Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[nimic]

Had not heard of her before so did a quick google. The first result was "Calls Daylight-Saving Time a Conspiracy to Control Clocks". Yeah I see she is a nutter then.

She's worse than a nutter, she's a cryptofascist.

 

[Pintu]

The Russian apartment bombings happened across multiple cities in Russia to primarily white, slavic Russians. Do you think a guy who is willing to murder his own citizens to create a fake provocation so he can seize greater control of the nation's security apparatus has any problem with bombing cities in foreign countries ?

He is already bombing Kharkiv and Mariupol. Again, I think a paranoid crazy Putin might give the order to carpet bomb some cities. I certainly don't expect rational Russian generals to carry it out (Especially Kyiv, it has a very particular place).

 

[Raoul]

Flynn is a terrible example just because he's Michael Flynn, and because you think these guys are right instead of wrong? Michael Flynn was a highly decorated general who gave apparent high level talks and analysis after playing a major role in Afghanistan. It's not like we're talking three decades ago either, this was within the last decade. He turned out to be batshit insane.

Flynn is a disgraced charlatan who was on the cusp of jail time and who literally had dinner with Vladimir Putin. No one with half a brain listens to him or considers him a legitimate talking head on anything at this point.

 

[Carolina Red]

They're quite good, right? Great news if true

Fastest short range anti-aircraft missile on the market. That's a big deal.

 

[hellhunter]

 

[Raoul]

He is already bombing Kharkiv and Mariupol. Again, I think a paranoid crazy Putin might give the order to carpet bomb some cities. I certainly don't expect rational Russian generals to carry it out (Especially Kyiv, it has a very particular place).

Let's be real. There is no hallowed place anywhere in this world that Putin wouldn't bomb if it meant he could achieve any one of his batshit objectives. He would rather leave Kyiv like Mariupol than leave it intact, if he thought he could sell it as a domestic win prior to a withdrawal.

 

[Raoul]

It would mean the same to the Ukrainian side. Any cessation in shooting would result in them being able to get armed to the gills with sophisticated western weapons.

 

[hellhunter]

It would mean the same to the Ukrainian side. Any cessation in shooting would result in them being able to get armed to the gills with sophisticated western weapons.

This is absolutely true. It's the question whose supply stream is faster. Ukrainian army will also have to orchestrate evavuations, though, taking their attention elsewhere.

 

[GlastonSpur]

I don't think the NFZ will happen due to a lack of political appetite. but it could work imo. Putin would be incentivized to not shoot down any NATO planes for fear of what would happen next, especially if he's already running out of military and economic resources. So a limited NFZ and humanitarian corridor in the west could work.

Why would Putin agree to a limited NFZ and humanitarian corridor in the west, given that this would only help the flow of the defensive weapons into Ukraine that are killing his troops, armour and aircraft? And even if he did agree, why would anyone now trust a single word he says?

It would give Putin the perfect opportunity to escalate short of attacking a NATO country. He could shoot down a NATO jet and claim that the Ukrainians did it, or that it was an accident, or that the plane had strayed into Eastern Ukraine, or that the jet had attacked Russian troops etc. The possibilities for miscalculation are endless - and the stakes too high to risk it.

 

[Pintu]

If there was an EU defence opt-out, since the EU is not now directly defending Ukraine from the current invasion, and since NATO via the UN's article 5 is also not now directly defending Ukraine, why would this suddenly change in the event of a 2nd Russian invasion ?

Because once Ukraine is in the EU, the collapse of their economy would be a massive disaster for the entire Union. Even without being legally obliged to defend Ukraine, the EU will have to do it. All EU countries will have too much to lose if they allow Ukraine to be occupied.

Putin and his cronies are not worried about some EU or NATO invasion of a nuclear-armed Russia. They know that is never going to happen. Instead they are worried about the example of Ukrainian freedom, independence and democracy being spread to the Russian people. This is what it's all about.

Yes that's true. Stopping democracy is an important component. And it is true that nobody is ever going to invade Russia. But the regime in Moscow has a fear (justified or not) of Ukraine being used against Belarus and Crimea.

 

[Raoul]

Why would Putin agree to a limited NFZ and humanitarian corridor in the west, given that this would only help the flow of the defensive weapons into Ukraine that are killing his troops, armour and aircraft? And even if he did agree, why would anyone now trust a single word he says?

It would give Putin the perfect opportunity to escalate short of attacking a NATO country. He could shoot down a NATO jet and claim that the Ukrainians did it, or that it was an accident, or that the plane had strayed in Eastern Ukraine, or that the jet had attacked Russian troops etc. The possibilities for miscalculation are endless - and the stakes too high to risk it.

He would be forced to do so for fear of triggering article 5. Remember that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has repeatedly invited the US and others in to their country to do this. The burden will therefore be shifted onto Russia to not trigger article 5. Unless you think Putin is suicidal, there is a a pretty good chance he will feel incentivized to avoid needless military conflict at a time when he's incredibly weak.

 

[Frosty]

The UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has ordered Russia to stop it invasion, saying it had not seen any evidence to support the Kremlin’s justification for the war, that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian-speakers in the east of the country, Julian Borger writes.

The court ruled by 13 votes to two for a provisional order that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”. Only the Russian and Chinese judges on the court voted against the order.

The order was in response to a Ukrainian appeal to the court on 26 February, asking for a urgent ruling on Russian unsupported claims that Ukrainian forces were committing genocide in Russian-backed enclaves in Luhansk and Donetsk, regions in eastern Ukraine, as a justification for the attack.

Russia did not attend an initial hearing on the case, nor did its lawyers turn up to hear today’s ruling. Instead they sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. The court’s president, Joan Donoghue, rejected Russia’s argument, pointing out the frequent occasions that Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials had claimed the alleged genocide was the reason for the attack.

The ruling is unlikely to influence Putin’s choices, but it does provide an authoritative refutation of his pretext for starting the war.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Because once Ukraine is in the EU, the collapse of their economy would be a massive disaster for the entire Union. Even without being legally obliged to defend Ukraine, the EU will have to do it. All EU countries will have too much to lose if they allow Ukraine to be occupied ...

That still boils down to mere hope on Ukraine's part, not a guarantee. It's not enough.

 

[nimic]

He would be forced to do so for fear of triggering article 5. Remember that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has repeatedly invited the US and others in to their country to do this. The burden will therefore be shifted onto Russia to not trigger article 5. Unless you think Putin is suicidal, there is a a pretty good chance he will feel incentivized to avoid needless military conflict at a time when he's incredibly weak.

Shooting down Nato planes in Ukraine wouldn't trigger article 5.

 

[Raoul]

Shooting down Nato planes in Ukraine wouldn't trigger article 5.

Well thanks. That's good to know.

 

[nimic]

You're welcome.

 

[Frosty]

 

[nimic]

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

[GlastonSpur]

He would be forced to do so for fear of triggering article 5. Remember that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has repeatedly invited the US and others in to their country to do this. The burden will therefore be shifted onto Russia to not trigger article 5. Unless you think Putin is suicidal, there is a a pretty good chance he will feel incentivized to avoid needless military conflict at a time when he's incredibly weak.

Sorry, but "a pretty good chance" - even if assumed to be true - is not sufficient. The potential end consequences - the permanent end of all sentient life on earth - from an escalation that leads a full-scale nuclear exchange, far outweigh any alleged small chance that it could happen.

The line has to be drawn somewhere - and its drawn around an attack on a NATO country.

 

[Frosty]

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

One thing I wanted to ask anyone in the know - is the reference to French Algeria still in the Treaty? Did they not bother to change it after the War of Independence?

 

[nimic]

One thing I wanted to ask anyone in the know - is the reference to French Algeria still in the Treaty? Did they not bother to change it after the War of Independence?

They did!

1. Article 6 has been modified by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey.
2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council modified this Treaty in its decision C-R(63)2, point V, on the independence of the Algerian departments of France.
3. Documents on Canadian External Relations, Vol. 15, Ch. IV.

 

[Frosty]

They did!

1. Article 6 has been modified by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey.
2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council modified this Treaty in its decision C-R(63)2, point V, on the independence of the Algerian departments of France.
3. Documents on Canadian External Relations, Vol. 15, Ch. IV.

Thank you!

 

[GlastonSpur]

The BBC reports:

"Nato senior military officials say President Putin has clearly not achieved his military goals in Ukraine so far and "probably will not at the end of the day".

But they added that Russian forces still had the capacity to do "a lot of damage".

The defence officials said that while Russian forces had made gains in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, they had still failed to encircle Kyiv - which they said Russia had expected to do in a matter of days.

An expected Russian amphibious assault in the south near Odessa had also, so far, failed to materialise.

The Nato officials believe that Russia's original military plan had included taking all of Ukraine's Black Sea coast - right up to Moldova.

They assessed that Russia's invasion force was suffering from a lack of fuel and food as well as suffering losses. They said that President Putin was already looking for reinforcements.

One official said it was "highly likely" that would involve bringing in foreign fighters from Syria and private military contractors - such as the Wagner group - to Ukraine.

Another official added that Russia's military reserves "were not a secret weapon". He said that calling on reserve forces was "scratching the bottom of the barrel".

Nato officials say that allies and member states are continuing to send weapons to Ukraine. They said that included old Soviet weaponry, which Ukrainian forces would have been trained to use, as well as Western supplied anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles."

 

[nimic]

Thank you!

More detail here: https://www.nato.int/ebookshop/video/declassified/doc_files/C-R(63)2.PDF

It's the official summary of the meeting where (among other things) the French representative basically went "The Algerian departments of France don't exist any more so that part probably shouldn't count".

 

[Carolina Red]

Shooting down Nato planes in Ukraine wouldn't trigger article 5.

If they're flown by NATO pilots...

 

[nimic]

If they're flown by NATO pilots...

Still doesn't count, according to Article 6. It would count if it happens in the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic above the Tropic of Cancer, though, so there's always a chance.

 

[Sarni]

The only scenario I see where it doesn't lead to nuclear escalation is a limited NFZ confined entirely to the (far) East and excluding Kiev. But it's all very risky especially if you take the view that Putin is basically deranged.

Do you seriously see zero chance of Russia not deciding to end the world if NATO, or even US, decide to help Ukraine?

The perception that Putin will fire 5,000 nukes over entire world the very minute anyone tries to help Ukraine is exactly the reason why this will end in tears and he will get a free run at whoever he chooses next, if this is allowed to happen. Today we say he's not going to invade NATO because he fears escalation with them, but it may not be true in 3, 4, 5 years. There has to be a point where people in power may need to call the bluff and react, or are we just telling Putin 'pick whichever land you want to take but please don't use nukes'.

IMO without direct threat to Russia on their soil, which is never going to happen, chances of nuclear weapon being used are very small. But because they are not zero, US/NATO do not want to intervene - not because they think it is absolutely certain and there's totally no chance that it doesn't happen.

 

[GlastonSpur]

CNN report on situation on road leading to Odessa. It includes a Ukrainian soldier saying that - from what he's learned from captured soldiers - the Russian troops don't know why they are in Ukraine, fear being shot by their own side if they retreat back to where they came from, and so they either advance or surrender:

 

[Carolina Red]

Still doesn't count, according to Article 6. It would count if it happens in the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic above the Tropic of Cancer, though, so there's always a chance.

Yes, but let's follow the logical series of events that will follow...

 

[Precaution]

The meme of Abe shouting at the clouds is very apt here, as if Putin gives a crap.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Do you seriously see zero chance of Russia not deciding to end the world if NATO, or even US, decide to help Ukraine?

The perception that Putin will fire 5,000 nukes over entire world the very minute anyone tries to help Ukraine is exactly the reason why this will end in tears and he will get a free run at whoever he chooses next, if this is allowed to happen. Today we say he's not going to invade NATO because he fears escalation with them, but it may not be true in 3, 4, 5 years. There has to be a point where people in power may need to call the bluff and react, or are we just telling Putin 'pick whichever land you want to take but please don't use nukes'.

IMO without direct threat to Russia on their soil, which is never going to happen, chances of nuclear weapon being used are very small. But because they are not zero, US/NATO do not want to intervene - not because they think it is absolutely certain and there's totally no chance that it doesn't happen.

I doubt that anyone in NATO or the EU has that perception. The risk is not an instant full-scale nuclear attack. Instead the risk is of tit-for-tat escalation ending in a full-scale nuclear exchange - e.g. NATO jet shot down by Russian missile over Ukraine > NATO destroys that missile base > Putin uses tactical nuke on Ukrainian city > NATO destroys several large Russian armoured columns around Kiev > Putin ... you get the picture.

Putin will not get a free run at wherever he next chooses because pretty soon he won't have the military power or money to try his luck elsewhere. Russia is slowly being bled dry, militarily, economically, politically and in diplomatic terms.

The "point where people in power may need to call the bluff and react" doesn't need to be established, because it has long already been established - it occurs if he attacks a NATO country.

 

[Smores]

Binding is doing a lot of work there. I mean come on Russia don't give a single feck.

 

[nimic]

Yes, but let's follow the logical series of events that will follow...

Soviet pilots shot down Americans in Korea, and Soviet anti-air operators shot down Americans in Vietnam. I'm sure it happened at other times too, and I'm sure the reverse happened at times as well.

American pilots being shot down in Ukraine might lead to WW3, but in any case it wouldn't be because article 5 was broken in the first instance. We can talk about escalations, obviously, and how they would lead to a strike on Nato soil, but that's not quite the same. If it were, then we could make the same argument about supplying arms leading to article 5, or sanctions, or all the other things Russia are whining about.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

What the hell is this nonsense? They are really getting to ridiculous levels in their propaganda, I don't like it at all.

Completely agree. I understand that it's propaganda aiming to boost morale for Ukrainians and deflate Russian soldiers, but this is too much. Like trying to glorify mass killers now. Or maybe that is reserved for Chris Kyle and US.

 

[nimic]

It's stupid to begin with but even more so now. People are literally treating this like a game and these are characters and upgrades

It might be silly, but it's not like this kind of propaganda is a new thing, and definitely not when it comes to snipers. The Finns, Soviets and Germans all venerated their (supposedly) best snipers, and they were all exaggerated in propaganda. Same with pilot aces. It's got nothing to do with the modern world and gamification (characters and upgrades).

 

[GlastonSpur]

Binding is doing a lot of work there. I mean come on Russia don't give a single feck.

Maybe so, but it does give several hundred fecks about the cumulative, snow-balling effects of ever-increasing economic, military, political and diplomatic pressure. Putin will deny it publicly, but the everyone around him will know - as will increasingly more and more ordinary Russians - that they are heading rapidly towards a national disaster.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

I used to work with an old Vietnam vet whose job was as a sniper, protecting LZs. He would literally lie in undergrowth for days staring into a jungle. I couldn’t imagine what type of focus you’d need, it would surely send you crazy

I've seen a few documentaries on the Army Ranger's sniper division. You have to be some kind of special breed to go through such training. Extremely high fail rate.

 

[Sarni]

It might be silly, but it's not like this kind of propaganda is a new thing, and definitely not when it comes to snipers. The Finns, Soviets and Germans all venerated their (supposedly) best snipers, and they were all exaggerated in propaganda. Same with pilot aces. It's got nothing to do with the modern world and gamification (characters and upgrades).

Yeah I think we all get propaganda is common and most of the stories can be taken with a pinch of salt. But there has to be a dose of realism to what is put out there.

 

[Pintu]

That still boils down to mere hope on Ukraine's part, not a guarantee. It's not enough.

It’s a reasonable hope though. And Russia will get out of this war very weak. But I agree with your position and it’s very likely Ukraine will reject this deal.

 

[GlastonSpur]

The BBC reports that UK is now supplying its Starstreak anti-aircraft missile systems - high velocity surface-to-air - to Ukraine.