Jump to content

Ukraine 20: We’re not bluffing and you can tell we aren’t by how we say we aren’t bluffing…


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, the Russians have started mobilizing Crimeans.

Now I know that life under Russian rule is hard, but from the pictures, a fair number of their new recruits are coffin-dodgers older than me.

And there are numerous reports, including from recent POWs, that the Russians are giving their recently mobilized troops no training whatsoever, just feeding them straight into the front.

On the plus side, some of these new recruits are calling the phone numbers listed on local signs and attempting to immediately surrender to Ukraine upon their arrival.  Unfortunately, the local sewage management board or city tax authority usually has to pass them on to more qualified caretakers.

Edited by Wilbur
Twits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting WTO notification I got in my work inbox today

Ukraine

G/SPS/N/UKR/187

Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 10 September 2022 No. 1029 "On Amendment to Paragraph 1 of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Minis...

The Resolution provides for the possibility to fumigate consignments of products of plant origin outside the customs territory of Ukraine during the martial law and accordingly defines the conditions for such fumigation.

Description: Agricultural products of plant origin

 

En

Notified document (1)
Notified document (2)
Notified document (3)

Ukraine is not my area of responsibility but thought it interesting and good to see that bureaucratic trade processes continue. It's important to keep these things ticking over even in times of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VOTES ARE IN -- YES TO RUS -- !!!

Quelle surprise; voting overwhelmingly favored RUS. Next action: annexation, no later than the end of next week. Cannon fodder en route; tactical nukes (hahaha) on standby?

  • 93%, Zaporizhzhia
  • 91%, Luhansk
  • 87%, Kherson
  • 87%, Donetsk (anticipated)

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. would never recognize the annexation of Ukrainian territory by Moscow and that Washington would impose “additional severe and swift costs on Russia,” adding that Kyiv “has the absolute right to defend itself throughout its territory, including to take back the territory that has been illegally seized one way or another by Russia.”

Someone fact-check me: did the US (i.e., the God Emperor) recognize Israel's de facto annexation of the Golan? I wonder if its militarized. I wonder if there's (tactical) nuclear weapons in the vicinity. I wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Someone fact-check me: did the US (i.e., the God Emperor) recognize Israel's de facto annexation of the Golan? I wonder if its militarized. I wonder if there's (tactical) nuclear weapons in the vicinity. I wonder.

Unsurprisingly, it took until 2019 for the U.S. to recognize by a decree from ex-President Tiny Hans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Unsurprisingly, it took until 2019 for the U.S. to recognize by a decree from ex-President Tiny Hans. 

Matrim Fox Cauthon -- surprisingly, Uncle Joe refuses to reverse it. In effect, the USG continues to recognize Israel's annexation of another country's territorial integrity, which is at odds with US policy re Ukraine :blink:

Edited by Wade1865
edits in red
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confused by the confusion. Bipolar foreign policy is the norm, not the exception. Most especially, but not limited to the superpowers. Hence "we would never accept the annexation of Ukraine by Russia" actually heavily implies that the US would accept the annexation of one state (partly or wholly) by another in a different context and subject to the relationship of each state with the US at the time.

And in some respects, in all geopolitical constructs that have existed up to today, it is right for countries to avoid blanketly committing to universal foreign policy positions. One day the greater good may be achieved by an annexation being recognised. Feeling hamstrung by a past statement that annexation is always wrong and to be condemned and subject to sanction may hinder a greater good from being realised.

That is not to say the Golan heights annexation is such an example.

As much as possible governments should try to adhere to principle rather than policy. Policy should shift according to circumstance, but principle should be unwavering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Confused by the confusion...

...That is not to say the Golan heights annexation is such an example...

The Anti-Targ -- I was comparing two examples of annexation: Russia in Ukraine, and Israel in Syria. In the case of Russia, the US is against annexation given that Russia attacked and occupied portions of Ukraine. Comparatively, in the case of Israel, the US recognized annexation despite Israel conducting a preemptive attack and occupying portions of Syria.

Given the above situation, where both conflicts include not just 1) annexation but also 2) the militarization of another state's territory, 3) the threat of nuclear weapons, and 4) US involvement; I wonder if the situation in Ukraine will eventually reflect what we see in Israel and Syria today, where a similar kind of non-peace is achievable. What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Matrim Fox Cauthon -- surprisingly, Uncle Joe refuses to reverse it. In effect, the USG continues to recognize Israel's annexation of another country's territorial integrity, which is at odds with US policy re Ukraine :blink:

We finally got the thread to being back on track and about Ukraine. Do we really want to drag this into a "whataboutism?" discussion of the U.S. recognition of the Golan Heights? I don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess the debate about using the Nordstream pipelines is over... Both have damage most likely caused by sabotage. An insane amount of methane is leaking into the atmosphere.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63057966

Hopefully the Russians will shut them down to limit the environmental damage but I'm not holding my breath.

Edited by Luzifer's right hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Would the US undertake a special military operation to hit Russian military bases inside Russia if Russia used nukes against Ukraine?

The American position is certainly that Russia could not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, even "small" tactical ones (noting that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs would be considered tactical ones today), with impunity. The precise response would vary depending on the situation: the Russians "demonstrating" a bomb on an empty (big) field or stretch of countryside somewhere would probably garner a different response to hitting a Ukrainian military position causing casualties but in a limited area, to hitting a city causing tens of thousands or more civilian casualties.

The Americans certainly have additional response thresholds, such as hitting Russian targets in Ukraine would be a different order of escalation to hitting Crimea to hitting Russia itself, and using cruise missiles versus actual air strikes to a no-fly zone to a nuclear counter-demonstration. The last would probably only be on the table if Russia used a nuclear weapon against a city. The US could also limit its response to non-regular Russian military forces, maybe targeting LPR or DPR facilities or the Wagner mercenary bases near Bukhat (the US wiped out a Wagner force in Syria a few years ago and Russia did not regard that as an assault on their troops).

Edited by Werthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

We finally got the thread to being back on track and about Ukraine. Do we really want to drag this into a "whataboutism?" discussion of the U.S. recognition of the Golan Heights? I don't. 

Matrim Fox Cauthon — did you really not grasp the intent behind my post?

The Golan was an historical example where a condition of peace has been secured; the question is, given its end-state, and the similarities with Ukraine, could it not be a viable end-state for Ukraine, as well? Are we not allowed to speculate on how this war ends?

Although the current situation (where Vladimir initiated a general mobilization) appears to be an extension of the war, my question suggests a resolution is closer than people are expecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

…Both have damage most likely caused by sabotage…

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63057966

Interestingly — this is what @lacuna and @Ran mentioned, which wasn’t as far-fetched as one would think. Points to both for their reasonable speculations!

And it makes sense that Vladimir would order the attack as a means of self-preservation; additionally, in my opinion, it’s a decisive confirmation that the US-dominated world order will be permanently challenged as Russia refocuses wholeheartedly on Eurasia as opposed to Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Interestingly — this is what @lacuna and @Ran mentioned, which wasn’t as far-fetched as one would think. Points to both for their reasonable speculations!

And it makes sense that Vladimir would order the attack as a means of self-preservation; additionally, in my opinion, it’s a decisive confirmation that the US-dominated world order will be permanently challenged as Russia refocuses wholeheartedly on Eurasia as opposed to Europe.

Given China’s explicit security guarantees for Kazakstan I have a feeling that a Russian “refocus” on Eurasia is likely to go as badly or worse than the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Russia is spent.  It is a nuclear terrorist state.  A large North Korea.  It is now a Chinese Satellite at best.  A failed State doomed to collapse at worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given China’s explicit security guarantees for Kazakstan I have a feeling that a Russian “refocus” on Eurasia is likely to go as badly or worse than the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Russia is spent.  It is a nuclear terrorist state.  A large North Korea.  It is now a Chinese Satellite at best.  A failed State doomed to collapse at worst.

But i was told hard men like Putin make good times./s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But i was told hard men like Putin make good times./s

Varysblackfyre321 — close, but at this point in the cycle, “…hard times create strong men [present]; strong men create good times [future]…” Depending on your perspective, this is more valid amongst the UKR Soldiers and key political leaders, as opposed to the RUS conscripts and singular autocrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wade1865 said:

Interestingly — this is what @lacuna and @Ran mentioned, which wasn’t as far-fetched as one would think. Points to both for their reasonable speculations!

And it makes sense that Vladimir would order the attack as a means of self-preservation; additionally, in my opinion, it’s a decisive confirmation that the US-dominated world order will be permanently challenged as Russia refocuses wholeheartedly on Eurasia as opposed to Europe.

Oh, was I unclear? I'd bet all my money that Russia is behind it. It happened on the same day as the ceremonial opening of the Baltic Pipeline, which completely covers Poland's gas consumption with Norwegian gas. Unknown drones were spotted near Norwegian oil platforms on the same day as well - all kinds of debate about installation safety and preventability of sabotage is going on here now. The consensus seems to be that it would not be difficult to cause significant disruption and damage even with relatively low-tech, untraceable equipment.

Russian submarines have been fucking around in Swedish waters for years. Last year, eight months apart, two comms cables from mainland Norway to Svalbard were severed. Among other things, these cables transmit submarine identification data to the Norwegian military and NATO. The same bunch of Russian fishing vessels (as if that's all they were) were going round and round the area for hours on both occasions. Privately owned Russian luxury yachts (presumably fitted with bottom-mapping sonar equipment) have been spending inordinate amounts of time in waters near undersea oil and gas pipelines the last few years, so they know where our shit is.

In short, they are fuckers, and the sooner their rotten state collapses in on itself the better. I only hope civilian suffering is kept to a minimum, for the sake of the younger generations who had no hand in the matter. As for the adults, if they want to close their eyes to reality, they should know that walking off a cliff is within the realm of possibility.

Edit: As for the adults, if you let someone (Putin and his cronies) pull the wool over your eyes, don't come crying after they've led you off a cliff.

Edited by lacuna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lacuna said:

Oh, was I unclear?

lacuna — wut, hahaha; I literally acknowledged your speculation wasn’t far-fetched. Did you not see me reward you points? Points — plural! They’re equivalent to gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...