Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 361. (Read 76553 times)

Sorry to jump in, but since it is a forum I guess it is fine.

Wait, I am afraid we are just loosing a bit here. The fact that a country is strategically important for you does not mean you automatically get the right to rule it!

Example: Russia is strategically important for the safety of Poland. Putin is aggressive, thus Poland has the right to change Russia's regime. Sounds ridiculous does it not? Well, that is exactly Putin's argument.

If we talk Realpolitik's rather than law, then pretty much anything is justified from either side and makes no sense talking about legality. Then, the argument is "I have a bigger army and I will tell your citizens what they can and cannot do", to which the only answer is "sure, try to, we will do everything in our hand to stop you, and by the way watch your back, you may not be able to afford a stalemate".

What you cannot do is try to mix these two to justify a war of aggression.

Although you are in conversation with someone else but I could nor resist answering to your question.

This is a very good question that you have asked.  We can draw some timeline and answer the question.

Q. Did Russia invade Ukraine legally?  Yes or no?
- No
The invasion or military operation or whatever you call it, did it start from 9 days ago?

Do you agree or disagree with this?

If you agree then how US is doing this?
- To make Ukraine a Western military base on Russian border.

Do you think Russia was suppose to allow this act? Yes/No?
- My answer is NO! Of-course Russia will do everything they can.

US had a few elements to use.
1. Expand NATO towards east, towards Russian border.
2. Integrate Ukraine economy into the west or in other words EU expansion
3. Promote democracy in Ukraine. US runs around the world, give everything to put their choice of democratic regimes. We all love democracy, don't we? Moscow do not like it and Beijing too.

Let's go back way before Feb 22nd 2014.
In mid 1990s former Soviet Union made it clear that they oppose NATO expansion although they were too weak to do anything about it.

NATO's declaration in 2008:

Putin's response:

Ukraine is strategically very important for the security of Russia but the West were encouraging Ukraine to play tough against Russia. The West were encouraging the Ukrainians that they will ultimately become a part of the West because the West will ultimately defeat Putin.

Is West losing anything from this War? No! In fact, they are looking at making more money from selling weapons and since Russian will be disconnected from major part of the world, US will easily make deals with their energy resources to the EU nations. But what did Ukraine get from playing tough against a country which has huge nuclear power where they have none?

It does not matter who will win this WAR? Putin or West but one thing is very clear for sure that Ukraine is losing everything now, Ukraine is getting wrecked and will have nothing left when we will have an end of this WAR.

If we are talking "legal", all NATO countries are non-combatant / neutral countries. They are absolutely free to sell weapons to any of the sides. For example, Poland is absolutely in its right to sell tanks at 1$ per unit to Ukraine if they wish to do so.


Which actually started WWII as such, is that what you mean?

I think the EU should support Ukraine with all material means (particularly adequate weapons) necessary to stop Putin's invasion on its tracks. I am in favour of peace but as the old saying says "si vis pacem parabelum" - If you want peace, prepare for war.

There was a Roman general that met with Mitridates of Pontus, and oriental despot that was threating a province of Rome. Mitridates approached on a throne carried by 40 slaves covered in gold. Sila dismounted, took off his armour and wore a simple hay hat. Walking towards Mitridates, drew a line in the sand. From his inferior position, he said "if you cross this line, you are at war with Rome" and left giving his back to Mitridates.

Mitridates, with his all army at his back never crossed that line. The fact that right behind Sila were 4 roman legions in battle formation probably had a lot to do with it.

NATO must draw the line in the sand. In my view, better in Ukraine than in Finland, Sweden or Poland.

You're really twisting my words. This was clearly not in approval of shelling a nuclear power plant, but rather that the situation is "all clear" nuclear power plant is not in danger. Russia already secured Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, so if the plan was to get some radioactive particles in the air they already had a perfect option.

That was always blatantly obvious to any outside observer, NATO will not and legally cannot engage Russia over Ukraine, can't claim defense if you attack first outside of NATO. Once you start thinking of the events in terms of the big game of geopolitics they become quiet logical.

In what universe shelling a nuclear power station is "all good"?

https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1499566442609614850
so all good, oh wait

US activates Nuclear Incident Response team, sees no elevated radiation readings at Zaporizhzhia plant

and

https://twitter.com/iaeaorg/status/1499582507653681186
 

I am well aware of the purpose of the sanctions.

This war did not started 9 days ago, this dirty situation in Ukraine is a long time battle. Russia wants to keep their land safe from NATO aggression. USA wants to expand NATO towards east. This war is not what it seems. It's not top secret that this war is between USA and Russia. This war is to make money from selling weapons, it is for fuels and oil.



No one wants war, it's against humanity but yet we had 35 abstention including China and India, let's not mention those who were against it. You can politically justify anything that serves your interest especially when you have super power. Politician does not care who died in battle filed or who is losing everything to live a life. It's the innocent Ukrainians who are losing their lives and it's the Russian people who is going to suffer for the decisions their leaders are making. West and NATO is harvesting the honey from this attack/invasion/war/military operation.

Well, clearly he doesn't care about a few million casualties, that much is clear by now. An incident like that might be beneficial for his delusional "plan" - look, Ukrainians launched a nuclear attack against us!!!

However if the wind starts blowing towards NATO, that raises some interesting questions. Is that an attack?

There is live video from it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUT36YGOh8
Fire is visible and few minutes ago I saw shooting or bombing in background. From what I read, this power plant is most powerful in Europe. Putin has no limits, but doesn't he don't understand that nuclear disaster would hit not Ukraine only, but also big part of Russia. Especially now when wind is going towards Rostov and Krasnodar.

Forget nukes, Putin's gonna create another Chernobyl - cheaper and easier to spin propaganda around it.

Not confirmed by a reputable source other than CCTV cameras but there's chatter on twitbook etc that Russians are attacking Zaporizhia nuclear power station and there are explosions and fires.

As I said on a previous post, a long ugly and costly draw, sucking Putin's foreign currency stores, showing the world that he can be if not beaten, clearly stopped by an army thought inferior (more on this below), an united West and a progressive expulsion from the richest trading countries (yeah, I know... China)... all that is up to a certain point a win for Ukraine.

An major strategic victory for Ukraine would be keeping its access to the Black Sea a large. A decisive strategic victory would be to keep the Donbas, their democratic government, their independence and Putin withdrawing the troops stating it as a "victory" of course.

The Ukrainian army is not small and is not as unprepared as it may look. Defensive positions typically require the attacker to have between 3 to 10 times more resources than the defender. Can Putin divest that amount of men, money and influence without compromising other borders?

Apart from propaganda, my strategic analysis remains: Ukraine can only be defeated as a whole if Ukrainians decide so. My take is that decision would require several years of conventional fighting and then guerrilla fighting. Costly and unpopular... not a despots dream certainly.

Edited to add: On the rhetoric that justifies the war of aggression, quoting myself in another post


Putin's arguments are old as sand.

Yeah my logic was the same, i thought I was in the bizarro world, everyone was talking as if Ukraine was defeating Russia, all objectivity and critical thinking was gone, blatant propaganda was rampant, only positive coverage of Ukraine, fact checking was non-existent, Russian news/propaganda was getting censored everywhere, echo chambers, and fakes were running wild ("Russian warship, go f*ck yourself" was proven to be fake but I still see people using it). Nothing made sense until i realized it was all psyops. Militarily Ukraine stands no chance, its the poorest, and most corrupt country in Europe (Russia is more corrupt). It appears, best chance Ukraine has is psyops, demoralize Russians to a point where Putin is either taken out, or people revolt and remove him from office. Now i don't say anything on social medias, but i hold this place in higher regard.

Supposing that Putin did launch a nuclear nuke, USA and NATO wouldn't simply ignore such a situation, just because Ukraine isn't in the EU or NATO. It would be a disastrous turn, since it would launch a series of nuking from both parties, leading to thousands if not millions of deaths, while leaving an uninhabited earth.

I do get your point, the less Putin has to lose, the more dangerous he becomes, I don't think that there are any more sanctions to implement, the condition is already a mess, he has already lost, that's what makes him threatening, he doesn't have anything else to lose, so he might as well take humanity with him.

I thought it was universally accepted that it was a bad idea and the main reason that lead to a much bigger WW2?

Putin is not mad in the usual sense, he is just falling into a Russian Maximalism and a neo-colonialism. This is a game old as humanity - under the rules of the "Big Game", the invasion of Ukraine, that was looking to tighten the ties with the west and was about to join a different "sphere of influence", allows him to maintain the status quo of Russia, perhaps even to enhance it.

Even with a limited success in the south by capturing Odessa, Mariupol and the access to the Black Sea, he, under his inhuman view, would have achieved a major strategic victory.

The old game... money, ego, power, ... all that brought Europe to WWI and WWII with millions of dead. That how Europe learnt the price of nationalism and despotism and that is why European governments in which people have a say do not want to hear anything about waging war in Europe. This is often confused with weakness, as the democratic rivalry is often confused with chaos.

Justice is being served - what is it, a foot of yacht for every killed civilian? Oligarchs must be furious, first they were forced to use foreign-registered private jets, now this...

You are wrong: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-spacex-crew-3-astronauts-headed-to-international-space-station
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbB2-CCrzO0

-Dave

I view the stated "goals" of Putin to "denazify" Ukraine more as propaganda, and not necessarily something that Putin actually believes. I see these "goals" as a pretext to invade. Putin wanting to expand Russia's territory is not something that will be accepted by his people, or the rest of the world, and even his current supporters would likely oppose his actions.


I think nukes serve more as a deterrent than an actual weapon of war. In other words, the threat of using nukes is going to be more effective in winning a war than the actual use of nukes.

There are many risks to using nukes against Ukraine.

You mentioned that (trying to) using nukes may result in Putin's subordinates ousting him from power. I think this is a very real threat. There are many reports that most Russian soldiers do not really want to be fighting Ukraine, and were misled when they were initially deployed. Using nukes against Ukraine would remove any potential pretext that Putin is trying to save innocent lives, and those who allow Putin to remain in power may decide that Putin staying in power is too dangerous.

Depending on how the nuke is delivered, other countries may detect that a nuclear attack is about to take place, and it may not be clear who the attack is against. Putin has vaguely threatened nuclear repercussions to those who interfere with his war, and much of the West is supplying Ukraine with weapons. It would not be outside the realm of possibility that Putin could prepare to nuke Ukraine (or actually do so) as a means to hide the fact that he is (also) about to launch a nuclear attack against another country (or countries). If a country makes a (mis)calculation that they are about to be hit with a nuclear attack, they may launch a nuclear attack against Russia. Alliances have been betrayed in world wars, so even China may reach the conclusion they are about to be hit with nukes.

Russia's last real trading partner is China. Currently, China is supporting Russia, in large part because they want to take Taiwan. I don't know if China is comfortable continuing to support Russia if Russia starts using nukes. There would be the potential that China could face sanctions if Russia were to use nukes and China were to abstain from imposing sanctions against Russia. China facing strong sanctions would risk an uprising by the Chinese people, and I don't know if China is willing to take that risk for a war that they don't stand to benefit from. China's economy is already in a bad position due to its housing bubble popping. China does not need to take Taiwan immediately, and China knows how to play the long game to get what they want without going to war (see what China has done to US colleges, and how that has negatively affected the US).

The war is already unpopular in Russia. Using nukes against Ukraine would result in many innocent lives being lost. Currently, there have been a fairly small number of civilian deaths in Ukraine. There is the risk that the destruction from a nuclear attack would be sufficiently bad that the Russian people would oppose Putin in large enough numbers that it would be impossible for him to stay in power.

edit:

If the sanctions are sufficiently painful, those in power in Russia may be willing to negotiate to have the sanctions lifted, and may be willing to give concessions in exchange for the rest of the world trading with what is now Russia again. I do think what af_newbie is probably a stretch, at least as long as China is willing to trade with Russia.

Only if you fire against someone who can fire back. Ukraine has no nukes, and doesn't have a mutual defense alliance with anyone with nukes. There is zero chance that NATO would fire nukes against Russia in retaliation, just as they didn't send in ground troops in response to the ground invasion. (If Russia nuked eg. Poland, then we'd have full-scale global nuclear war.)

On your other points, I hope you're right, but I'm worried that Putin may actually be mad. I can't see how any part of this Ukraine invasion is rational from any perspective.


I agree that there is a probably-wrong perception that Ukraine is on a path to defeating Russia within the next few years, though things have clearly been going much worse for the Russians than they expected. It's hard not to focus on this little speck of justice in this tragic, unjust situation.


Who's going break them up? Whoever controls Russia's nuclear weapons can stop any effort like that by threatening to nuke the aggressor, so you'd have to have the leader of Russia (Putin or his successors) voluntarily give up their nukes, etc.