Russia invades Ukraine

[DustyBin]

To be fair, war isn't reserved for non Europeans. There is plenty of daily bloodshed World over although we've (generally) been at peace in Europe since WW2.

I would say though, that if any continent is capable of truly organised, high tech and brutal violence....it's Europe.

I completely agree. Whilst historically we’re an extremely violent continent, we’ve generally behaved ourselves of late. And yet here we are, for no “good” reason whatsoever. It really is bonkers.

Tangentially Europe is predisposed to being at war and has been for most of human history.

Its rather unique in that its a pretty small continent and made up of many small, culturally diverse, mostly rich and or influential (medieval and later periods at least), countries or ethnic groups. That just leads to land wars between each other all the time. I believe that the period from 1945-Feb 2022 is one of the longest periods where we've not seen two countries going at each other in an all out land war in Europe for a very very long time. The only real blip in that period is the various conflicts during the break up of Yugoslavia but they were more akin to a civil war.

Again I completely agree.

 

[najaB]

Interesting Vox-Pop piece that I just watched. Not going to have a watch and see if what stood out to me stands out to you (not going to say what it is to see if you have the same reaction).

 

[REVUpminster]

I completely agree. Whilst historically we’re an extremely violent continent, we’ve generally behaved ourselves of late. And yet here we are, for no “good” reason whatsoever. It really is bonkers.



Again I completely agree.

Europe was generally peaceful during the Roman Empire. The Americas, Asia and Africa were not the lands of milk and honey with no tribal and ethnic warfare before the Europeans got there.

 

[najaB]

The Americas, Asia and Africa were not the lands of milk and honey with no tribal and ethnic warfare before the Europeans got there.

It's a good thing that nobody made that claim then, isn't it.

 

[SJL2020]

Europe was generally peaceful during the Roman Empire.

It most certainly wasn't.

 

[Giugiaro]

Plus the radioactive fallout would likely land on some of the most productive agricultural land of Russia.

There won't be radioactive fallout from tactical use. If the purpose is to kill all the soldiers or destroy a city, the nuke will be detonated at a certain height from the ground, where its destructive power will be the greatest.

Fallout is only generated from surface level detonations, which are a result of nuclear silo targeting. AFAIK there are no such things in Ukraine, so surface level detonations won't be necessary.

 

[kristiang85]

There won't be radioactive fallout from tactical use. If the purpose is to kill all the soldiers or destroy a city, the nuke will be detonated at a certain height from the ground, where its destructive power will be the greatest.

Fallout is only generated from surface level detonations, which are a result of nuclear silo targeting. AFAIK there are no such things in Ukraine, so surface level detonations won't be necessary.

Indeed, hence why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities and not nuclear wastelands.

 

[brad465]

Europe was generally peaceful during the Roman Empire. The Americas, Asia and Africa were not the lands of milk and honey with no tribal and ethnic warfare before the Europeans got there.

Yeah this long list of battles/wars would not agree with you here:

List of Roman external wars and battles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TwoYellas]

The Americas, Asia and Africa were not the lands of milk and honey with no tribal and ethnic warfare before the Europeans got there.

Agreed these places weren't perfect before the Europeans arrived and caused the deaths of 100 million indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere and enslaved millions of Africans in the most vicious system of slavery in human history!

 

[GS250]

Indeed, hence why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities and not nuclear wastelands.

Depends on how much we trust the Russians to be able to detonate at the optimum altitude.

Even with airburst methods, any part of the fireball that touches a building etc will cause deadly fall out.

 

[Falcon1200]

The normal method for expelling a UN member would involve a Security Council resolution, which Russia would just veto.

Which means in effect that Russia, no matter how heinous their conduct so far and no doubt in future, can never be expelled.

Slight flaw in the constitution there!

Yes indeed. The UN has been completely and utterly powerless in this, the most serious conflict since WW2.

 

[TwoYellas]

Interesting Vox-Pop piece that I just watched. Not going to have a watch and see if what stood out to me stands out to you (not going to say what it is to see if you have the same reaction).

Good video. Just seems a normal cross section of people - could be any city, anywhere. I agree with the lad that said 'no war'.

Encouraging gains by Ukraine of late showing Putin he can't have it all his own way. But I'm hoping that the Ukraine leadership is, at least privately, thinking of a deal to end this madness. Some people call this 'appeasement' but I disagree because most wars end in a settlement and add to that you are dealing with a nuclear armed state threatening escalation and seeing things differently. I certainly hope it doesn't become a long war - with the fatalities this will cause and the very real danger of catastrophic escalation.

So in my view, a settlement that Ukraine is happy with and an 'off ramp' for Putin may be the best outcome. Perhaps with all the territory lost given back and independently monitored neverendums for the couple of eastern regions for them to decide their future (no red buses lol).

I truly believe this is a very dangerous time.

 

[Yew]

Short version, the UN changed who was entitled to represent China. Taiwan had never been a member.
Long version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

Other versions are probably available.

it's worth remembering that it was the USSR that was granted the permanent seat, not Russia specifically.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2022 ==

Agreed these places weren't perfect before the Europeans arrived and caused the deaths of 100 million indigenous people in the Western Hemisphere and enslaved millions of Africans in the most vicious system of slavery in human history!

I fear that we may be wandering off topic...

 

[najaB]

it's worth remembering that it was the USSR that was granted the permanent seat, not Russia specifically.

Though the Russian Federation was named by Boris Yeltsin as the successor to the USSR the day before the USSR was dissolved. So a slightly different situation to the change of recognition from the ROC to PRC.

 

[philosopher]

Good video. Just seems a normal cross section of people - could be any city, anywhere. I agree with the lad that said 'no war'.

Encouraging gains by Ukraine of late showing Putin he can't have it all his own way. But I'm hoping that the Ukraine leadership is, at least privately, thinking of a deal to end this madness. Some people call this 'appeasement' but I disagree because most wars end in a settlement and add to that you are dealing with a nuclear armed state threatening escalation and seeing things differently. I certainly hope it doesn't become a long war - with the fatalities this will cause and the very real danger of catastrophic escalation.

So in my view, a settlement that Ukraine is happy with and an 'off ramp' for Putin may be the best outcome. Perhaps with all the territory lost given back and independently monitored neverendums for the couple of eastern regions for them to decide their future (no red buses lol).

I truly believe this is a very dangerous time.

When the war started, I thought it would end with Ukraine agreeing to cede Crimea to Russia and both Russia and Ukraine agreeing to international monitored referendums in the Donetsk and Luhansk peoples republics on whether they should be under Russian or Ukrainian control. Such an ending could be portrayed as a victory by both sides. Ukraine would have its independence intact and would only lose terrority it arguably did not control anyway while Putin may be able to claim to have restored some former lands back into Russian hands.

However, after the recent ’annexations’ I think such a deal is extremely unlikely now, at least with Putin in charge. I think the gulf between what Ukraine will accept and what Putin wants is too great. Zelensky I am guessing will not accept losing any territory except possibly Crimea while Putin will want all the four regions he just ‘annexed’. Plus I think Putin has poisoned the idea of referendums being used as a tool to end this conflict.

Therefore I think the war will end up dragging on until Putin is no longer in power, though I do not think it will escalate to the point where NATO intervenes directly or nuclear weapons are used.

 

[najaB]

However, after the recent ’annexations’ I think such a deal is extremely unlikely now, at least with Putin in charge. I think the gulf between what Ukraine will accept and what Putin wants is too great. Zelensky I am guessing will not accept losing any territory except possibly Crimea while Putin will want all the four regions he just ‘annexed’. Plus I think Putin has poisoned the idea of referendums being used as a tool to end this conflict.

Therefore I think the war will end up dragging on until Putin is no longer in power, though I do not think it will escalate to the point where NATO intervenes directly or nuclear weapons are used.

That's pretty much the way I see it now. It's even feasible that Ukraine (with Western assistance) will be able to force Russia to perform a "goodwill gesture" where Crimea is concerned too.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Short version, the UN changed who was entitled to represent China. Taiwan had never been a member.
Long version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

Other versions are probably available.

Right. So I would guess the question becomes, is there any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same with Russia: Have the UN agree that the rightful holder of the place on the security council that was originally allocated to the USSR should be, not Russia, but one of the other countries that makes up the former USSR territory (such as Ukraine)?

While there are differences in the situation, the Taiwan/China security council issue from the 1970s does after all provide a precedent for the UN removing the occupier of a permanent security council seat on the basis that that country isn't the rightful country to hold that seat.

 

[TheEdge]

Right. So I would guess the question becomes, is there any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same with Russia: Have the UN agree that the rightful holder of the place on the security council that was originally allocated to the USSR should be, not Russia, but one of the other countries that makes up the former USSR territory (such as Ukraine)?

I suppose the key difference is the UN wasn't removing "China" as a member of the Security Council. It was recognising the victor of the civil war and therefore rightful government of "China" as the People's Republic of China as opposed to the Republic of China.

 

[Gloster]

Even if you could argue that Russia did not have an automatic right to take over the USSR’s seat on the Security Council, I think it would be difficult to argue that any of the former components of the USSR had a better, or even equally good, right to the seat. Get it wrong and you might end up with the seat going to somewhere like Kazakhstan, that well-known bastion of human rights. Nor would Russia go easily. I think it is just something that one has to live with.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think the gulf between what Ukraine will accept and what Putin wants is too great. Zelensky I am guessing will not accept losing any territory except possibly Crimea while Putin will want all the four regions he just ‘annexed’. Plus I think Putin has poisoned the idea of referendums being used as a tool to end this conflict.

Pretty much agreed. There's zero reason for Zelensky to agree to anything other than the complete liberation of Ukraine (minus Crimea), while Crimea itself is in a very, very difficult position. We can see now that Russia has zero answer to HIMARS and other similar weapons, and with the Sevastopol port effectively blocked by the Neptune missiles, it's going to be very hard for Russia in Crimea regardless of what else happens.

Though the Russian Federation was named by Boris Yeltsin as the successor to the USSR the day before the USSR was dissolved. So a slightly different situation to the change of recognition from the ROC to PRC.

I think that the international community also largely accepted Russia as the successor state. It was different in the case of Yugoslavia, because there wasn't one dominant republic.

I don't mind that decision. Russia dominated the Soviet Union, and there was usually no Russian republican-level institution, it was just the Soviet institution instead.

So in my view, a settlement that Ukraine is happy with and an 'off ramp' for Putin may be the best outcome. Perhaps with all the territory lost given back and independently monitored neverendums for the couple of eastern regions for them to decide their future (no red buses lol).

I think the off-ramp has to be the liberation of mainland Ukraine, the neutralisation of the Kerch straits and the militarisation of the Black Sea/Sea of Azov coasts. Russia would maintain control of Crimea, but they would also have to accept NATO at the 'administrative border'. As for referendums, there's zero reason to agree to them now. The "LDPR" has very little left to give military-wise, the territory is internationally accepted as part of Ukraine, and the "LDPR" probably falls within days if either Luhansk or Donetsk cities are liberated. It's also worth repeating that if Severnodonetsk is liberated, then Luhansk city is within reach of HIMARS.

So I would guess the question becomes, is there any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same with Russia: Have the UN agree that the rightful holder of the place on the security council that was originally allocated to the USSR should be, not Russia, but one of the other countries that makes up the former USSR territory (such as Ukraine)?

I believe the sticking point are the required votes. I have a feeling that it would require a 2/3rds majority, and many African countries would oppose it. China would also likely disagree on the grounds of upsetting the existing geopolitical order, so it's probably a non-starter. I think there's also a general principle that no matter what a country does, it's better to keep them within the UN rather than outside it. After all, no-one threw out other countries for various atrocities, did they?

This Twitter account is worth a read: https://twitter.com/wartranslated as it contains a lot of interesting things. Not only are there recruits on the training ground with vodka (surprise), but also a lot of things simply showing how poor the Russian morale really is.

 

[najaB]

So I would guess the question becomes, is there any reason in principle why you couldn't do the same with Russia: Have the UN agree that the rightful holder of the place on the security council that was originally allocated to the USSR should be, not Russia, but one of the other countries that makes up the former USSR territory (such as Ukraine)?

Ukraine was a member of the UN when it was founded, and so simply took back up its prior membership when the USSR was dissolved.

 

[Gloster]

Therefore I think the war will end up dragging on until Putin is no longer in power, though I do not think it will escalate to the point where NATO intervenes directly or nuclear weapons are used.

Or, if it really drags on, until the Republicans are back in power in the US and pull the plug on support for Ukraine. It is clear that the MAGA/Put America First proponents aren’t interested in helping Ukraine and they seem to be once more in the ascendant. I find the possibility of the Whitehouse going to someone who makes Trump seem rational even more worrying than Putin.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus the radioactive fallout would likely land on some of the most productive agricultural land of Russia.

Supposedly you don't get much fallout from an air burst tactical weapon, it acts more like a very large conventional bomb.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Ukraine was a member of the UN when it was founded, and so simply took back up its prior membership when the USSR was dissolved.

Wait, did they (and Belarus) ever stop being a member? I thought it was just the change of name, from the Ukrainian SSR to Ukraine along with independence, but they never stopped being a member.

Or, if it really drags on, until the Republicans are back in power in the US and pull the plug on support for Ukraine. It is clear that the MAGA/Put America First proponents aren’t interested in helping Ukraine and they seem to be once more in the ascendant. I find the possibility of the Whitehouse going to someone who makes Trump seem rational even more worrying than Putin.

It would be very politically difficult for them to do so at this point. While Tucker Carlson and other imbeciles would applaud it, it would go down incredibly badly among middle class suburban voters. In fact, I wouldn't be too shocked if this becomes a major issue after the midterms, especially if a Republican Senate starts blocking things.

 

[Annetts key]

On the question of the UN, would it be possible for the following permanent members France, the United Kingdom and the United States, to permanently block any further resolutions in the UN. Then set up a new organisation to do exactly the same thing, but not include Russia as a permanent member. This new organisation would then take over from the UN.

As the old UN would be completely toothless, eventually most countries would abandon it.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think there's also a general principle that no matter what a country does, it's better to keep them within the UN rather than outside it.

I agree; Russia should not be expelled from the UN, but absolutely must lose its permanent seat on the Security Council, its continued place there is an affront to every standard of civilised behaviour.

 

[Annetts key]

The assessment from ISW for 1st October: (link)

It’s interesting what they say about the threat of nuclear weapons. The Quote below is just a short extract. Use the link above for more.

Ukrainian forces inflicted another significant operational defeat on Russia and liberated Lyman, Donetsk Oblast, on October 1. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced the withdrawal of Russian troops from Lyman to “more advantageous positions” to avoid the “threat of encirclement” in the settlement.[1] Social media footage and Ukrainian military officials confirmed that Ukrainian forces have entered Lyman and are likely clearing the settlement as of October 1.

The Russian information space – composed of Kremlin propagandists, pundits, and milbloggers – registered the defeat as the result of the Russian military command’s failure to send reinforcements in a timely manner, while openly criticizing repeated bureaucratic failures during the mobilization.[2] Russian commentators overwhelmingly expressed their hopes that partial mobilization would generate enough force to resume offensive operations and regain the initiative. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, apparently devastated by the defeat in Lyman, called on Russia to continue to fight to ”liberate” the four annexed territories with all available means including low-yield nuclear weapons.[3]

Kadyrov’s rant is similar to the disorganized and often hyperbolic milblogger rants that call for the Kremlin to continue the war in Ukraine, and his call for the use of nuclear weapons was not representative of the discourse within the Russian information space. Russian federal TV channels and ultra-hawkish milbloggers have often discussed Russian nuclear capabilities as part of their efforts to stoke patriotic sentiments among Russian domestic audiences, and Kadyrov’s statement was not especially noteworthy in this context.

Kadyrov’s call for using tactical nuclear weapons is likely inconsistent with his demands to continue the “special military operation” to bring more Ukrainian territory under Russian control. The Russian military in its current state is almost certainly unable to operate on a nuclear battlefield even though it has the necessary equipment and has historically trained its units to do so. The chaotic agglomeration of exhausted contract soldiers, hastily mobilized reservists, conscripts, and mercenaries that currently comprise the Russian ground forces could not function in a nuclear environment. Any areas affected by Russian tactical nuclear weapons would thus be impassable for the Russians, likely precluding Russian advances. This consideration is another factor that reduces the likelihood of Russian tactical nuclear weapons use.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On the question of the UN, would it be possible for the following permanent members France, the United Kingdom and the United States, to permanently block any further resolutions in the UN. Then set up a new organisation to do exactly the same thing, but not include Russia as a permanent member. This new organisation would then take over from the UN.

I guess there's a wider issue here. My own feeling is that no single country should have a veto in the first place. I agree with @Falcon1200 that it's an affront that Russia has a permanent seat on the security council, but to some extent that reflects that the whole set up of the security council is not appropriate in today's world anyway.

Secondly there's an even bigger issue of how a country qualifies for UN membership in the first place. At the moment, it seems to be based on, if you have an army and have at some point in the past managed to take control over a region that corresponds to recognised borders, then you get UN membership, without there being any test of whether or not you are a legitimate Government. To take extreme examples, the regimes in places like North Korea, Myanmar, Syria, and Iran, are little more than gangs of thugs who happen to have enough weapons and bureaucracy to keep their populations suppressed, but appear to have very little interest in actually trying to Govern in the interests of their people. Increasingly, the Russian Government seems to be falling into the same category. I would question why these kinds of regimes have any vote or recognition at all in the UN. I'd much prefer that we started working towards either reforming the UN, or creating a replacement organisation, where membership is conditional on some tests of legitimacy as a Government (informed consent of your people, a mechanism for your removal if you lose that informed consent, allowing free speech, not repressing or persecuting portions of your population, etc.). But I guess that's for another thread...

At any rate, in the light of Russia's behaviour, I'd certainly support any attempt to remove Russia from the Security Council.

 

[najaB]

Wait, did they (and Belarus) ever stop being a member? I thought it was just the change of name, from the Ukrainian SSR to Ukraine along with independence, but they never stopped being a member.

You are correct, I misunderstood the situation with regards to external relations of the USSR. While the Ukrainian SSR was subordinate to the USSR in most international relations matters, they didn't lose their UN seat.

 

[brad465]

Reports that the NE Kherson front has collapsed and Ukraine are advancing through that area:

https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/1576611568942387200

The Russian line has collapsed in the north of Kherson region. The invaders are retreating to try to hold Dudchany. Advancing Ukrainian troops are chasing to give them no time to dig in.