Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[DGuller]

This article in today's NYT reminded me of Malthus's family:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/nyregion/the-ukrainians-who-choose-to-stay.html

[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.

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

So you're saying that you don't understand how the Geneva Conventions work?

The Laws of Armed Conflict do not protect individuals or communities, but rather categories of people.  Different protections apply to civilians, medical personnel, prisoners of war, survivors of sunken ships, wounded enemy soldiers, etc.  If one side uses perfidy to exploit those protections for military advantage, their enemy need no longer provide those protections for that category.  If you move military supplies or soldiers using marked ambulances, for instance, then the enemy, when he discovers it, can freely target ambulances/medical personnel as you have forfeited the protections for them.  Same applies to  civilians engaging in warfare without taking the steps necessary for them to be considered combatants.

[DGuller]

So you're saying that you don't understand how the Geneva Conventions work?

The Laws of Armed Conflict do not protect individuals or communities, but rather categories of people.  Different protections apply to civilians, medical personnel, prisoners of war, survivors of sunken ships, wounded enemy soldiers, etc.  If one side uses perfidy to exploit those protections for military advantage, their enemy need no longer provide those protections for that category.  If you move military supplies or soldiers using marked ambulances, for instance, then the enemy, when he discovers it, can freely target ambulances/medical personnel as you have forfeited the protections for them.  Same applies to  civilians engaging in warfare without taking the steps necessary for them to be considered combatants.

Are there some materiality standards for violations before protections can be lifted?  If some individual ambulance driver, on his own volition in violation of policies, chooses to give a secret ride to a couple of his drinking buddies armed with NLAWs, is every ambulance everywhere in Ukraine now a legitimate target after he's caught? 

[grumbler]

Are there some materiality standards for violations before protections can be lifted?  If some individual ambulance driver, on his own volition in violation of policies, chooses to give a secret ride to a couple of his drinking buddies armed with NLAWs, is every ambulance everywhere in Ukraine now a legitimate target after he's caught? 

If the government/leadership takes action to punish those violating the LoAC by abusing protections, then the protections hold.  That's what I recommended in the first post on this.  If the government/leadership does not discourage perfidy, it forfeits the protections.

[DGuller]

Are there some materiality standards for violations before protections can be lifted?  If some individual ambulance driver, on his own volition in violation of policies, chooses to give a secret ride to a couple of his drinking buddies armed with NLAWs, is every ambulance everywhere in Ukraine now a legitimate target after he's caught? 

If the government/leadership takes action to punish those violating the LoAC by abusing protections, then the protections hold.  That's what I recommended in the first post on this.  If the government/leadership does not discourage perfidy, it forfeits the protections.

Thanks! 

I guess one other general question I have is:  who is the ultimate judge of any disputes?  What if Ukrainian government claims to enforce their rules against civilians to restrict activities that would remove their protections, but the Russian government claims that it's merely lip service, and that every Ukrainian understands it to be lip service and thus unenforced?  Is it ultimately in the court of worldwide public opinion as to whether Russia can now legally go wild blowing away every ambulance it sees?

[Tamas]

Are there some materiality standards for violations before protections can be lifted?  If some individual ambulance driver, on his own volition in violation of policies, chooses to give a secret ride to a couple of his drinking buddies armed with NLAWs, is every ambulance everywhere in Ukraine now a legitimate target after he's caught? 

If the government/leadership takes action to punish those violating the LoAC by abusing protections, then the protections hold.  That's what I recommended in the first post on this.  If the government/leadership does not discourage perfidy, it forfeits the protections.

Thanks! 

I guess one other general question I have is:  who is the ultimate judge of any disputes?  What if Ukrainian government claims to enforce their rules against civilians to restrict activities that would remove their protections, but the Russian government claims that it's merely lip service, and that every Ukrainian understands it to be lip service and thus unenforced?  Is it ultimately in the court of worldwide public opinion as to whether Russia can now legally go wild blowing away every ambulance it sees?

Whoever wins the war will be right.

[Josquius]

Looking at maps of Ukrainian counter attacks they go right up to the border in the north.

I really wonder what the situation looks like there. Will Ukranian troops cross or are they acting as if there's a hard force field in place. Are Russians drawing a line of resistance on the border?

Not many answers to be had.

[grumbler]

Thanks! 

I guess one other general question I have is:  who is the ultimate judge of any disputes?  What if Ukrainian government claims to enforce their rules against civilians to restrict activities that would remove their protections, but the Russian government claims that it's merely lip service, and that every Ukrainian understands it to be lip service and thus unenforced?  Is it ultimately in the court of worldwide public opinion as to whether Russia can now legally go wild blowing away every ambulance it sees?

That's always the problem with international law:  no arbiter.  The sides present opposing facts, not just opposing interpretations.

[Tamas]

Looking at maps of Ukrainian counter attacks they go right up to the border in the north.

I really wonder what the situation looks like there. Will Ukranian troops cross or are they acting as if there's a hard force field in place. Are Russians drawing a line of resistance on the border?

Not many answers to be had.

Do we even know if its a counterattack or advancing after withdrawing/reorganising Russians?

Maybe I am not following the news but it seems there hasn't been much talk of peace talks lately, which is kinda' telling me the Russians got the distraction and stalling out of them they wanted and are just about ready to star their second offensive of the war.

[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.

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.

Ok, this is what I've managed to find. It has to be taken into account that this is the EU's proposal, now countries have to discuss and agree on them, and at least Lithuania has already called for harsher ones.

- Ban on import of Russian coal.
- 4 already de-Swifted Russian banks to be fully banned from operating in the EU.
- Russian vessels to be barred from entering EU ports, except those transporting food, humanitarian aid or energy products.
- Russian and Belorussian transport companies to be blocked from operating in the EU.
- Export ban on goods from key areas (advanced IT, advanced semiconductors, machinery and transportation equipment...)
- Import restrictions on Russian products (wood, concrete, seafood and alcohol).
- Russian private companies to be barred from public EU tenders.

There's apparently the possibility of also including oil imports in the ban on top of the coal ones, according to French sources. Also, some EU countries (Lithuania is singled out) have already stopped buying Russian gas out of their own initiative. Regarding sanctions on particular people, apparently Putin's family might be in line for some. Also, some loopholes from previous sanctions will be closed.

[Sheilbh]

Lithuania's actually managed to get off Russian gas too - I think they're the first EU country that has totally eliminated their reliance on Russian energy.

I think it's really interesting that, unlike in previous rounds, the Commission is briefing their proposals ahead of the Council. It strikes me as clever politics and will force countries opposed to them out into the open a little bit more.

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61008292

Putin's ultranationalist ally and clown Zhirinovsky dies at 75

Ultranationalist Russian political leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky has died aged 75, after a career built on fiery remarks and absurd antics.

He stood for the presidency six times and was part of the official opposition tolerated by President Vladimir Putin.

Last December he appeared to predict Russia would attack Ukraine.

He claimed to have had eight Covid-19 vaccinations. He contracted coronavirus and died weeks after being admitted to hospital with pneumonia.

His death was finally confirmed by parliament speaker Vyacheslav Volodin on Wednesday, after two reports earlier this year had been discounted.

Zhirinovsky was, he said, always in the thick of things: "A man who deeply understood how the world works and foresaw a lot."

Zhirinovsky's brand of clownish ultranationalism kept Russians shocked and entertained during more than 30 years of his political career.

In the early 1990s he claimed he dreamt of the day "when Russian soldiers can wash their boots in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean". In one of his final appearances before MPs, he said Russia would invade Ukraine and predicted almost to the day when it would happen.

"At 04:00 on 22 February you'll feel [our new policy]. I'd like 2022 to be peaceful. But I love the truth, for 70 years I've said the truth. It won't be peaceful. It will be a year when Russia once again becomes great."

His career was laced with similar threats to other countries, from the Baltics and Germany to Japan and the Middle East. He achieved international notoriety when he threw juice in the face of a political rival, Boris Nemtsov, during a TV debate.

Before he entered politics, he ran a Soviet state-approved Jewish cultural organisation. His Liberal Democratic Party of Russia was the country's first official post-communist political party and was widely viewed first as a Soviet stooge. Russians and the West were shocked when his party won Russia's first democratic elections in 1993.

Political commentator Konstantin Eggert labelled him "the Kremlin's pocket nationalist and scandal-monger". With hindsight, said Eggert, his success in 1993 was a precursor of the "barbaric revanchism" that had led to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Zhirinovsky told the BBC in 2018 that Ukraine was Russian territory: "It's our territory; it's our people. It's part of our country."

His career had declined in recent years - even though his party is widely viewed favourably by the Kremlin.

He secured a mere 5.6% of the vote in a 2018 presidential election that was marred by irregularities and by a ban on Russia's leading opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, who is now in jail.

When a respected Russian journalist accused Zhirinovsky in 2018 of groping him 12 years earlier, the politician's son condemned the remarks as slander.

... and good riddance!

[DGuller]

Hopefully this is the last time he dies.

[Barrister]

Looking at maps of Ukrainian counter attacks they go right up to the border in the north.

I really wonder what the situation looks like there. Will Ukranian troops cross or are they acting as if there's a hard force field in place. Are Russians drawing a line of resistance on the border?

Not many answers to be had.

Well directly to the north is Belarus, which while it allowed Russian troops to use its territory did not invade with its own troops.

So we did have the recent example of Ukrainian helicopters attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod, inside of Russia.  So the border is not inviolable.

But we also saw from Russia just how hard it is to supply troops within enemy territory.

I strongly suspect that while there may be minor incursions into Russia to strike at military targets, there's no interest from Ukraine in invading and occupying Russian soil.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

So we did have the recent example of Ukrainian helicopters attacking a fuel depot in Belgorod, inside of Russia.  So the border is not inviolable.

Has Ukraine actually claimed that strike as theirs?

There was also the strike on Rostov at the start of the war, iirc.