Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[PJL]

As a civilian, it's your duty to protect your country against invaders. And that means killing them by any means available. We laud WW2 resisters in occupied Europe. They killed Germans. This is the same.

If that's a government policy, then soldiers can freely shoot any civilians just as they can any soldiers.  WW2 resistance movements did, indeed, strip communities of their protected status when they used the cover of being a civilian to attack enemy military forces.  Pretending to be an ambulance rushing to pick up wounded and then, when close to the enemy, shooting them would do the same for the protection of medical personnel and hospitals.

There certainly can be a case for your argument for war without any limits on the use of force, but I don't think that your position would be a popular one.

Not true - Occupied Yugoslavia in WW2 is a case in point, the Chetniks had a policy of trying to limit civilian casualties but they ended up effectively being treated as collaborators once the Communists partisans fought the enemy without such restraints. It was the partisan's ability to be an effective (in the sense of at least willing to fight them regardless) force against the Nazis that made them popular, not the Chetniks unwillingness to attack the Axis for fear of reprisals.

[grumbler]

If that's a government policy, then soldiers can freely shoot any civilians just as they can any soldiers.  WW2 resistance movements did, indeed, strip communities of their protected status when they used the cover of being a civilian to attack enemy military forces.  Pretending to be an ambulance rushing to pick up wounded and then, when close to the enemy, shooting them would do the same for the protection of medical personnel and hospitals.

There certainly can be a case for your argument for war without any limits on the use of force, but I don't think that your position would be a popular one.

Not true - Occupied Yugoslavia in WW2 is a case in point, the Chetniks had a policy of trying to limit civilian casualties but they ended up effectively being treated as collaborators once the Communists partisans fought the enemy without such restraints. It was the partisan's ability to be an effective (in the sense of at least willing to fight them regardless) force against the Nazis that made them popular, not the Chetniks unwillingness to attack the Axis for fear of reprisals.

I have no idea why you quoted my post, nor what it is that you believe is "not true."  The Chetniks and Partisans issue isn't relevant to the discussion of what the Ukrainian government should do regarding civilians acting so as to endanger their protections under the LoAC.

[Admiral Yi]

I was thinking about partisans who alienated their population base and the only example I can come up with that fits that is the Sunni Awakening in Iraq.

I have also read that Tito's partisans consciously attacked Axis troops knowing that would lead to reprisals against the local civilians, since that ended up increasing partisan recruitment.

[Razgovory]

As a civilian, it's your duty to protect your country against invaders. And that means killing them by any means available. We laud WW2 resisters in occupied Europe. They killed Germans. This is the same.

If that's a government policy, then soldiers can freely shoot any civilians just as they can any soldiers.  WW2 resistance movements did, indeed, strip communities of their protected status when they used the cover of being a civilian to attack enemy military forces.  Pretending to be an ambulance rushing to pick up wounded and then, when close to the enemy, shooting them would do the same for the protection of medical personnel and hospitals.

There certainly can be a case for your argument for war without any limits on the use of force, but I don't think that your position would be a popular one.

Not true - Occupied Yugoslavia in WW2 is a case in point, the Chetniks had a policy of trying to limit civilian casualties but they ended up effectively being treated as collaborators once the Communists partisans fought the enemy without such restraints. It was the partisan's ability to be an effective (in the sense of at least willing to fight them regardless) force against the Nazis that made them popular, not the Chetniks unwillingness to attack the Axis for fear of reprisals.

The Chetniks were collaborators.  They fought with the Germans!

[viper37]

Third though - it was never ever government policy to deliberately kill indigenous people.

We isolated them and let them starve until they left for the US or a reservation where there was insufficient food for the their needs and the British knowingly gave them smallpox infected blankets.

No, we did not have an official policy to kill them, but that's pretty much what happened by other means.

[Razgovory]

I was thinking about partisans who alienated their population base and the only example I can come up with that fits that is the Sunni Awakening in Iraq.

Malaysian Emergency.  There are probably a bunch of others that involve either communists (who could be brutal), ethnically divided states or both.

[celedhring]

Their emergence is truly one of the most puzzling things that have taken place in recent Spanish politics.

Well, it makes sense in the context of the separatist process. They are actually a quite old party with a lot of grassroots in rural Catalonia, but they never took part in elections above local level. Back then they had a semi-coherent rural-cooperativist left wing ideology. They burst into regional politics as the far left party that would never compromise on independence - as opposed to the nationalist establishment of ERC/CiU. They got a big win when they forced the other two separatist parties to sign on the 2017 referendum (which I mantain was the most disastrous game of chicken ever played in Catalonia). This has given them a prestige among radical separatists which they still profit from (despite having been politically ineffectual since).
The problem is that they have never been able to quite define what they are actually "for", and their ideology has become a confused mess of far left principles (often contradictory, from anarcho-collectivism to communism), and their assemblies are famously kafkian and fractious "let's have a vote on whether we should have a vote" - so it's easier for them to be a party of no.

Anyway, if any party is in the take is probably JxCAT (well, the faction closer to Puigdemont). Everybody laughed (rightfully) when that Puigdemont staffer got taped saying he was trying to get Russian soldiers to act as "peacekeepers" in case of unilateral independence, but then Bellingcat exposed all their visits to Moscow and such, and you check Puigdemont's voting record in the EP on Ukraine...

[The Larch]

Their emergence is truly one of the most puzzling things that have taken place in recent Spanish politics.

Well, it makes sense in the context of the separatist process. They are actually a quite old party with a lot of grassroots in rural Catalonia, but they never took part in elections above local level. Back then they had a semi-coherent rural-cooperativist left wing ideology. They burst into regional politics as the far left party that would never compromise on independence - as opposed to the nationalist establishment of ERC/CiU. They got a big win when they forced the other two separatist parties to sign on the 2017 referendum (which I mantain was the most disastrous game of chicken ever played in Catalonia). This has given them a prestige among radical separatists which they still profit from (despite having been politically ineffectual since).
The problem is that they have never been able to quite define what they are actually "for", and their ideology has become a confused mess of far left principles (often contradictory, from anarcho-collectivism to communism), and their assemblies are famously kafkian and fractious "let's have a vote on whether we should have a vote" - so it's easier for them to be a party of no.

Have they ever been in government at any level in Catalonia? Maybe in some local one? As you say, it's quite difficult to pinpoint what they're for, and much easier to say what they're against. They are quite the stereotype of very confused radical leftism.

Anyway, if any party is in the take is probably JxCAT (well, the faction closer to Puigdemont). Everybody laughed (rightfully) when that Puigdemont staffer got taped saying he was trying to get Russian soldiers to act as "peacekeepers" in case of unilateral independence, but then Bellingcat exposed all their visits to Moscow and such, and you check Puigdemont's voting record in the EP on Ukraine...

Yeah, that there was Russian money behind the independentist movement can be taken as a given at this point.

[The Larch]

Btw, there's a new EU sanctions package on the board, including I think for the first time sanctions aimed at the energy sector (coal, specifically, it still doesn't touch gas), as well as export bans of key technologies. I'll try to find a comprehensive list later.

It also seems that the EU has joined the diplomat-kicking out game, as it's naming persona non grata to 19 members of the Russian permanent representation towards the EU.

[celedhring]

Have they ever been in government at any level in Catalonia? Maybe in some local one? As you say, it's quite difficult to pinpoint what they're for, and much easier to say what they're against. They are quite the stereotype of very confused radical leftism.

Yeah, of course. There's Badalona, in which they were part of a Podemos-like coalition in 2015. It's the third largest Catalan city. They were pretty ineffectual, and after the independence referendum they lost a vote of no-confidence when the unionist parties banded together.

They also hold several small rural towns.

[Solmyr]

It's the poisoning aspect that seems iffy to me. Shooting Russians, making incendiaries , go for it. A lot of the Russians are just hoodwinked kids. An 18 year old kid taking some food offered from an old lady only to be poisoned seems... I don't know, off.

But the same old lady burning him alive with a Molotov would be okay?

[Tamas]

Yeah I fail to see how this (if it even happened and not just a propaganda effort to further stress out the Russian soldiers) is any different from an ambush - you lure the enemy into a sense of safety so you can surprise and kill them more easily.

[Sheilbh]

Btw, there's a new EU sanctions package on the board, including I think for the first time sanctions aimed at the energy sector (coal, specifically, it still doesn't touch gas), as well as export bans of key technologies. I'll try to find a comprehensive list later.

Michel is right when he added this: "And I think that measures on oil, and even gas, will also be needed sooner or later." Borrel also pointed out that since the war started EU countries had spent €35 billion on Russian energy and giving €1 billion of weapons to Ukraine which really captures why it's important to get to a point that energy can be sanctioned.

I assume that's the order: coal, oil, gas. And once energy is sanctioned then the EU can sanction/de-SWIFT the banks that make those payments.

[Eddie Teach]

As a civilian, it's your duty to protect your country against invaders. And that means killing them by any means available. We laud WW2 resisters in occupied Europe. They killed Germans. This is the same.

If that's a government policy, then soldiers can freely shoot any civilians just as they can any soldiers.  WW2 resistance movements did, indeed, strip communities of their protected status when they used the cover of being a civilian to attack enemy military forces.  Pretending to be an ambulance rushing to pick up wounded and then, when close to the enemy, shooting them would do the same for the protection of medical personnel and hospitals.

There certainly can be a case for your argument for war without any limits on the use of force, but I don't think that your position would be a popular one.

So, you're saying the Geneva conventions don't protect individuals, only compliant communities? 

[Josephus]

It's the poisoning aspect that seems iffy to me. Shooting Russians, making incendiaries , go for it. A lot of the Russians are just hoodwinked kids. An 18 year old kid taking some food offered from an old lady only to be poisoned seems... I don't know, off.

But you know what, it not my country and I most likely would feel different if it was.

Even if that 18 year old raped your daughter?