Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money

[Werthead]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What worries me is if the Ukrainians go on large scale offensive operations they could start burning international goodwill.  At the end of the day War is still politics.

I think going on the offensive to liberate their homeland isn't a problem, and nor is targeting military infrastructure in Russia that is supporting an attack on them (as we've seen already).

The problem is breaking a moral code. Ukraine has presented itself as morally righteous in this campaign, because they were attacked unprovoked. However, there are some stories (some supported by video) of Ukrainians mistreating Russian prisoners. If they start deliberately targeting Russian civilians, that might also lose them support.

[Werthead]

It sounds like the region surrounding Brovary, the main centre of fighting E-NE of Kyiv, has been cleared of Russian forces. Ukrainian forces have recaptured most of the villages surrounding the town (which never fell, although it was contested several times).

Lavrov has reported "promising developments" in the peace talks whilst in India.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think going on the offensive to liberate their homeland isn't a problem, and nor is targeting military infrastructure in Russia that is supporting an attack on them (as we've seen already).

The problem is breaking a moral code. Ukraine has presented itself as morally righteous in this campaign, because they were attacked unprovoked. However, there are some stories (some supported by video) of Ukrainians mistreating Russian prisoners. If they start deliberately targeting Russian civilians, that might also lose them support.

Understood. 

What concerns me is when on the offensive being discriminant as to where to place fire is difficult.  The US tried for 20 years to claim it only targeted “military units”.  How well did that go.  

“Oops, my bad” is a lousy excuse if civilians get hit.   If the Ukrainians hit Russian civilians this seems more like every other war in human history…

[broken one]

56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What worries me is if the Ukrainians go on large scale offensive operations they could start burning international goodwill.  At the end of the day War is still politics.

I think maximum they may achieve is to regain Kherson, so there will be no problem like that.

42 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The problem is breaking a moral code. Ukraine has presented itself as morally righteous in this campaign, because they were attacked unprovoked. However, there are some stories (some supported by video) of Ukrainians mistreating Russian prisoners. If they start deliberately targeting Russian civilians, that might also lose them support.

As for the mistreatment of POWs, I assumed it tends to happen, but seems like Ukrainians were succesfull at hiding it. Until now?

Thing that I am afraid of is a film with Western volunteer cutting throat of Russian POW or sth like that, it would be devastating.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, broken one said:

As for the mistreatment of POVs, I assumed it tends to happen, but seems like Ukrainians were succesfull at hiding it. Until now?

Thing that I am afraid of is a film with Western volunteer cutting throat of Russian POV or sth like that, it would be devastating.

I already had an exchange with a Russian Troll over the video of “Ukrainians” shooting Russian POWs.  

[Werthead]

Interesting. Turkey has formally agreed to act as a security guarantor for Ukraine, and President Erdogan will speak to Putin later on today with ideas on how that will work in principle. Erdogan is working on the basis that Turkey might be an equally acceptable party to Russia, Ukraine and the West, which he's probably not far wrong about (Israel might as well, but their peace initiatives seem to have tailed off recently).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

Interesting. Turkey has formally agreed to act as a security guarantor for Ukraine, and President Erdogan will speak to Putin later on today with ideas on how that will work in principle. Erdogan is working on the basis that Turkey might be an equally acceptable party to Russia, Ukraine and the West, which he's probably not far wrong about (Israel might as well, but their peace initiatives seem to have tailed off recently).

Will the agreement specifically define what “security guarantor” means?  Will Turkey have troops with teeth on the border between Ukraine and Russia?

[RhaenysBee]

41 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

The problem is breaking a moral code. Ukraine has presented itself as morally righteous in this campaign, because they were attacked unprovoked. However, there are some stories (some supported by video) of Ukrainians mistreating Russian prisoners. If they start deliberately targeting Russian civilians, that might also lose them support.

It will be interesting to see how long the favorable PR will last for them. Of course, against Russia it will last much longer than it would against any other adversary, because the west hates Russia enough to justify, ignore and forgive anything Ukraine may do wrong.  Still, there has been a shift toward objectivity already, we are slowly realizing that the information war is two sided, and while everything Russia says is ought to be questioned, we should also take anything Ukraine says with a grain of salt. Well I hope they will tread carefully in order to keep the moral high ground both in reality and in the public eye. 

[3CityApache]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Will the agreement specifically define what “security guarantor” means? 

Yeah, I'm also curious what it actually means, because Ukraine already had gurantees on paper since 1994 and look how great they worked out for them.

[Maithanet]

Mixed bag of news today.  Ukraine has won the battle for Kyiv and it's retaking a ton of territory north east and north west of the capital. Irpin is back in Ukrainian hands. Ukrainian forces have also made some gains around Kharkiv as well.  That's good.

But Izyum fell to Russia today, after weeks of hard fighting.  It was one of the northern anchors the Ukrainians were using to hold the joint force area open on the east.  I had hoped that Ukraine could reinforce and hold that area, but no such luck.  

If the war is transitioning to the eastern third of the country, that isn't a great start to this new chapter.

[broken one]

1 hour ago, 3CityApache said:

Yeah, I'm also curious what it actually means, because Ukraine already had gurantees on paper since 1994 and look how great they worked out for them.

UK, USA and Russia "confirmed their obligation" not to attack Ukraine. 2 of the 3 keep feeling obliged. Memorandum is not international agreement, it is only expression of government's view on sth.

As far as I understand this one is supposed to be biding treaty.

[Loge]

Giving that kind of guarantee means you have to be ready for war with Russia. Maybe China could do it. Turkey? On their own? I doubt it. I think the only viable guarantee for Ukraine would be NATO membership. 

[broken one]

7 minutes ago, Loge said:

Giving that kind of guarantee means you have to be ready for war with Russia. Maybe China could do it. Turkey? On their own? I doubt it. I think the only viable guarantee for Ukraine would be NATO membership. 

Yeah, I do not believe Turkey will take obligation to attack Russia if Russia breaks the treaty. The negotiations lead nowhere.

Of course its good they talk, even if effects are still behind horizon.

[Fez]

Interestingly, Ukraine has been surprisingly cagey about the Belgorod strike. And it does seem like an extremely risky strike for them to send helicopters that exposed to AA fire. I think there's a decent chance it is actually a false flag, or a rogue operation.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

(Israel might as well, but their peace initiatives seem to have tailed off recently).

Israel has been dealing with a wave of terror attacks the past week and Bennett said he needed to focus on that issue instead.

 

[Werthead]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

Interestingly, Ukraine has been surprisingly cagey about the Belgorod strike. And it does seem like an extremely risky strike for them to send helicopters that exposed to AA fire. I think there's a decent chance it is actually a false flag, or a rogue operation.

A rogue operation I could believe, but a false flag is weird. You'd expect an attack on Belarus to try to bring them into the conflict or a more serious strike on civilians somewhere else. This is more of a legitimate military operation.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

It will be interesting to see how long the favorable PR will last for them. Of course, against Russia it will last much longer than it would against any other adversary, because the west hates Russia enough to justify, ignore and forgive anything Ukraine may do wrong.  Still, there has been a shift toward objectivity already, we are slowly realizing that the information war is two sided, and while everything Russia says is ought to be questioned, we should also take anything Ukraine says with a grain of salt. Well I hope they will tread carefully in order to keep the moral high ground both in reality and in the public eye. 

Ukraine very clearly has ius ad bellum, even if civilians die at their hands.

[broken one]

This time Russians may be trying to make out sth of the attack on their territory, so Ukrainians recant the action just in case (?)

Or maybe it was self - sabotage. Russian pilots do not want to fight and die so they destroyed their own fuel

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Werthead said:

A rogue operation I could believe, but a false flag is weird. You'd expect an attack on Belarus to try to bring them into the conflict or a more serious strike on civilians somewhere else. This is more of a legitimate military operation.

I agree, I don't see any backlash against Ukraine doing this.  It's clearly a military target operating in a war zone.  If Russia doesn't want its oil depots to get blown up, end the war.

A false flag makes little sense.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Ukraine very clearly has ius ad bellum, even if civilians die at their hands.

Saying that is very easy.  If Russia starts flooding the world with video’s of dead Russian civilians… that’s harder to maintain.

[broken one]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Saying that is very easy.  If Russia starts flooding the world with video’s of dead Russian civilians… that’s harder to maintain.

When it happens Ukrainians, who now imo deliberately underestimate number of their dead civilians, which I believe is several times higher than the official thousand something, may start flooding with their own videos, pictures and stories.