Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

4bars said:
On your comment, I disagree that they are not allies. They are part of the OTAN, they share intel, they have similar western values, geopolitical orientation and a massive trade relationship. But obviously, the anglosphere (US, IRE, UK, AUS, NZ, CAN) are tighter allies for obvious, cultural, language, family connections and historical reasons
Click to expand...
This I agree, also I didn't say they are not allies. But more like, inat what was "better than the alternarive" fashion, since the beginning of the cold war. Anyway, we derailed the incessant stream of tweets enough already.
 
4bars said:
Does this count as war crimes also? To be honest is shitty that they do that to civilians...and a hospital
Click to expand...

I don't think so, hospitals should have backup power. Attacking the hospital or possibly even cutting off its water or something might be a war crime, power not so much.
 
TwoSheds said:
I don't think so, hospitals should have backup power. Attacking the hospital or possibly even cutting off its water or something might be a war crime, power not so much.
Click to expand...
It should have, but it might not have, and it is well reported that Russia has trouble with refined oil products supply in the regions close to the border due to the strain on the logistics capacities. Their backup power could easily run out of fuel.

The power grid definitely is civilian infrastructure but that didn't stop anybody from attacking it (the Serbian and Iraqi power grids were also bombed into oblivion when the US and their allies attacked).

So a strike on a power grid can be considered a war crime but no state has the moral high ground on this and can't rightfully complain about it.
 
stefan92 said:
It should have, but it might not have, and it is well reported that Russia has trouble with refined oil products supply in the regions close to the border due to the strain on the logistics capacities. Their backup power could easily run out of fuel.

The power grid definitely is civilian infrastructure but that didn't stop anybody from attacking it (the Serbian and Iraqi power grids were also bombed into oblivion when the US and their allies attacked).

So a strike on a power grid can be considered a war crime but no state has the moral high ground on this and can't rightfully complain about it.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair game if you're the one who has been attacked and they've bombed your grid to shit for years. Don't invade someone if you're an oil rich nation that can't get diesel to a hospital in your own country.
 
TwoSheds said:
I think it's fair game if you're the one who has been attacked and they've bombed your grid to shit for years. Don't invade someone if you're an oil rich nation that can't get diesel to a hospital in your own country.
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line? Is it fair game to torture, rape and mutilate imprisoned Russians, just because they started it? At some point there must be a line drawn.

It might not be this I agree, but it has to exist
 
stefan92 said:
Where do you draw the line? Is it fair game to torture, rape and mutilate imprisoned Russians, just because they started it? At some point there must be a line drawn.

It might not be this I agree, but it has to exist
Click to expand...
Also, why waste resources like drones on Russian grid infrastructure?
 
There has to be a line, but there also have to be consequences.

The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They have sown the wind, and so they shall reap the whirlwind.
Click to expand...
 
VorZakone said:
Also, why waste resources like drones on Russian grid infrastructure?
Click to expand...

Because enough of it makes life miserable for Russians. Power black outs can often fry people's computers and the work on it. Im certainly not a fan of it affecting hospitals, but i am fan of the underdog who's defending themselves against a full scale invasion not playing by the rules the whatever community wants them to. Attacking electricity grid's is not quite the same as launching missiles or drones at shopping malls or orphanages.
 
Power blackouts are not going to do anything to the morale of rural Russia. They are used to the misery. In fact most of them wouldn't assume it was due to enemy action.

In big cities of course it will be different.
 
The Firestarter said:
Power blackouts are not going to do anything to the morale of rural Russia. They are used to the misery. In fact most of them wouldn't assume it was due to enemy action.

In big cities of course it will be different.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're probably right on that point.
 
TwoSheds said:
I think it's fair game if you're the one who has been attacked and they've bombed your grid to shit for years. Don't invade someone if you're an oil rich nation that can't get diesel to a hospital in your own country.
Click to expand...

Civilians dont have to pay for it. And is a war crime. Period

When UK and US started the war in Iraq, and afghanistan did their populations deserved being attacked if they had that capability? Would you deserve that one of your family members died in the hospital ba a black out while in surgery?
 
4bars said:
Civilians dont have to pay for it. And is a war crime. Period

When UK and US started the war in Iraq, and afghanistan did their populations deserved being attacked if they had that capability? Would you deserve that one of your family members died in the hospital ba a black out while in surgery?
Click to expand...

Its one of the moral of dilemmas of war isnt it? Sanctions costs lives too. It hits the poorest and the sick the most. Tanking a country's economy that way has a cost on human lives as well but its not considered a war crime.
 
Gehrman said:
Its one of the moral of dilemmas of war isnt it? Sanctions costs lives too. It hits the poorest and the sick the most. Tanking a country's economy that way has a cost on human lives as well but its not considered a war crime.
Click to expand...

The sanctions tries to affect the least the survivability of the less fortunate. That is why there are plenty of exceptions for food and medicines. Then it might be secondary effects of the economy that trickles down and affects them. Attacking a civilian infrastructure is atacking directly civilian survivability hoping that it trickles up with its unrest

The first is attacking russia war capability and try that the civilian colateral damage is at minimum. The second is using civilian pain to rattle russia and petty revenge bc putin cant care less, while this resources could be used for war targets
 
4bars said:
The sanctions tries to affect the least the survivability of the less fortunate. That is why there are plenty of exceptions for food and medicines. Then it might be secondary effects of the economy that trickles down and affects them. Attacking a civilian infrastructure is atacking directly civilian survivability hoping that it trickles up with its unrest

The first is attacking russia war capability and try that the civilian colateral damage is at minimum. The second is using civilian pain to rattle russia and petty revenge bc putin cant care less, while this resources could be used for war targets
Click to expand...

Or you know, causing large costs and disruption to the Russian economy by destroying expensive grid equipment they may not find straightforward to replace. Russian civilians might die indirectly in a hypothetical scenario where the backup generators of an OPEC nation can't be fuelled, but that would fully be their own government's fault.
 
TwoSheds said:
Or you know, causing large costs and disruption to the Russian economy by destroying expensive grid equipment they may not find straightforward to replace. Russian civilians might die indirectly in a hypothetical scenario where the backup generators of an OPEC nation can't be fuelled, but that would fully be their own government's fault.
Click to expand...

Again, indirect consequences vs direct attack with the aim to hurt civilians
 
The definition of a failed state. A failed state with nuclear weapons...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66924404

Russia police crisis: Burned out, disappointed and demoralised

In the early hours of 14 January 2020, blood-curdling screams could be heard at an apartment block in the southern Russian region of Krasnodar.

Shocked and scared, a resident called the police to report what sounded like an attack on a woman.

But no-one came.

The screaming continued, alongside loud bangs and cries for help. Six more calls were made to emergency services but still no police officers arrived.

Neighbours, now fearing the worst, decided to take matters into their own hands and broke into the apartment by smashing down the door.

But it was too late.

The screaming had stopped. The woman was dead.

[....]

The impact of the war in Ukraine

The number of police officers in Russia was declining before the start of the war in Ukraine.

Initially, the war convinced some officers to stay in the force. Russian police officers are exempt from being called up for military duty, so some officers who were on the verge of resigning when Russia invaded Ukraine told us they kept their jobs to avoid fighting.

"Either you sat tight, or you left and got drafted," explains one officer from Moscow. "I know there were managers who made a list of everyone who'd threatened to quit and passed it straight to the [army] recruiters. Everyone was pretty scared."

But as the war rumbles on, police numbers are dwindling. The force cannot fill existing gaps - let alone recruit the 40,000 extra personnel that the Interior Ministry says is needed in Donetsk and Luhansk, areas of Ukraine that Russia partly occupies.
 
Another election in Europe, another win for right-wing parties, in this case, the far right in Slovakia(can expect them to drop all aid to Ukraine soon).

Feels like the left-wing on this continent simply can't win anymore, anywhere, people in Europe have turned so damn conservative in the last decade or two.

Yeah, you can point certain examples, or that the left will probably win in the UK next election, but thats only cause of a decade of mismanagement from the right, nothing more.

At this rate, i have more faith that the left will succeed in other parts of the world, american countries, even the US, over countries in Europe.
 
Popular current narrative is that Russia is "losing" or has "lost" the war from a strategic viewpoint.

Personally, I think the situation remains rather dire for Ukraine nevertheless. Putin will continue the war and the Russian military is far from defeated yet. So I don't see a scenario in which Ukraine defeats Russia on the battleground. Not without both countries going absolutely all the way, risking major economic/demographic collapse while losing millions of men.

There is this weird notion on Reddit sometimes of Russia being just on the brink of collapsing. It's just not true. There are, depending on your source, about 200,000 to 400,000 Russian troops still present in Ukraine and they can throw in more if they want. The usual arguments about "logistical problems" and such may be valid but Ukrainians are still getting killed everyday so evidently Russia is arming its troops. If you think there'll be a moment in the short term where the Russians will be without weapons or ammo, I got a bridge to sell you.

With all that being said, we should keep supporting Ukraine. But unless we increase both the pace and amount of aid we deliver, this will remain a grinding attrition war that could last a couple of years more. And Putin will be all to happy to turn this into a frozen conflict and keep Ukraine unstable, scare investors away from Ukraine, and destroy hopes of Ukraine joining EU or NATO.

I hope I'm wrong but sadly it seems Ukraine would need a miracle for this war to end quick, like Putin getting overthrown or dying from natural causes and his successor blaming it all on Putin and withdrawing.
 
Ukrainian sniper quotes:

He said that it does not trouble him to take lives because he is motivated by a higher purpose.

"We do not suffer psychologically because we protect our home and do a noble deed. Plus, it's just a job," he said.
Click to expand...
Despite their skill and effectiveness, Ghost stressed that they are humans who feel fear, just like anyone else.

"As long as we have fear, we're acting like humans, and we are more reasonable," he said. "As soon as somebody has lost their fear, that's the beginning of the end.
Click to expand...
https://www.businessinsider.com/the...-russians-2023-9?international=true&r=US&IR=T
 
VorZakone said:
Popular current narrative is that Russia is "losing" or has "lost" the war from a strategic viewpoint.

Personally, I think the situation remains rather dire for Ukraine nevertheless. Putin will continue the war and the Russian military is far from defeated yet. So I don't see a scenario in which Ukraine defeats Russia on the battleground. Not without both countries going absolutely all the way, risking major economic/demographic collapse while losing millions of men.

There is this weird notion on Reddit sometimes of Russia being just on the brink of collapsing. It's just not true. There are, depending on your source, about 200,000 to 400,000 Russian troops still present in Ukraine and they can throw in more if they want. The usual arguments about "logistical problems" and such may be valid but Ukrainians are still getting killed everyday so evidently Russia is arming its troops. If you think there'll be a moment in the short term where the Russians will be without weapons or ammo, I got a bridge to sell you.

With all that being said, we should keep supporting Ukraine. But unless we increase both the pace and amount of aid we deliver, this will remain a grinding attrition war that could last a couple of years more. And Putin will be all to happy to turn this into a frozen conflict and keep Ukraine unstable, scare investors away from Ukraine, and destroy hopes of Ukraine joining EU or NATO.

I hope I'm wrong but sadly it seems Ukraine would need a miracle for this war to end quick, like Putin getting overthrown or dying from natural causes and his successor blaming it all on Putin and withdrawing.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you there. I think you get a lot of information from seeking, and you get some ideas.

All the Russians have lost from a strategic point of view because they couldn't capture Kiev, and whatever was always braindead stuff to me because it is not a win for the UKR in any sense as the latter want the former to get the feck out of their country. Until then, UKR is in a very disadvantageous position, and they absolutely have no other choice. The Russians still held more land than before the 2022 invasion. The RU's military would take decades to rebuild, or so they said. Yet, there are other views saying it would take about five years, which is a very short time. Their economy was collapsing, and they would not be able to produce or repair basic and advanced weapons. After like 18 months, they are mostly still using them more than the UKR, who have received shitloads of them themselves from various countries.

It is true that the RU underestimated the West's unity and response and probably lacked intelligence on advanced technology and other information. But I think after 18 months, it showed that the West (at least what they let the general public know) doesn't have much information on or/and underestimated the RU's capability too.

This is not an anti-UKR or pro-RU post, though. I am concerned with the U.S. being a mess and keeping on supporting the UKR. And, I just had to let out that I was amazed at how people were thinking RU would collapse soon after just a few months. I was skeptic, not because I know more, but because, growing up under a dictator, I know that the reality in terms of how resilent those feckers can be is a tad different from how people from the 'West' think in general.

Most people just look at "good news" and want to feel good about it. It is hard to blame them though because war is generally depressing.
 
We can say Russia is losing all we want, i guess in the long run they are, but this war has been a complete stalemate for a full year now, the progress that Ukraine was making in the south has also stalled completely in recent weeks, so there is no reaching Tokmak until sometime next year.
 
Morty_ said:
We can say Russia is losing all we want, i guess in the long run they are, but this war has been a complete stalemate for a full year now, the progress that Ukraine was making in the south has also stalled completely in recent weeks, so there is no reaching Tokmak until sometime next year.
Click to expand...

Putin has already been unsuccessful in taking over all of Ukraine, which was his initial goal. The fact that he is incrementally losing more and more territory by the day can only be assessed that he is losing the war. That's not to say the tide couldn't change if say, the US stopped funding, and or, someone like Trump won the WH in 24, then proceeded to pull out of NATO (a distinct possibility), which would be a bat signal that Putin could basically nuke his way to taking all of Ukraine.
 
Raoul said:
Putin has already been unsuccessful in taking over all of Ukraine, which was his initial goal. The fact that he is incrementally losing more and more territory by the day can only be assessed that he is losing the war. That's not to say the tide couldn't change if say, the US stopped funding, and or, someone like Trump won the WH in 24, then proceeded to pull out of NATO (a distinct possibility), which would be a bat signal that Putin could basically nuke his way to taking all of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Nukes don't enter into it, you don't think Europe have more than enough nukes to level every major city in Russia on their own?

"More nukes" above a certain point really doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.