-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
Mark Hertling has posted his After Action Report for the first nine months of the war.
Thread by @MarkHertling on Thread Reader App
When he looked at the Russian forces at start his conclusion was the same as mine, Russia wasn't bringing enough troops to the fight to completely take the country.
Thread by @MarkHertling on Thread Reader App
When he looked at the Russian forces at start his conclusion was the same as mine, Russia wasn't bringing enough troops to the fight to completely take the country.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Russia started preserving infrastructure thinking they would get the rest of the country the same way they got Crimea. Show up. Pound your chest and resistance would be light.
Now Russia knows they are not going to get Ukraine so they are destroying infrastructure to spite Ukraine. The only thing Russia understands is force so Russian elite infrastructure needs to get damaged. Find out what supports Putin and his cronies and enable Ukraine to destroy it with zero, or near zero, civilian collateral damage. Russia will understand that.
Without this, Russia will simply punch itself out. This meets Loyd's stated goals but at a tremendous cost to Ukraine.
Now Russia knows they are not going to get Ukraine so they are destroying infrastructure to spite Ukraine. The only thing Russia understands is force so Russian elite infrastructure needs to get damaged. Find out what supports Putin and his cronies and enable Ukraine to destroy it with zero, or near zero, civilian collateral damage. Russia will understand that.
Without this, Russia will simply punch itself out. This meets Loyd's stated goals but at a tremendous cost to Ukraine.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Russian war crimes continue
www.theguardian.com
Russia strikes are crime against humanity, Zelenskiy tells UN, as power cut in Ukraine and Moldova
Ukraine’s president labels Russia’s strikes on energy sites as crimes against humanity, as G7 discussions to cap Russian oil prices reportedly hit a set-back
www.theguardian.com
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I'm still of the FIRM opinion that Ukraine needs to be targeting Russian power infrastructure. Eye for eye. If the Ukrainians are going to be cold this winter, so should the Russians.
petit_bateau
Active Member
One war crime does not justify another in response.
However Ukraine needs to be given access to weapons that are sufficient to go after valid military targets (which can include logistics infrastructure) as deep into Russia as is necessary to bring this war to a swift end on Ukraine's terms.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
The Armenian prime minister refused to sign a declaration following the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit. Allegedly.
Also this:
Credit goes to (in Swedish):
cornucopia.se
Also this:
Credit goes to (in Swedish):
UPPDATERAS: Massivt ryskt terrorangrepp, hela Ukraina blev utan ström - Storbritannien skickar helikoptrar till Ukraina - dödshot mot EU-parlamentet från terroristorganisationen Wagner
Efter ett massivt ryskt robotangrepp och terrorbombning mot Ukraina under gårdagen bröts strömmen i hela Ukraina, samt grannlandet Moldavien och Kyjiv saknar till 70% ström och vatten fortfarande. Storbritannien meddelade igår att man som första land skickar helikoptrar som militärt stöd till Ukrain
cornucopia.se
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Until the beginning of next year. Allegedly.
KBF
Model X owner (formerly Cdn Signature Model S)
Could you explain the symbolism of these two clips for someone like me who isn't super familiar with this kind of posturing? It the Twitter comments people were talking about the colors of the folders near Putin but I didn't catch what was 'trolling' about that.The Armenian prime minister refused to sign a declaration following the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit. Allegedly.
Also this:
Credit goes to (in Swedish):
UPPDATERAS: Massivt ryskt terrorangrepp, hela Ukraina blev utan ström - Storbritannien skickar helikoptrar till Ukraina - dödshot mot EU-parlamentet från terroristorganisationen Wagner
Efter ett massivt ryskt robotangrepp och terrorbombning mot Ukraina under gårdagen bröts strömmen i hela Ukraina, samt grannlandet Moldavien och Kyjiv saknar till 70% ström och vatten fortfarande. Storbritannien meddelade igår att man som första land skickar helikoptrar som militärt stöd till Ukrain
The physical distancing is pretty overt - is it fair to say that Armenia and the 3 other countries (not sure who is who) are showing the world they aren't as committed as Russia's other 2 allies (is one of those Belarus?) to the CSTO?
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
No, not really.
The first tweet by Gerashchenko was merely intended as information about that the Armenian prime minister allegedly refused to sign that declaration following the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit. As I understand it though, unfortunately it doesn't mean anything significant with regards to the Dictators war against Ukraine. But at least it's something...
Perhaps someone else can add more context (or some such)...
I think the theory of war crimes is mostly based on reciprocity. I won't use chemical weapons if you don't. But if you do, then I will use them too. If you treat prisoners poorly, don't expect me to treat them well, etc.
I believe that Ukraine would be justified in hammering Russian infrastructure. Whether or not it is wise is another question. And whether or not NATO members would wish their weapons to be used in such a manner is a third question.
Last edited:
Honestly if they are going to start attacking Russia itself then the Ukrainians should just put a big fat missile into the Kremlin and whatever rat holes Putin is known to hide in. That would actually be more productive at bringing the war to an end.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
If they resort to equivalent attacks, they would lose the moral high ground. A war crime is still a war crime regardless of who "started it first".
KBF
Model X owner (formerly Cdn Signature Model S)
Another aspect to consider is that certain war crimes affect all of us, not just those in the conflict itself. Anything with nuclear fallout is an obvious one, and chemical weapons could theoretically drift. Poisoned agriculture can get into global supply, and poisoned water affects the oceans.
Global trade is huge, too - Russia's attacks on Ukraine have already affected world grain prices, hurting the most vulnerable in every country, and attacking Russia's civilian population could make it even worse. They're still exporting many things.
Careful targeting (an careful choice of responses) can mitigate some effects but not all, and we have to consider the consequences of inaction lengthening the war. This is a difficult and complex problem if one looks holistically at it. My default value is to aim to reduce civilian suffering, increase prosperity for the many, on a long time scale. It would be nice if it were easier to only affect those who have decision-making powers, like Putin and the oligarchs, but they tend to be able to defend themselves the best...
Don't hold the Ukrainians to a higher moral standard than we would hold ourselves if we were in the same situation. If the Russians attacked the electrical system in Washington, you bet your keister the US would be justified in attacking Moscow's electrical system. And "started it first" would be ample justification.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That depends on if attacking the electrical system falls under war crime territory, not "started it first". You were referring not only to attacking electrical systems, but also things like chemical weapons and treatment of prisoners.
I'll give some examples that perhaps should make things more clear.
For example, in WW2 Germany rounded up Jewish and other minority civilians and tried to exterminate them. Would the US be justified to round up German civilians to try to exterminate them as a form of retaliation? A similar thing did happen to the Japanese in terms of internment (although not extermination), and afterwards it was widely regarded as a mistake and an official apology and compensation was given.
Another example, in the Vietnam war, North Vietnam was known to brutally torture POWs. Would the US be justified to do the same in retaliation?
Where do we draw the line if "started it first" is the justification?
To be clear, I am not saying to not attack anything on Russian territory, but to attack things that have military significance and justification (earlier in the thread when discussing about conditions for continued supply of weapons from NATO, counterbattery fire is a clear example that would likely be fair game). Not just a revenge retaliatory attack that largely only affects civilians and would have little to no effect on changing the course of the war. Attacks on the electrical system sounds like the latter.
Last edited:
Putin spends a lot of time in Russia's equivalent of NORAD in the Ural Mountains which is designed to be resistant to nuclear weapons.
Limiting cross border attacks to targets of military significance near the border with the vast majority of attacks on targets within Ukraine is smart. It fuels the apathy that Russians have for the war. An attack on any significant civilian targets in Russia would likely trigger a patriotic response from the people akin to what 9/11 did to the US.
Playing the Psychological game in warfare is an important aspect. Russia is losing there too. By attacking Ukrainian infrastructure, they are creating more resolve in both Ukraine's allies as well as within the Ukrainian population.
When an enemy attacks infrastructure and there is a sense there is very little anyone can do about it, that can lead to an erosion of support for a war. However when there is a sense that the country can do something to defend itself effectively, attacks like that only make everyone dig in deeper.
Russia has only faced one enemy with the resources to fight back effectively in 80 years, and that was in Afghanistan. By the time time they got outside the boundaries of Soviet territory into what were other countries before the war, there was little hope of doing much more than just slowing the Soviet advance.
For most of Russia's history, the bulk of the armies they faced had limited resources to fight back and their terror tactics usually worked. The times they have faced armies with good resources and the ability to blunt their terror tactics, they lost unless they had one or more strong allies that could supply them with extra material and support.
Whenever Russia loses a war, it usually results in some kind of internal turmoil. The loss in the Crimean War led to the freeing of the serfs and a lot of land reform. The loss to the Japanese in the early 20th century war led to an uprising that almost topped the Czar. The loss in WWI did topple the Czar. The loss in Afghanistan contributed to the breakup of the USSR.
The Russian public tend to be far more accepting of heavy losses than a western power for a winning cause, but they are very intolerant of lives thrown away in a losing one. From the intercepted phone calls on wartranslated it's apparent that a lot of the Russian public are still under the impression that Russia is winning or on the verge of winning in Ukraine. The Kremlin is working hard to keep up the impression everything is going to plan or something is going to plan, but there will come a point when they can't keep up the facade anymore.
Chemical weapons usually only have a localized effect. They are so deadly because they are extremely reactive and because they are reactive they break down in the environment very quickly. They could do a lot of damage to wildlife near the battlefield though.
However biological weapons would probably not stay on the battlefield and would likely affect neighboring countries.
The best way to end the war now is :-
- Improve Ukrainian air defence and electricity grid resiliency.
- Destroy the bridge between Russian and Crimea.
- Sink some of the Russian navy.
- Liberate Crimea.
All of these are legitimate military targets, and IMO may be enough to end the war, It would be impossible for Russia to spin this outcome and a win, and they would know sooner or later they will lose the rest of the territory.
This is also part of the solution, as Europe and the World become less dependent on importing Russian energy, the more Russian economic and military prospects dwindle.
There is a clear path that might end the war by spring/summer, but Ukraine and Europe first need to survive the winter.
The problem is that there is nowhere to draw the line and so general guidelines of reciprocity were established, probably first under the auspices of the popes (in other words, applicable only among Christian adversaries). Recently, some have grafted on notions of human rights, but I think fundamentally it is still an issue of reciprocity.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't see reciprocity in any of the international standards for determining war crimes or in the laws of armed conflict. Instead, military necessity seems to be the guiding principal when it affects civilians. This applies to both property damage as well as civilian injuries and deaths.
UN definition of war crime includes:
"7. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly"
War crime - Wikipedia
"Military necessity "permits the destruction of life of ... persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable by the armed conflicts of the war; ... it does not permit the killing of innocent inhabitants for purposes of revenge or the satisfaction of a lust to kill. The destruction of property to be lawful must be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.""
War crime - Wikipedia
The only justification I really see for attacking electrical infrastructure is if there is some sort of military justification for it. Reciprocity is not part of it. Taking revenge for a previous war crime is never seen as a valid justification for doing something that would be considered a war crime, in fact revenge is explicitly not a valid justification.
Last edited:
Similar threads
