looking at a mid 20th centuray style conventional war where the defenders were a modern state figthing an existnetial struggle with a similar level of weaponary to their attackers.
The ukranians are going to use every means at their disposal to defend themselves against an invader who has no quams whatsover what weapsons they are using and are actively targetting civilians - its ridiculous to expect them to do anything else. Seeing as the cluster munitions are going to used on Ukranian land and it will be them who have to deal with the consequences the "right to self defence" argument kind of trumps any moral quams. The line as to what the west should be giving Ukraine is probably up to the point where it could be used to do sigjnificant harm on Russian civilians - WMDs and such.
In this scenario cluster munitions are not significantly more immoral or harmful then all the other horrible ways that ukaiune is having to defend itself. Bullet wounds, shrapenel, incineration, bombs, drone strikes, being buried alive, drowned, roasted to death inside a tank - its all horrific. But the consequnces of not doing so are even more horrific death and destruction on an even greater scale.

Cluster Bombs For Peace: fantastic slogan, though sounds familiar…

 

[ska invita]

Cluster bombs, like land mines will be a bastard to clear up. I just heard an estimate that it will take 750 years to clear up the land mines.
Cluster bombs, mines, war in general is all horrible and wrong and there will be no winners.

Just read this:
"Worldwide, civilians represented 97% of all cluster munition casualties, according to a report in August by the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, a campaign group that works to eradicate their use. Children accounted for 66% of all casualties where the age group was known, the report said."

If correct that seems a pretty sound reason that these bombs are nominally banned by most states

 

[Kaka Tim]

Just read this:
"Worldwide, civilians represented 97% of all cluster munition casualties, according to a report in August by the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, a campaign group that works to eradicate their use. Children accounted for 66% of all casualties where the age group was known, the report said."

If correct that seems a pretty sound reason that these bombs are nominally banned by most states

until those states get invaded by genocidal cunts.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Cluster Bombs For Peace: fantastic slogan, though sounds familiar…

Cluster Bombs For Peace: fantastic slogan, though sounds familiar…

Whats the alternative? "surrender for peace"?

 

[Rob Ray]

Even if putin wins it will take years to restore the Russian army to the power it possessed before the war began in terms of personnel, morale, equipment and competence.

But the only reason that is the case (if it is, which I'm not sure Georgia, for example, would agree with in terms of Russia's ability to overwhelm neighbours) is because Ukraine's self defence has degraded that capability. And "years" is not actually all that long, in the grand scheme, if the takeaway is that the sacrifice did bring victory, or something close enough to justify rapid rearmament.

I have also at no point compared Putin to Hitler. Putin is Putin, and more importantly the Russian State's logics are the Russian State's logics (which atm do not appear to involve reaching any form of peace, thus continuing the key problem for people who think Ukrainians should just sue for that). Those are what's of interest here, not fantasies about World War II re-runs.

 

[The39thStep]

Recent Human Rights Watch article on use of cluster bombs in Ukraine

Ukraine: Civilian Deaths from Cluster Munitions

New Human Rights Watch research found that Ukrainian cluster munition rocket attacks on Russian-controlled areas in and around the city of Izium in eastern Ukraine during 2022 caused many casualties among Ukrainian civilians. Both countries should stop using these inherently indiscriminate...

www.hrw.org

Video of use on citizens in Donetsk 2014

 

[Kaka Tim]

This isn't a mid-c20 conventional war as ought to be clear to anyone who has observed eg the importance of drones and guided weapons to the conflict let alone the internet.

Whatever the differences in tech Modern Nation states invading each other in a total war of conquest has no really been seen very much since the mid 20th centuray - and not at all since Iran Iraq. And the nature of it - tanks, artillary, planes, mines, fixed defences, trenches - is not signicently different from WW2.

 

[existentialist]

Just listened to (Radio 4 this morning: all the talking heads supported cluster bombs, the foreign correspondent rabidly so. The general (Sherif?) was pure Strangelove. This narrative is being pushed by hawks not war opponents

Reading between the lines, the Uke ‘offensive’ clearly not going well.

The Saintly Princess Dianas campaign against them not mentioned. Fancy that. What price an interviewer asking Prince Willy Wonker about pissing on his mothers legacy by the use of such bombs? After all the UK has banned them so he wouldnt be challenging protocol……no, thought not

Why the scare quotes around "offensive"?

 

[tim]

Reading between the lines, the Uke ‘offensive’ clearly not going well.

Nothing is going well for anyone, which is why we had the Prigozhin putsch.

 

[hash tag]

Whats the alternative? "surrender for peace"?

Fight for peace

 

[Pickman's model]

But the only reason that is the case (if it is, which I'm not sure Georgia, for example, would agree with in terms of Russia's ability to overwhelm neighbours) is because Ukraine's self defence has degraded that capability. And "years" is not actually all that long, in the grand scheme, if the takeaway is that the sacrifice did bring victory, or something close enough to justify rapid rearmament.

I have also at no point compared Putin to Hitler. Putin is Putin, and more importantly the Russian State's logics are the Russian State's logics (which atm do not appear to involve reaching any form of peace, thus continuing the key problem for people who think Ukrainians should just sue for that). Those are what's of interest here, not fantasies about World War II re-runs.

For future reference you don't need to tell me you haven't said things I haven't attributed to you

 

[ska invita]

But that doesn't really conflict with the view that if Russia is allowed to win in Ukraine it'll continue down an expansionist path creating further wars, or that it should be prevented from inflicting the human rights crimes on all of Ukraine that it has done to the 20% of the country it already holds, and therefore that the people in Ukraine deserve solidarity in defending themselves.

Every imperial-driven state or coalition of states is expansionist and will continue to fight further wars, sooner or later. Call me a Leninist but that is ingrained into capitalism. 'Winning' or 'losing' this or that battle matters little in that regard, it ignores the deeper reasons wars are fought.

Good honest quote related to this from US president Woodrow Wilson I saw recently:
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."

...that's only going to increase as we enter an era of climate change induced scarcity.
----

Also worth asking what Russia "winning" or "losing" acutally means - war is more complicated in outcomes than a football match. There's the maximalist win which seemingly many posters on this thread imagine, which is a total rout of the Russian army. I dont think people are being realistic about what that acutally looks like and entails. I expect it'll take a lot more than this batch of illegal bombs to achieve the annihilation of Russian forces. And if it all starts to really go that way then you have to factor in the Russian counter response and what that looks like. Careful what you wish for, to put it mildly.

At the other end of the spectrum even if an outcome sees Russia gain extensive Ukrainian territory it is possible to still say that Russia has already 'lost' this war. It is now considered a pariah by many states it was previously happily doing business with and that neo cold war status can only be a negative. Sanctions however ineffective will remain. A new 'iron' military curtain will be erected along every possible borderland. Putin's legitimacy is undermined and moves more firmly into dictator status.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Why the scare quotes around "offensive"?

Because it is a damp squib

 

[Pickman's model]

But the only reason that is the case (if it is, which I'm not sure Georgia, for example, would agree with in terms of Russia's ability to overwhelm neighbours) is because Ukraine's self defence has degraded that capability. And "years" is not actually all that long, in the grand scheme, if the takeaway is that the sacrifice did bring victory, or something close enough to justify rapid rearmament.

I have also at no point compared Putin to Hitler. Putin is Putin, and more importantly the Russian State's logics are the Russian State's logics (which atm do not appear to involve reaching any form of peace, thus continuing the key problem for people who think Ukrainians should just sue for that). Those are what's of interest here, not fantasies about World War II re-runs.

You say Ukraine's ability to defend itself. A very good point, as the Ukrainians didn't waste the period since 2014 and much improved its armed forces. But this was compounded by russia's intelligence failings which seem to have influenced putin's decision to kick things off, and their pisspoor operational and tactical performance. War is of course a multiplayer game and you can't assert an outcome to be but the product of one aspect of one side's performance if its to be meaningful.

I'd suggest the Russian army would need at least a decade to restore itself, not least because of the loss of so many senior officers. The effect of sanctions will hinder their ability to produce sophisticated weapons in stocks necessary for any large war. Look at the problems America would have sourcing missiles etc atm, then tell me how Russia might possibly do better than them and take on a continent with 4 times its population and many times its wealth. It just doesn't hold water.

 

[strung out]

Because it is a damp squib

just a very stupid man

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Whats the alternative? "surrender for peace"?

No: a negotiated peace like most wars end.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The leaders of states don't always make sensible decisions (hard to believe, I know). Putin could decide to do anything, logical calculations aside. Georgia? Belarus? These seem easy-ish prey, potentially, or might seem so. Russia won't be able to absorb all of Ukraine now, but it could still stir up trouble in Transnistria. Or encourage separatism amongst the Russian minorities in the Baltic states.

 

[Rob Ray]

Every imperial-driven state or coalition of states is expansionist and will continue to fight further wars, sooner or later.

Of course. I didn't argue otherwise. What I argued was that rapid rearmament and further warfare is encouraged by the perception of success.

Also worth asking what Russia "winning" or "losing" acutally means - war is more complicated in outcomes than a football match.

You don't say.

There's the maximalist win which seemingly many posters on this thread imagine, which is a total rout of the Russian army.

Not a prospect I've ever raised.

At the other end of the spectrum even if an outcome sees Russia gain extensive Ukrainian territory it is possible to still say that Russia has already 'lost' this war.

I'd certainly say Russia's ambitions have been set back significantly by the self-defence that many anti-war people on this thread were saying shouldn't happen, though if it all stopped tomorrow the newly annexed territories would still represent an extremely (oil, gas and food) rich prize and justification for the endeavour. I do find it slightly distasteful that some of those same people are using that hard-won gain, which they routinely rubbished while it was happening, as a new vector to try and justify abandoning solidarity with the Ukrainians now.

 

[tim]

Just listened to (Radio 4 this morning: all the talking heads supported cluster bombs, the foreign correspondent rabidly so. The general (Sherif?) was pure Strangelove. This narrative is being pushed by hawks not war opponents

You claim to be our resident investigative journalist specialising in the military and spooks. The fact that you don't know who this general is and couldn't even be bothered to check suggests that you are either on the slide or perhaps were bullshitting all along, but can no longer be bothered to hide it. It took me a couple of computer clicks.

General Richard Shirreff | Military Speakers

Do you have an agent marketing you to those in need of after-dinner speakers on the shady machinations of the security services?

 

[ska invita]

Of course. I didn't argue otherwise. What I argued was that rapid rearmament and further warfare is encouraged by the perception of success.

i think i misunderstood your post then
i understood it as have to beat russia so they dont do it again

 

[Rob Ray]

You say Ukraine's ability to defend itself. A very good point, as the Ukrainians didn't waste the period since 2014 and much improved its armed forces. But this was compounded by russia's intelligence failings which seem to have influenced putin's decision to kick things off, and their pisspoor operational and tactical performance. War is of course a multiplayer game and you can't assert an outcome to be but the product of one aspect of one side's performance if its to be meaningful.

I'd suggest the Russian army would need at least a decade to restore itself, not least because of the loss of so many senior officers. The effect of sanctions will hinder their ability to produce sophisticated weapons in stocks necessary for any large war. Look at the problems America would have sourcing missiles etc atm, then tell me how Russia might possibly do better than them and take on a continent with 4 times its population and many times its wealth. It just doesn't hold water.

I do agree that any putative threat of serious war with Western Europe is in effect over for the near to medium future, however I wonder if the loss of senior staff is actually as catastrophic as is sometimes painted. Famously analysis of the Russian Army's weakness has highlighted its corruption, second-string status in the institutional hierarchy and tendency to be more mouth than trousers in terms of battle readiness. But neither the Kremlin as a whole nor Putin as an individual are totally unable to draw their own conclusions from that, or start replacing makeweight bureaucrats with more effective soldiers in future. I'd not be nearly as sanguine about the future of a re-arming Russia fresh from a major victorious annexation if I was in a nearby non-Nato, mineral-rich country, for example.