Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money

[RhaenysBee]

7 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Apparently in the city of Izium, civilians gave Russian soldiers poisoned-laced food. Two soldiers died soon after and another 28 had to be taken to intensive care. I'm not sure if this would constitute a war crime, since it was done by civilians. In my book, this does not break the laws of hospitality. No gods have been offended. 

Well… I don’t know if the gods or just general morality would agree. 

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Wilbur said:

How surprised should Putin be to learn that war is a street that goes both ways?

This is quite an interesting take on the recent attack on Russian soil.

 

“They have sown the wind, and now they shall the whirlwind”, as Sir Arthur Harris put it.

[Which Tyler]

9 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Apparently in the city of Izium, civilians gave Russian soldiers poisoned-laced food. Two soldiers died soon after and another 28 had to be taken to intensive care. I'm not sure if this would constitute a war crime, since it was done by civilians. In my book, this does not break the laws of hospitality. No gods have been offended. 

Not sure that invaders, rapers and pillagers can really invoke the laws of hospitality.

[Werthead]

Russian forces have killed civilians openly, so civilians fighting back I believe is more than permissible. Russian civilians - not to mention Polish, Yugoslavian, French, Danish etc - made life an absolute living hell for the German occupiers in WWII after they inflicted mass casualties on the civilian population.

Fighting going on again around Izyum, despite reports of Russian forces taking control of the town. A Russian fighter jet was brought down near the town this morning.

Chernobyl and Pripyat seem to be fully back in Ukrainian hands. The Ukrainian flag is flying over the ruined power plant again. Hostomel Airport NW of Kyiv has also been recaptured (again), the BBC was reporting on the destroyed Antonov An-225 super-plane there.

Just to note that there is serious political trouble brewing in Pakistan. PM Khan wants closer ties with the Russia-China bloc, whilst the opposition wants to maintain and strengthen its alliance with the USA. Khan looked like he was about to be removed from power by the national assembly, so it's been dissolved, apparently contrary to the law. The Pakistani Supreme Court is now poised to intervene. And you have to imagine the military is starting to look askance at the situation. This is all against a backdrop of increased tension in Pakistan-India relations (which are never calm anyway), and in particular widespread Pakistani concern over India's closer ties to Russia.

[Werthead]

The discourse:

 

[RhaenysBee]

It’s quite understandable, likely legally permissible, as peace time law was overwritten by war, and it benefits their war effort. But is it moral? I don’t think that’s an obvious yes, it’s certainly a moral philosophy debate at least. If it’s not even a debate, that has very interesting implications for our society in countless aspects. 

[Werthead]

18 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

It’s quite understandable, likely legally permissible, as peace time law was overwritten by war, and it benefits their war effort. But is it moral? I don’t think that’s an obvious yes, it’s certainly a moral philosophy debate at least. If it’s not even a debate, that has very interesting implications for our society in countless aspects. 

Based on what Russian troops have been doing elsewhere to civilians, I'd say yes, especially if this particular group had killed or terrorised civilians in that particular area.

[Werthead]

Interesting account here of the battle for Kyiv. Confirmation that the Hostomel Airport battle was key, and in particular the Ukrainians recapturing the airport and destroying the runway, rendering it unusable to Russian forces.

The second-most-critical moment was blocking the fuel convoy to the north. Some reports that very small and highly mobile Ukrainian forces rode quad bikes through marshy terrain to stay ahead of Russian forces, blocking the road, taking out outlier vehicles etc.

The information war was crucial here. Panicked Western media reports that Russian forces were about to invade Kyiv, that the refuelling convoy was on its way, making the 40-mile convoy into a figure of terror etc all convinced the Russians that things were going according to plan. Apparently it wasn't until the second to third week of March that the Russians started cottoning on that their encirclement plan for Kyiv was no longer viable.

 

[polishgenius]

3 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

The information war was crucial here. Panicked Western media reports that Russian forces were about to invade Kyiv, that the refuelling convoy was on its way, making the 40-mile convoy into a figure of terror etc all convinced the Russians that things were going according to plan. Apparently it wasn't until the second to third week of March that the Russians started cottoning on that their encirclement plan for Kyiv was no longer viable.

 

So essentially they were fooled by their own disinformation?

[Werthead]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

So essentially they were fooled by their own disinformation?

Yup. Well, more to the point they were fooled by other media reinforcing what they wanted to hear. They know their disinformation is BS, but they may have thought other reports were more credible.

To be honest, western media reporting of the war has been pretty poor. They've been so focused on in-your-face reports on the ground, which get higher ratings but made things seem so much worse than they were, that they neglected reporting of the overall situation which was more favourable to the Ukrainians from relatively early on.

Obviously that now might shift. Some reports that Russian reinforcement formations have gathered in Belogorod and near Kursk and are to be sent into the Donbas. Some of these are units that have already seen combat in Ukraine and have been pulled out just to be sent back in again, an idea which I suspect those troops are not in love with.

[RhaenysBee]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Based on what Russian troops have been doing elsewhere to civilians, I'd say yes, especially if this particular group had killed or terrorised civilians in that particular area.

If. That’s the key word. 

[polishgenius]

I don't think 'if' is a particularly key word there, because I don't think it's reasonable to expect civilian victims of an occupation to be distinguishing between specific units of the occupying force. We know Russian troops have been committing atrocities, it'd be silly to expect resistance to do CV checks before they respond. It'd be sad if this had been a group that did refuse to commit atrocities, as I hope some did, but... they're still an occupying army.

Whether this in particular is an acceptable method of response is a different conversation but, again, occupying army, civilians, under attack, it's all very easy for us to say in our comfy war-less homes. 

[RhaenysBee]

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I don't think 'if' is a particularly key word there, because I don't think it's reasonable to expect civilian victims of an occupation to be distinguishing between specific units of the occupying force. We know Russian troops have been committing atrocities, it'd be silly to expect resistance to do CV checks before they respond. It'd be sad if this had been a group that did refuse to commit atrocities, as I hope some did, but... they're still an occupying army.

Whether this in particular is an acceptable method of response is a different conversation but, again, occupying army, civilians, under attack, it's all very easy for us to say in our comfy war-less homes. 

Yes, that is and has been precisely my point. It’s understandable, but whether it’s moral  should at least be up for a debate. A debate, that would include all the “if”s of the circumstances. I was not judging their actions from my comfy war-less home, I was judging our quick and simple judgements about their actions in our comfy war-less homes. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

It’s quite understandable, likely legally permissible, as peace time law was overwritten by war, and it benefits their war effort. But is it moral? I don’t think that’s an obvious yes, it’s certainly a moral philosophy debate at least. If it’s not even a debate, that has very interesting implications for our society in countless aspects. 

Are you suggesting there is no right to self defense when a nation-state is under attack?  That people who’s friends and family are being killed and who are under direct threat of death due to the actions of an invading army do not have a moral right to self defense?

Does an individual being physically coerced have a moral right to use force to resist the person using physical coercion to compel them to do X when the person being physically coerced is unwilling to do X?

[RhaenysBee]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you suggesting there is no right to self defense when a nation-state is under attack?  That people who’s friends and family are being killed and who are under direct threat of death due to the actions of an invading army do not have a moral right to self defense?

No, I have not suggested anything even remotely close to that. In fact I find it difficult to understand and a little bewildering how you would even come to the above conclusion from what I said. I am suggesting that morality, especially in a war and costing lives, especially when there’s as little information about something as there is about the particular event that prompted this unfortunate discussion, I’m a complete idiot to still keep up, is a little more complex than yes-no, black-white and right-wrong and we should at least try to treat it as such. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

No, I have not suggested anything even remotely close to that. In fact I find it difficult to understand and a little bewildering how you would even come to the above conclusion from what I said. I am suggesting that morality, especially in a war and costing lives, especially when there’s as little information about something as there is about the particular event that prompted this unfortunate discussion, I’m a complete idiot to still keep up, is a little more complex than yes-no, black-white and right-wrong and we should at least try to treat it as such. 

My apologies if I have misunderstood your assertion above but it seemed like you were suggesting it was morally wrong to use physical violence (in this case poisoning) to resist an invading army seeking to physically coerce the civilian population of an area they invaded to comply with their demands?

Was I incorrect?

Were you asking only if the method was immoral?

[Darzin]

15 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Werthead @DMC

Do the Chinese want that kind of power?  Do they want to create “Chung Kuo”?  I’m not sure that they do.  I’ve always been under the impression China wants to be able to do what it thinks it must to further its independence and wants other Asian nations to seek their nod before taking big actions.  Which is something less than global hegemony.

Am I incorrect?

 

 

The CCP see it is as their duty to unite China and recover all the pieces lost to Qing weakness and become the premier power in Asia. They have been very VERY clear of what they consider to be China and what they consider to be not China, since they proclaimed the PRC in 1949 these largely match KMT claims and in fact the CCP have reduced the claims do to deals with the Soviets. China is not newly expansionist, they are not just trying to get random territory, they are just now getting powerful enough to push the claims they've had the whole time.

Does China have border disputes in the Himalayas? Yes and so does every other nation there, and look at the claimed borders the Chinese ones aren't exactly more unreasonable then the Indian ones. Does China have unreasonable claims in the South China Sea? Yes they do, but so does every other country that borders the South China Sea except Malaysia. China having these disputed borders in these regions when everyone else does too, hardly makes China uniquely expansionist.

Also Taiwan is like the equivalent of an Israel and Palestine conflict in China, everyone wants to "unify" Chinese textbooks start out declaring it to be an integral part of the country and everyone believes Taiwan is currently part of China not that they want it to be that it is now. 99.99% of Mainland Chinese view Taiwan the way Ukrainians or Westerners view the Donbass. Attacking Taiwan would be seen as a necessary act to unify the country, and would not be seen as attacking another nation, a thin crop of diplomats and top level leadership might see that it practically is but I suspect in their hearts they don't view the ROC government as anything more than the Donetsk People's Republic. 

Since the Ukraine conflict started, I've constantly seen people talk about China taking Siberia but that's not a realistic thing that would ever happen. I realize most people here don't think much of Chinese claims but the Chinese do. If they wanted Vladivostok it would be on their list and as of now China doesn't currently claim any of that land and it's full of Russians. I get there is the meme of China as an expansionist power but China from KMT times to now has been clear of what they do or do not claim. Whether those claims are reasonable or not is besides the point. They don't claim it don't want it but people constantly think they are going to take it for the lols.

[RhaenysBee]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My apologies if I have misunderstood you assertion above but it seemed like you were suggesting it was morally wrong to use physical violence (in this case poisoning) to resist an invading army seeking to physically coerce the civilian population of an area they invaded to comply with their demands?

Was I incorrect?

Were you claiming that only the method was immoral?

In fact I wasn’t claiming at all that anything was immoral. I was claiming that it’s not straightforward or obvious to claim that taking lives (and I suppose I didn’t underline this part, but I’m talking about taking lives and not shooting people in the leg or beating people up or landing them in hospital for two weeks, which aren’t on the same page as actually taking a life), is moral in the particular circumstances.  Because generally, taking a human life is immoral and it should take at least a discussion/debate/conversation (and extra information about the circumstances) to say that taking a human life, a generally immoral thing is under this and that circumstance moral.  Or better yet, what shade of the moral grey area it is. Because I also claim that morality is a scale and not two opposite polars, right and wrong, black and white, 0 or 100 etc. I explicitly said that I wasn’t judging the poisoning itself, I was judging how quickly and simply we judged its morality (even though it took lives), which I don’t think is (ought to be) simple. 

[Corvinus85]

9 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

In fact I wasn’t claiming at all that anything was immoral. I was claiming that it’s not straightforward or obvious to claim that taking lives (and I suppose I didn’t underline this part, but I’m talking about taking lives and not shooting people in the leg or beating people up or landing them in hospital for two weeks, which aren’t on the same page as actually taking a life), is moral in the particular circumstances.  Because generally, taking a human life is immoral and it should take at least a discussion/debate/conversation (and extra information about the circumstances) to say that taking a human life, a generally immoral thing is under this and that circumstance moral.  Or better yet, what shade of the moral grey area it is. Because I also claim that morality is a scale and not two opposite polars, right and wrong, black and white, 0 or 100 etc. I explicitly said that I wasn’t judging the poisoning itself, I was judging how quickly and simply we judged its morality (even though it took lives), which I don’t think is (ought to be) simple. 

Unfortunately, in the context of a terrible war, where life and death is the ultimate score, you fight with the weapons you have and morality takes a back seat. This was an attack directed an enemy. There are other methods often used in war more indiscriminate, and thus less moral. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

In fact I wasn’t claiming at all that anything was immoral. I was claiming that it’s not straightforward or obvious to claim that taking lives (and I suppose I didn’t underline this part, but I’m talking about taking lives and not shooting people in the leg or beating people up or landing them in hospital for two weeks, which aren’t on the same page as actually taking a life), is moral in the particular circumstances.  Because generally, taking a human life is immoral and it should take at least a discussion/debate/conversation (and extra information about the circumstances) to say that taking a human life, a generally immoral thing is under this and that circumstance moral.  Or better yet, what shade of the moral grey area it is. Because I also claim that morality is a scale and not two opposite polars, right and wrong, black and white, 0 or 100 etc. I explicitly said that I wasn’t judging the poisoning itself, I was judging how quickly and simply we judged its morality (even though it took lives), which I don’t think is (ought to be) simple. 

So are you asking if killing in self defense is always morally wrong?