Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[celedhring]

Btw, disheartening that the institutional declaration was blocked this time by the CUP, instead of by VOX, which would have to show a clear position. Do you think they're in the take by the Kremlin or are they as stupid as to do it pro bono?

CUP? Completely pro bono, they're contrarian like that. It's not that they are peddling any kind of misinformation or retarded pro-Russian leftist nostalgia, they just don't give a fuck about the war. I just went through their official twitter and there isn't a single mention to it over the past two weeks. They are weird.

But they could simply abstain if they don't care, why block it?

Because everybody else voted in favor? 

They're ridiculous like that. I read somewhere that they are the party in the Catalan parliament with more "No" votes after Vox, which is absurd since they signed a confidence and supply deal with the coalition government. Even the other separatists are completely fed up with them.

[The Larch]

Btw, disheartening that the institutional declaration was blocked this time by the CUP, instead of by VOX, which would have to show a clear position. Do you think they're in the take by the Kremlin or are they as stupid as to do it pro bono?

CUP? Completely pro bono, they're contrarian like that. It's not that they are peddling any kind of misinformation or retarded pro-Russian leftist nostalgia, they just don't give a fuck about the war. I just went through their official twitter and there isn't a single mention to it over the past two weeks. They are weird.

But they could simply abstain if they don't care, why block it?

Because everybody else voted in favor? 

They're ridiculous like that. I read somewhere that they are the party in the Catalan parliament with more "No" votes after Vox, which is absurd since they signed a confidence and supply deal with the coalition government. Even the other separatists are completely fed up with them.

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

[The Larch]

And today it seems that we had another round of "kick the phony Russian diplomat".

Italy expelled 30, Spain 25, Denmark 15 and Sweden 3.

[Sheilbh]

I think France with 35 and a lot out of Ireland too (which is probably for the best because Russia has long had a surprisingly massive embassy in Dublin - no idea why, but Facebook and Google have their Euro HQs in Ireland so maybe that? ).

[The Larch]

I think France with 35 and a lot out of Ireland too (which is probably for the best because Russia has long had a surprisingly massive embassy in Dublin - no idea why, but Facebook and Google have their Euro HQs in Ireland so maybe that? ).

Apparently the Russian ambassador to Ireland has complained to the government asking them to intervene because they're having trouble remaining open because no company wants to supply them with heating oil to keep the heating and hot water running. 

And yeah, I'd guess it's because of business espionage.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally while we've rightly praised Germany's shift on military spending, the shift in Poland is also pretty extraordinary. They're doubling military spending to 3% of GDP next year and plan to double the size of their army to 300,000 (no doubt in part, relying on their Territorial Defence Forces which they re-founded in response to the invasion of Crimea). The legislation for this passed both chamber unanimously.

Lots of spending at the minute on Turksih drones, American tanks and ensuring they have comprehensive air defence systems in place.

Think it should be a fairly important contribution to European/NATO defence.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally, interesting message "to the Russian people" from Johnson:
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1511388515787055115?s=20&t=9OKEbNniBj1WBYHvUQKZyQ

He did something similar to Ukraine and then to the Russian people in the days after the war. Given that he's reportedly in almost daily contact with Zelensky I assume this is deliberate/coordinated because it seems to echo some of his messages in Russian.

[alfred russel]

Just watched some Bucha footage.  Very very war crimey.

So a question I have is that how much does the risk of nuclear war increase due to the ubiquity of cameras and the sharing of video?

We read about Bucha type incidents in centuries prior to the 20th as something like, "the soldiers took reprisals against civilians in the aftermath of the fighting", which get quickly skimmed over. But even in the 20th century:

-could we have allied with the USSR in WWII if everyone had seen the play by play of soviet measures during the 20s and 30s?
-Look at Turkey--a key component of NATO in the cold war--could we have allied with Turkey if the worst elements of the expulsion of the greeks was being shown? For that matter, we are talking about whether what the russians are doing here is genocide, but for almost a century the armenian genocide wasn't acknowledged officially because it was against strategic interests.
-When the soviets dropped the hammer on warsaw pact countries sporadically during the late 40s through the 80s, could we be similarly restrained to prevent escalation?

[grumbler]

I personally think it matters who violated the rules in a material way first.  I never subscribed to the notion that hitting back makes you as bad as the person who hit you first.  It just makes you someone with survival instinct.  There isn't a simple crime of "hitting", there is a crime of "hitting first" and a separate crime of "hitting second", with the first being far more serious.

I think that many laws recognize that.  Both are still crimes, though.

I think there is a debate to be had as to whether pragmatically it's advantageous for Ukraine to violate the rules of war even if Russia grossly violates them.  I can see how for PR reasons Ukraine may still be better off being a saint, as PR is Ukraine's most potent weapon.  However, the main reason for rules of war to exist is because things get shittier for everyone the more total the war becomes, so the threat of responding in kind is the primary motivator for not stooping to the lower level.  If you remove that threat, you also remove the incentive to not initiate the escalation down.

I think that it is particularly true in cases like this, where Russia claims to be following the LoAC (as the US did in, say Afghanistan or Iraq drone strikes) while not following them very scrupulously, and where Ukraine's violations would be blatant.  Having partisans sneak into a Russian storehouse and poison their food would be legit within the LoAC, even though its results would be the same as the civilians handing out poisoned food in violation of the LoAC.

[grumbler]

Apart from any other considerations (which are numerous), I think it's both unsound and unrealistic to hold civilians to the same standard as soldiers when it comes to "rules of war". I expect more from soldiers than I do from civilians.

Agreed, but note that your point is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the Ukrainian government should discourage this kind of behavior.

[The Brain]

Just watched some Bucha footage.  Very very war crimey.

So a question I have is that how much does the risk of nuclear war increase due to the ubiquity of cameras and the sharing of video?

We read about Bucha type incidents in centuries prior to the 20th as something like, "the soldiers took reprisals against civilians in the aftermath of the fighting", which get quickly skimmed over. But even in the 20th century:

-could we have allied with the USSR in WWII if everyone had seen the play by play of soviet measures during the 20s and 30s?
-Look at Turkey--a key component of NATO in the cold war--could we have allied with Turkey if the worst elements of the expulsion of the greeks was being shown? For that matter, we are talking about whether what the russians are doing here is genocide, but for almost a century the armenian genocide wasn't acknowledged officially because it was against strategic interests.
-When the soviets dropped the hammer on warsaw pact countries sporadically during the late 40s through the 80s, could we be similarly restrained to prevent escalation?

My short answer would be "insignificantly". My impression is that other considerations remain stronger.

[The Brain]

Apart from any other considerations (which are numerous), I think it's both unsound and unrealistic to hold civilians to the same standard as soldiers when it comes to "rules of war". I expect more from soldiers than I do from civilians.

Agreed, but note that your point is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the Ukrainian government should discourage this kind of behavior.

I'll let you know when I enter that discussion.

[grumbler]

I was gonna' ask: Are civilians expected to hold to the Geneva Convention? Aren't countries who signed it then should educate their citizens in it?

Citizens generally will hold to the Geneva Conventions just because those conventions are, indeed, conventional.  They encourage the kinds of behavior people engage in in peacetime.

The issue is whether or not the Ukrainian government should discourage actions that will strip their citizens of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

[grumbler]

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.

[grumbler]

It is sad there's no way to distinguish the poor victim conscripts from the mass murdering rapist soldiers but how is it different there between poison or a sniper?

It's not a difference between poisoning and a sniper, it's the difference between pretending to be a civilian noncombatant so that one can get close enough to poison and being openly a soldier not misusing the protected status of noncombatants.