The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Ananda]

you supply precedent for this please

No I can't, because no precedent that I know off. Nobody ever let/hosted someone else /other country run and owned MIC in their territory. Especially if that MIC own and run by a country that currently in active war, and then the output of that MIC being use directly to that war.

Legally it can be argue that the country that hosted other war parties MIC (which then use the output directly to the war), as parties that already involved with the war. So it can be argue if Poland hosted Ukraine MIC that use the production as war effort, Poland already declared war to Russia.

This is why I don't see US will allow that. Cause basically it can be seen Poland actually the ones that 'legally' declared hostility intent first toward Russia. That's why it is different then supply Ukraine war assets.

 

[seaspear]

To argue anything as "legally' in this case you would need to cite international law that covers it

 

[Ruski]

I have pointed out many many times that all Russia needs to do to avoid it is go back to within their borders. That they chose not to is Russia's choice.

Honestly, I think some western media / politicians are making a medium mistake (or just misinterpreting the situation a little):

1) This is not an 'extern' war, as it was > Soviet Union - Afghanistan (or USA -Vietnam; USA - Iraq) -
from which you could argue:
The population is going to be fed up with the war; the 'sympathy' ranking will decrease after a while.

Like it or Not -- if you look at all maps from the last 3-5 centuries, you will see that the eastern part of ukraine has always been under russian (zar) government / influence.

As wall as Crimea.

Russians know the history about this area quite well; especially the wars with the ottoman empire are very present.
(Black Sea, Crimea, are keywords in russian history).

You won't see a decrease in popularity of the war among the civ. population.


So, if you think that russians may suffer, get angry at their government, etc.;
Then this strategy won't play out.


2) Atm its said:
Usage of nuclear weapons is excluded.

And it is.

Even if it wouldn't; the russian army has not made any usage of broad bombings / carpets etc.
(that would happen long before nuc. weapons could be debated).

But, consider this:
WHO decides, whether tactical nuc. weapons will be discussed, or not?!

Its the political leader + military leadership (generals).

So, if most of the civ. population is NOT against this war - or at least assume, that it was not possible another way (Putin Believers) - odds, that a discussion about the usage of mass destruction weapons happens, is more likely, than if they were
(of course only, if russia loses on all frontages).



You need to face that, and understand that 30 years old BORDERS are not always borders.
(eastern part of ukraine was given to the ukr. government in an administrational manner; by Lenin).

We are unfortunately on our way towards this kind of thinking (in 3-5 months).

 

[2007yellow430]

Honestly, I think some western media / politicians are making a medium mistake (or just misinterpreting the situation a little):

1) This is not an 'extern' war, as it was > Soviet Union - Afghanistan (or USA -Vietnam; USA - Iraq) -
from which you could argue:
The population is going to be fed up with the war; the 'sympathy' ranking will decrease after a while.

Like it or Not -- if you look at all maps from the last 3-5 centuries, you will see that the eastern part of ukraine has always been under russian (zar) government / influence.

As wall as Crimea.

Russians know the history about this area quite well; especially the wars with the ottoman empire are very present.
(Black Sea, Crimea, are keywords in russian history).

You won't see a decrease in popularity of the war among the civ. population.


So, if you think that russians may suffer, get angry at their government, etc.;
Then this strategy won't play out.


2) Atm its said:
Usage of nuclear weapons is excluded.

And it is.

Even if it wouldn't; the russian army has not made any usage of broad bombings / carpets etc.
(that would happen long before nuc. weapons could be debated).

But, consider this:
WHO decides, whether tactical nuc. weapons will be discussed, or not?!

Its the political leader + military leadership (generals).

So, if most of the civ. population is NOT against this war - or at least assume, that it was not possible another way (Putin Believers) - odds, that a discussion about the usage of mass destruction weapons happens, is more likely, than if they were
(of course only, if russia loses on all frontages).



You need to face that, and understand that 30 years old BORDERS are not always borders.
(eastern part of ukraine was given to the ukr. government in an administrational manner; by Lenin).

We are unfortunately on our way towards this kind of thinking (in 3-5 months).

so you disregard the 1994 agreement, posted above? Sooner or later the Russians will release they can’t defeat the Ukrainians who have NATO support. The issue then becomes what they will do about it. They can follow Hitler’s path, or they can sue for peace? If they go nuclear, expect NATO to intervene and destroy their military. Any thoughts of strategic use will bring down world destruction. In my humble opinion.
Art

 

[Ruski]

so you disregard the 1994 agreement, posted above? Sooner or later the Russians will release they can’t defeat the Ukrainians who have NATO support. The issue then becomes what they will do about it. They can follow Hitler’s path, or they can sue for peace? If they go nuclear, expect NATO to intervene and destroy their military. Any thoughts of strategic use will bring down world destruction. In my humble opinion.
Art

No, there will be no 'world destruction'.

Strategic usage of nuc. weapons is - of course - not debatable; at all.

The 1994 agreement was made, when
a) no one in russia thought about kyiv (going to be) not being loyal
b) russian's crimea fleet was guaranteed

(BET nato won't attack russia nuclear, if russia would make use of tact. nuc. weapons. Which it hopefully won't. -
And even if - not within ukraine.)

The western countries have offered too much candy to the ukraines...

this is why this is happening...

 

[John Fedup]

At the end of the day Russia signed an agreement with other nations which they (Putin really) did not honour. The result is the current shitshow. The longer this goes on, the greater the risk of something worse happening.

 

[tonnyc]

@Ruski Just FYI, I am Indonesian. I don't give a stuff what Lenin did and did not do, but if I accept your revanchist argument, I'd be denying the existence of my own country. But look, my passport says Indonesia, not Nederlands-Indië.

We don't give a stuff what maps from 3-5 centuries ago say who we are, because if we do, we won't exist. Taking the same logic, because we'd be hypocrites if we don't, whether Ukraine was part of Russia 3-5 centuries ago doesn't negate the fact that Ukraine and Russia are separate now.

 

[2007yellow430]

No, there will be no 'world destruction'.

Strategic usage of nuc. weapons is - of course - not debatable; at all.

The 1994 agreement was made, when
a) no one in russia thought about kyiv (going to be) not being loyal
b) russian's crimea fleet was guaranteed

(BET nato won't attack russia nuclear, if russia would make use of tact. nuc. weapons. Which it hopefully won't. -
And even if - not within ukraine.)

The western countries have offered too much candy to the ukraines...

this is why this is happening...

Hilter had those same ideas. Read his rationale for the invasion of Poland in 1939. Same sort of logic. The result here will be the same. I’d read this: Invasion of Poland – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for schools

Art

 

[Ruski]

@Ruski Just FYI, I am Indonesian. I don't give a fuck what Lenin did and did not do, but if I accept your revanchist argument, I'd be denying the existence of my own country. But look, my passport says Indonesia, not Nederlands-Indië.

We don't give a fuck what maps from 3-5 centuries ago say who we are, because if we do, we won't exist. Taking the same logic, because we'd be hypocrites if we don't, whether Ukraine was part of Russia 3-5 centuries ago doesn't negate the fact that Ukraine and Russia are separate now.

sorry to tell you this, but if you look into the passports of most of eastern 'ukrainers', you will see that their national identity is russian.

like it or not;

Lenin has not taken something away from the ukrainers, but gave them something (the eastern part).

so, why are you talking so negtively about him now?

 

[Ananda]

argue anything as "legally' in this case you would need to cite international law that covers it

I'm not lawyer, but If you like to keep your argument it is alright under International Law to hosted other countries MIC facilities that under war and make products to attack other belligerence, and still not call themselves not have hostile intentions, be my guess.

However this will bite NATO if they are doing it, not just from Russia, but other non collective west. They will see it just another western hypocrite. Keep wondering why most of others outside non collective west and allies, stay in the fence on this war.

Afterall it is West that like to call "international" law that harbouring hostiles parties toward west, is shown hostile intentions toward west also.

Btw, just like West arguments for countries that harbouring hostiles parties, it is argumentative. However that's law. If West can use that to attack other countries on bases harbouring hostiles parties (against western interest), why can't Russia done it to Poland, if Poland harbouring Ukraine MIC.

You can argue what you want, however I really doubt US will allow Poland to do that. In the end it is still US will that matter.

 

[Ruski]

@Ruski Just FYI, I am Indonesian. I don't give a fuck what Lenin did and did not do, but if I accept your revanchist argument, I'd be denying the existence of my own country. But look, my passport says Indonesia, not Nederlands-Indië.

We don't give a fuck what maps from 3-5 centuries ago say who we are, because if we do, we won't exist. Taking the same logic, because we'd be hypocrites if we don't, whether Ukraine was part of Russia 3-5 centuries ago doesn't negate the fact that Ukraine and Russia are separate now.

And btw, if they are seperate now:

Then give back land + people to its rightful owner.


Most Ukraines, are just doing what the government tells them.

The Ukraines (+ gov.) were bought for much money by the west.

That is the simple truth.

You always wanted to f'ck with russia, but not do it on your own.

 

[2007yellow430]

And btw, if they are seperate now:

Then give back land + people to its rightful owner.


Most Ukraines, are just doing what the government tells them.

The Ukraines (+ gov.) were bought for much money by the west.

That is the simple truth.

You always wanted to f'ck with russia, but not do it on your own.

Your name calling exposes your babbling the Russian line of thought. Bottom line, signed an agreement regarding Ukraine’s right to exist. Broke it in 2014 and then in 2022 by declaring their intention of conquering 100% of the Ukraine and turning it into a vassal state. This time, the reaction of the world wasn’t what they thought it would be. It’s time for Russia to pay its penalty, and that is what is happening. Watch and see, they picked on the wrong people. Zelinsky is a good leader. When provided a way out, his response: I need ammunition.

Art

 

[Ruski]

Your name calling exposes your babbling the Russian line of thought. Bottom line, signed an agreement regarding Ukraine’s right to exist. Broke it in 2014 and then in 2022 by declaring their intention of conquering 100% of the Ukraine and turning it into a vassal state. This time, the reaction of the world wasn’t what they thought it would be. It’s time for Russia to pay its penalty, and that is what is happening. Watch and see, they picked on the wrong people. Zelinsky is a good leader. When provided a way out, his response: I need ammunition.

Art

typical westerners blabla...

big mouth, until the war does not come to your doorstep.

its always far off.
(iraq, afghanistan, lybia, syria etc.).

I will leave it at that.
I think you all got my point of view by now.

You should have stayed out of east europe, but espec. out of former soviet union countries.

thx

 

[tonnyc]

And btw, if they are seperate now:

Then give back land + people to its rightful owner.


Most Ukraines, are just doing what the government tells them.

The Ukraines (+ gov.) were bought for much money by the west.

That is the simple truth.

You always wanted to f'ck with russia, but not do it on your own.

If you want to rant at the so-called West, doing so when replying to me is pretty misplaced. Heck, I have more justification in calling Russia the West because Moscow's attitudes aren't that different from other Western countries. Yeah sure the native tribes of Eastern Russia is Asian, but from our eyes Russia is pretty much a white Christian culture.

Next, that bit about giving the land and people to their rightful owners. Land belongs to people. But no one owns people. There is no such thing as the rightful owner of a people. So that argument is irrelevant to me.

You say most Ukrainians are just doing what the government tells them. Okay, but so what? Most Russians are also just doing what the government tells them. Most Chinese are also just doing what the government tells them. Heck, to various extent, all people do that. My government tells me to pay taxes and submit a report on my income. I do it. So what, are you saying I am not supposed to do it? Many Russian men get a letter from the government telling them to report to a mobilization center and be a soldier. What, are you saying they should not do it?

Ukraine is bought with a lot of money by the West? Okay, then buy them back. Russia is rich, no? Russia has a $630 billion stash. Why had Russia not spend an extra $30 billion/year on Ukraine for the past ten years and outbid the competition? Oh, Russia don't wanna? Well, then of course Ukraine will look elsewhere.

.

 

[2007yellow430]

If you want to rant at the so-called West, doing so when replying to me is pretty misplaced. Heck, I have more justification in calling Russia the West because Moscow's attitudes aren't that different from other Western countries. Yeah sure the native tribes of Eastern Russia is Asian, but from our eyes Russia is pretty much a white Christian culture.

Next, that bit about giving the land and people to their rightful owners. Land belongs to people. But no one owns people. There is no such thing as the rightful owner of a people. So that argument is irrelevant to me.

You say most Ukrainians are just doing what the government tells them. Okay, but so what? Most Russians are also just doing what the government tells them. Most Chinese are also just doing what the government tells them. Heck, to various extent, all people do that. My government tells me to pay taxes and submit a report on my income. I do it. So what, are you saying I am not supposed to do it? Many Russian men get a letter from the government telling them to report to a mobilization center and be a soldier. What, are you saying they should not do it?

Ukraine is bought with a lot of money by the West? Okay, then buy them back. Russia is rich, no? Russia has a $630 billion stash. Why had Russia not spend an extra $30 billion/year on Ukraine for the past ten years and outbid the competition? Oh, Russia don't wanna? Well, then of course Ukraine will look elsewhere.

.

exactly. Exposed him for a Russian Troll.
Art

 

[Vivendi]

Like it or Not -- if you look at all maps from the last 3-5 centuries, you will see that the eastern part of ukraine has always been under russian (zar) government / influence.

I strongly advice you to educate yourself. Here is a very good course from the University of Yale. It's free of charge. Not sure if you can access it from your location though. Access to this fact-based course may be blocked in some countries. Timothy Snyder: The Making of Modern Ukraine - YouTube

 

[2007yellow430]

At the end of the day Russia signed an agreement with other nations which they (Putin really) did not honour. The result is the current shitshow. The longer this goes on, the greater the risk of something worse happening.

typical westerners blabla...

big mouth, until the war does not come to your doorstep.

its always far off.
(iraq, afghanistan, lybia, syria etc.).

I will leave it at that.
I think you all got my point of view by now.

You should have stayed out of east europe, but espec. out of former soviet union countries.

thx

just for the record: I served in the Army 1969-1974 (reserves). We were a hospital unit that cared for the injured from Vietnam (6253rd was its designation). Having seen the results, I certainly don’t wish them on anybody. This Ukraine invasion is 1938 all over. The consequences of not stopping it now is WW3. Cheaper in casualties now rather than later. Too bad you don’t realize that.

Art

 

[Feanor]

Ukraine, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain Northern Ireland, and the United States of America,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,

Confirm the following:

1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to
Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Entry into force: 5 December, 1994 by signature. volume-3007-I-52241.pdf (un.org)

Ukraine is paying a high price for believing in the commitments made by Russia in 1994 to respect the borders Ukraine had back then (and the commitments by the US and UK for that matter -- NATO should have punished Russia much harder as a reaction to the first invasion back in 2014).

I don't know that we want to re-open the discussion of broken commitments, NATO non-expansion, Minsk Accords (1&2)... Whether you agree that they are connected or not, they clearly are to Russian leadership. And the question of what borders to return to is vital here. I can see almost no scenario where Russia is willing to give up Crimea. Very few where surrendering the LDNR is on the table. Which ultimately makes the discussion moot.

Maybe but Russia would still be attack NATO territory and that's something that will cause a war between Russia and NATO. The Russian army would be annihilated by NATO in a strictly conventional war. The NATO forces would go through the Russian forces like a hot knife through butter because, short of nuclear weapons, current Russian forces, capabilities, and leadership have nothing to stop them. Yes they would give NATO a bloody nose, but that's about it. The Russians have only themselves to blame because of poor leadership and rampant corruption. The Soviet forces would have been a totally different story.

I don't think Russia will attack NATO territory. But I don't think the situation would be as clear cut as you put it. An attack on Poland that involves a long range strike wouldn't put any Russian troops near that area. So what Russian forces would NATO go through, like hot knife or otherwise? How many troops does NATO have ready to throw into the fray and where will they appear? I suspect the response would be less a full NATO war effort and more a series or retaliation strikes against Russian facilities.

 

[John Fedup]

Problem is as soon as Russia and NATO start exchanging missiles, when do you start wondering what the warheads contain? From the NATO perspective it might be less risky to lay some hurt on Russian naval assets at sea if there are any strikes on Poland.

 

[2007yellow430]

I don't know that we want to re-open the discussion of broken commitments, NATO non-expansion, Minsk Accords (1&2)... Whether you agree that they are connected or not, they clearly are to Russian leadership. And the question of what borders to return to is vital here. I can see almost no scenario where Russia is willing to give up Crimea. Very few where surrendering the LDNR is on the table. Which ultimately makes the discussion moot.



I don't think Russia will attack NATO territory. But I don't think the situation would be as clear cut as you put it. An attack on Poland that involves a long range strike wouldn't put any Russian troops near that area. So what Russian forces would NATO go through, like hot knife or otherwise? How many troops does NATO have ready to throw into the fray and where will they appear? I suspect the response would be less a full NATO war effort and more a series or retaliation strikes against Russian facilities.

NATO AirPower is all that is needed. Destroy their air defense capability in short order, then interdict any resupply from foreign nations. Then start on their ground troops. 6 weeks and they’d be defenseless. Iraq is a guide what will happen If they start against a NATO

Art