Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Josquius]

Random reading on my part. Apparently the Russian carrier, the laughing stock of the naval world, the one that needed a few tugs to get to Syria and then burned in the dock and went to shit. That one.

In the 90's money were in short supply, so apparently they closed off a few of the lower decks. Just closed them up and let them be. In a ship there's all kinds of electric wires and pipes going around everywhere and a few of the broke down in the shut off decks and with years of neglect the lower decks of the ship has turned into something of a Warhammer 40K space hulk... It's grimdark.

They sold another one to a Chinese magnate to be turned into a floating casino as I recall.

Unless there was another another this was all a sham and the Chinese navy took control of it to turn it into their first carrier.

[Sheilbh]

First Merkel interview since she left office, weighing on Ukraine.

French paper's take: "Angela Merkel ne regrette rien"

[grumbler]

Unless there was another another this was all a sham and the Chinese navy took control of it to turn it into their first carrier.

The Kiev class were museums/theme parks, the Varyag was the one Ukraine soled as a "floating casino" in a dodge to get around their own arms export laws.  She was, as you note, completed (and a copy completed in 2019, almost 30 years after the initial design was completed).

[The Larch]

Britons sentenced to death after 'show trial' in Russian-occupied Ukraine
Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner were captured while fighting in Ukrainian army

Pro-Russian officials have sentenced to death two British men and a Moroccan national captured while fighting in the Ukrainian army in Mariupol, Russian state media has said.

A court in Russian-controlled east Ukraine convicted Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner after a days-long process that observers have called a "show trial" on "trumped-up charges" meant to imitate war crimes trials against Russian soldiers in Kyiv.

Aslin, 28, from Newark, and Pinner, 48, from Watford, were convicted by the court in Russian-controlled territory in Donetsk alongside Saaudun Brahim on charges of "terrorism".

Both Britons have said they were serving in the Ukrainian marines, making them active-duty soldiers who should be protected by the Geneva conventions on prisoners of war. However, the Russian state media has portrayed the men as mercenaries, and the court has convicted them on the charge of "being a mercenary".

On Wednesday, the state-run news agency RIA Novosti shared footage of the men pleading "guilty" to the charges against them, which also included terrorism, committing a crime as part of a criminal group, and forcible seizure of power or forcible retention of power.

Russia is also believed to be using the process to put pressure on the UK and may seek a prisoner exchange for Russian soldiers convicted of murder and other war crimes during Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There is a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia, but not in the territory it occupies in eastern Ukraine.

In a statement earlier this week, Aslin's family said he had served in the Ukrainian marines for nearly four years and "is not, contrary to the Kremlin's propaganda, a volunteer, a mercenary, or a spy".

The family also accused Russia of violating the Geneva conventions by releasing video of Aslin "speaking under duress and having clearly suffered physical injuries".

His MP Robert Jenrick told BBC Radio 4 that the trial was "a completely outrageous breach of international law and it should be condemned".

"The Russian authorities have chosen to make an example out of these two British nationals and it is, I think, completely shameful." He said he hoped that a prisoner exchange occurs "in the near future".

[The Brain]

Doesn't Geneva protect mercenaries?

[The Minsky Moment]

Doesn't Geneva protect mercenaries?

Under Article 47 of the additional protocol, mercenaries - as defined - are excluded from protections afforded to lawful combatants and PoWs.  However, it does not appear that the individuals referenced in the article are mercenaries as defined in the Article:

mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


(c) is definitely not applicable.  I don't think (a) or (e) are either - I don't think Ukraine is making special recruitment efforts and my understanding is that foreign volunteers are incorporated into the Ukrainian military command structure.

[The Minsky Moment]

So usual Soviet/Russian gambit of invoking the forms of legality while perverting the substance.

[Josquius]

So never surrender to Russians. Got it.

[The Brain]

Doesn't Geneva protect mercenaries?

Under Article 47 of the additional protocol, mercenaries - as defined - are excluded from protections afforded to lawful combatants and PoWs.  However, it does not appear that the individuals referenced in the article are mercenaries as defined in the Article:

mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


(c) is definitely not applicable.  I don't think (a) or (e) are either - I don't think Ukraine is making special recruitment efforts and my understanding is that foreign volunteers are incorporated into the Ukrainian military command structure.

Seems incredibly petty by the protocol not to protect mercenaries. A small state, that hasn't got the infrastructure to build elite forces in-house and doesn't have the political clout to make allies bring in theirs, hiring top talent abroad to defend itself during a conflict, is hardly unethical.

[grumbler]

Seems incredibly petty by the protocol not to protect mercenaries. A small state, that hasn't got the infrastructure to build elite forces in-house and doesn't have the political clout to make allies bring in theirs, hiring top talent abroad to defend itself during a conflict, is hardly unethical.

If those soldiers are incorporated into the armed forces, they are protected.  The Wagner Group, for instance, isn't protected in most of its conflicts.

[The Brain]

Seems incredibly petty by the protocol not to protect mercenaries. A small state, that hasn't got the infrastructure to build elite forces in-house and doesn't have the political clout to make allies bring in theirs, hiring top talent abroad to defend itself during a conflict, is hardly unethical.

If those soldiers are incorporated into the armed forces, they are protected.  The Wagner Group, for instance, isn't protected in most of its conflicts.

What's the requirement to count as incorporated? Do they have to be incorporated in any meaningful way, or is it enough to have a "[mercenaries] shall be part of the armed forces of [employer state] for the duration of [contract]" clause in the contract? If the former, I can see good reasons why a mercenary wouldn't want to join the armed forces of a corrupt third world country.

[grumbler]

What's the requirement to count as incorporated? Do they have to be incorporated in any meaningful way, or is it enough to have a "[mercenaries] shall be part of the armed forces of [employer state] for the duration of [contract]" clause in the contract? If the former, I can see good reasons why a mercenary wouldn't want to join the armed forces of a corrupt third world country.

\
My guess is that they are incorporated if they are in the military chain of command, have ranks in that country's armed forces, and are paid for from the same funds as the rest of the military.

[Sheilbh]

And why I think it's essential to just arm Ukraine:

Elena Chernenko
@ElenaChernenko
To all politicians, experts and journos in US and EU who write that "Putin is trapped", "he needs a decent off ramp from the military campaign in Ukraine", etc., I strongly recommend watching the video of his conversation with young entrepreneurs and scientists today. 1/5
Here is the video I am talking about http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/68606
 2/5
He is assertive, cool-headed and absolutely selfconfident. And sure of his mission which he finally stated in plain text: "Peter the Great led the Northern War for 21 years. It would seem that he fought with Sweden, captured land... He didn't capture it, he returned it!" 3/5
Putin goes on: "When Peter the Great laid the new capital in St. Petersburg, none of the European countries recognized this territory as Russian, everyone recognized it as Swedens. But along with Finno-Ugric peoples Slavs lived ther from ancient times". 4/5
And the ending: "The same is true in the western direction, it concerns Narva, his first campaigns. Why did he care to do it? To returned (this land) and strengthen it – that's what he did... Apparently, it also our destiny to return and strengthen." 5/5

I think it is madness to believe that this is just about Ukraine at this point.

[The Brain]

Even though Putin is so far following in Peter's footsteps by catastrophic initial defeat, I don't think he has 21 years.

[Legbiter]

Even though Putin is so far following in Peter's footsteps by catastrophic initial defeat, I don't think he has 21 years.

Yeah.