Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money

[Zorral]

 

[Werthead]

Russian forces have now left the Zhytomyr region as well. Looks like when they said they were pulling back from Kyiv they weren't kidding.

[JGP]

Looks like Russia is going to get turfed from the UN Human Rights Council. Small thing maybe, but a move in the right direction. 

[Which Tyler]

41 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Russian forces have now left the Zhytomyr region as well. Looks like when they said they were pulling back from Kyiv they weren't kidding.

Given all that "de-nazification" thing, giving the feeling of "then we'll kill them all" - I'm getting quite concerned about what all these withdrawals might mean...

Worried that he's withdrawing the troops so that he can send something even less discriminate in their place.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Given all that "de-nazification" thing, giving the feeling of "then we'll kill them all" - I'm getting quite concerned about what all these withdrawals might mean...

Worried that he's withdrawing the troops so that he can send something even less discriminate in their place.

That had occured to me too.

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’ll be honest, I believe the civilians did not only a moral thing but acted heroically

I would argue that they were duty bound to act against the invaders. To do otherwise endangers the innocent. It's a moral deficiency to not protect the innocent when you are  perfectly able to thwart those who are carrying out harm on others.

The Ukrainian citizens acted in the only conscionable course available to them. I would argue that for them to not have poisoned the soldiers would have been the immoral decision.

Eta: This is the perfect example of "If you do nothing, you still have made a choice."

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Will the Russians restrict themselves to Russian portions of Izzy?

I think they're gonna transfer to the Cloud Ark for a while. Maybe check out Mars, see what's easier to invade over there.

[Werthead]

40 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That had occured to me too.

I suspect they're thinking more of really spinning this and future atrocities as Ukrainian provocations to justify however brutal they are planning to be in overrunning Donbas.

If Russia basically admitted they'd done this, they're proud of it and they're willing to be brutal in the future and people better fall in line, that'd be one thing and would make it more likely they were going to escalate, but their loud denials and trying to spin it as a fake-out suggests otherwise.

[DMC]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

The fundamental characteristic of the Security Council is that it consists of the countries that could wipe out humanity. That's why they get a veto!

I know this is way off topic but there are some endogeneity/temporal problems here.  While it's certainly no coincidence the five permanent members were also the first five nuclear powers (as well as the five states recognized as nuclear weapon states by the NPT), the Soviets didn't complete their first test until 1949, the UK 1952, France 1960, and China 1964.  In 1945, the five states were sure to give themselves permanent status because they were the main powers that just won the war and were the ones that set up/designed the organization in the first place.

10 hours ago, mormont said:

You get to be in the UN just by existing, being recognised as a country. There are no other qualifications you have to meet, or that you can be kicked out for lacking. There never have been, and it would serve no purpose to start trying to introduce them now.

This is going a bit far.  There are mechanisms to suspend or expel states from the UN - Articles 5 and 6.  But yes, they are only supposed to be used in extreme circumstances - and require the recommendation of the security council.  The General Assembly suspended South Africa for 20 years over apartheid.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

I think they're gonna transfer to the Cloud Ark for a while. Maybe check out Mars, see what's easier to invade over there.

I think “Izzy” is a great shorthand name for the ISS.  Thank you Neal Stephenson.

[Padraig]

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

I know this is way off topic but there are some endogeneity/temporal problems here. 

And to belabour the point.  The Chinese communists only won the civil war in 1949 but the prior government retained their UN Security Council seat for a couple more decades.  "China" was the country that got the UN seat.  It was regime change that complicated things (and further complicated by the fact that the old regime retained territory).

5 hours ago, Loge said:

Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if anybody follows or even knows the Hague and Geneva conventions these days.  

4 hours ago, Loge said:

IIRC, up to ten civilians killed for each member of the occupation force killed in that kind of operation is considered legitimate. 

As an example of irony.

4 hours ago, Loge said:

I think it was a podcast run by people who are experts on this stuff.

They clearly aren't!

Or you misunderstood.

Or you are trolling us.

Or they were talking about the rules in Nazi Germany (i've no idea).

[JGP]

The legitimacy of the ICC has been hands in the air for decades. 

---

This analysis of the current situation in Ukraine seems pretty detailed.

 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

My heart just breaks for these people:

https://twitter.com/lapatina_/status/1511059303611969542?s=21&t=wj2L-rSk0RPSNaNeOdxAfQ

[Werthead]

7 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

The legitimacy of the ICC has been hands in the air for decades. 

---

This analysis of the current situation in Ukraine seems pretty detailed.

This is a good assessment.

For the forces Russia needs for the Donbas Offensive, they can call upon their Syrian mercenaries and a small number of units pulled back from Syria and their peacekeeping forces in Armenia. There are also reports that around 60,000 fresh recruits from this year's draft (which began three days ago) could be sneakily re-deployed to Ukraine even if officially that's not supposed to happen, but they have a slight problem in that they'd be effectively untrained civilians. Also more mercenaries from Wagner, but Russia would need to start disengaging from various African operations to do that, and those are bringing in money and extending influence. Beyond that Russia will need to start redeploying its regular army units that have not yet been engaged, but that would mean stripping borders elsewhere. Whilst that's relatively safe (China, North Korea, Kazakhstan and Finland are unlikely to invade Russia in a previously-undreamt-of unholy alliance), it doesn't look great from a security POV.

Otherwise Russia is going to be completely dependent on the Donbas republics' own militaries, which have been utterly crap so far (some reports that the Russians are fuming over their performance, particularly in Mariupol), and the Russian forces already there and the forces they've pulled out through the north and swinging back east to redeploy. Those units have been in non-stop action for 5-6 weeks now and urgently need rest and refreshment. Being told that they're going to be sent to areas to fight more battle-hardened and experienced Ukrainian troops might be enough for some kind of mass mutiny.

Against that, Ukraine is still outgunned and out-equipped on the ground, and eastern Ukraine is easier to hit with impunity from retaliatory AA fire (up to a point though), and Russia has a better chance of breaking through, as long as they've solved their fuel range problem.

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Loge said:

I think it was a podcast run by people who are experts on this stuff. Not sure. But there is also some stuff about combatants vs. non-combatants etc on Wikipedia.

 

You heard somewhere that if a civilian kills an invading soldier it's considered acceptable for the army to murder ten random civilians in retaliation, and that sounded sane to you?

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Funny. I tend to think those who are incapable of raising ethical concerns when it comes to killing fellow humans and/or quick to brush such concerns aside, are also those who are more likely to fall prey to simplistic narratives whose aim it is to support or bolster illegitimate power structures.

But there was no real ethical concern raised. Not even on the manner of how the soldiers were poisoned. Just vague proclamations of people being too quick to cheer on the civilians who risked their lives to strike directly at the enemy.

You(as a communist) understand that the far right loves it when some things are presented as “complex”. Far too complex for anyone to feel comfortable having an opinion on or picking a side. They also love pacifists—so long as the pacifists stifle their opposition abroad. The anti-war movements in the US leading up to ww2 were heavily infiltrated by nazi sympathizers who in turn helped turned well meaning pacifist into fascists.

Is Ukraine a threat to Russia’s sovereignty? The simple answer is no. The right answer is no. The answer Russia often tries to get people to say is “I don’t know” or a consulted spiel that frames both sides as “bad.” 

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I would argue that they were duty bound to act against the invaders. To do otherwise endangers the innocent. It's a moral deficiency to not protect the innocent when you are  perfectly able to thwart those who are carrying out harm on others.

The Ukrainian citizens acted in the only conscionable course available to them. I would argue that for them to not have poisoned the soldiers would have been the immoral decision.

Eta: This is the perfect example of "If you do nothing, you still have made a choice."

Now, I think it’s fair to see how hard a decision doing something like this can be and I don’t condemn any subjugated people for being too frightened to rebel strongly.

But for the ones who do rebel strongly, unless they directly endanger other civilians, there can be no honest or reasonable questioning that they’ve acted morally.

 

[mormont]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I know this is way off topic but there are some endogeneity/temporal problems here.  While it's certainly no coincidence the five permanent members were also the first five nuclear powers (as well as the five states recognized as nuclear weapon states by the NPT), the Soviets didn't complete their first test until 1949, the UK 1952, France 1960, and China 1964.  In 1945, the five states were sure to give themselves permanent status because they were the main powers that just won the war and were the ones that set up/designed the organization in the first place.

Mea culpa. Should have spotted that error in the reasoning!

3 hours ago, DMC said:

This is going a bit far.  There are mechanisms to suspend or expel states from the UN - Articles 5 and 6.  But yes, they are only supposed to be used in extreme circumstances - and require the recommendation of the security council.  The General Assembly suspended South Africa for 20 years over apartheid.

I may have misunderstood but the context suggested expulsion, not suspension. AFAIK expulsion has never been seriously contemplated.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

From “Human Rights Watch”:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/03/ukraine-apparent-war-crimes-russia-controlled-areas

[SpaceChampion]

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

Russian space agencies are suspending cooperation with NASA and the ESA on the International Space Station.

Or not. Roscomos head Rogozin threatened that in a sort of "I really mean it this time!" way, but it isn't so simple so do.  Same guy referred to American rockets like the Falcon 9 as a broomstick and a trampoline.  At times he seems to act as if he's in a parallel world where the F9 doesn't exist.  Every other year he announces that Russia is going to Mars with humans, but the money for that never materializes.  I'll take him seriously when he announces his retirement.

Russia is not halting cooperation on the space station

 

Quote

For a few weeks now, the chief of Russia's spaceflight activities has said that the United States and its Western allies must end sanctions on his country by March 31 or face the consequences when it comes to partnering on the International Space Station.

After those sanctions remained in place at the end of March, the director general of Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, vowed to issue a response on April 2. True to his word, he did so early on Saturday morning. His full Twitter thread can be found here, but it is simple to summarize: more bluster, more threats, but likely little change.

In his new missive, Rogozin is still demanding "complete and unconditional" end of the Western sanctions on Russia, and he is still threatening to end the partnership on the International Space Station. Specifically, Rogozin said Roscosmos will soon send "specific proposals" to end its cooperation on the space station to the Russian government.

The tweets led to a firestorm of media coverage today, much of it saying that Russia will end its cooperation on the International Space Station (see, for example, here and here). Such coverage lacks a fundamental understanding of Dmitry Rogozin and Russia's approach to spaceflight.

Cooperation on the space station will, of course, end at some point in the future. Some of the ISS's hardware has been flying in space for nearly 25 years, and it will eventually age out. And while Russia could decide to end cooperation this month, that seems unlikely. Russia is currently committed to operating the station through 2024, and even as the war has raged in Ukraine, there have been talks about possibly extending operations to 2030.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

AFAIK expulsion has never been seriously contemplated.

Pretty much, yeah.  I believe there was a push to expel South Africa outright rather than just suspension (which was opposed by the western powers), but that's all I'm aware of for any serious effort.  I remember Israel tried to expel Iran during the Dubya administration, but wouldn't classify that as serious.