Russias war crimes will continue until they get tossed out of [Ukraine]

Fiendishrabbit

This is the continued thread about the illegal and immoral Russian invasion of Ukraine and occupation of territories belonging to the sovereign state of Ukraine.

Link to previous OP

Recap: Since the start of May (where the last thread started) Ukraine has been pressuring Russia all along the frontline, with some gains (some important) around Bakhmut, Robotyne, Dorozhnianka and Velyka Novosilka. Russia has also made some minor gains around Zarichne and in general on the Svatove front. Ukraine has gained access to long ranged fires capability in the form of Storm Shadow (missile, not ninja) and long range drones and have been using that capability mostly to target russian strategic assets such as oil refineries and ammo dumps. Russia continues to use their precision missiles to strike civilian restaurants and playgrounds.

Over the numerous threads about Ukraine there have been some rules established for this thread. Read these rules before posting (this section is copied from @Inquisitor77 previous OP, but may contain clarifications and updates if necessary). They are not posted in order of importance.
Rules&Information

Global Thermonuclear War:

Please note that while discussion of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation are inevitable, there does exist a G-ddamn Separate Thread for that topic.


Azov Nazis:
Previous mod declarations have included not discussing the Azov Regiment in the context of it supposedly being a Neo-Nazi group, and a general call for decorum against personal attacks.


Fuck Putin:

Acceptable topics include saying, "Fuck Putin!" and all permutations thereof, including just repeating the phrase "FuckPutinFuckPutinFuckPutinFuckPutinFuckPutinFuckPutinFuckPutin" ad infinitum (no promises you won't get banned for spam being too awesome, though).


Crazy P is Awesome:

If you Awesome a post by CrazyP, it is assumed you are Awesome-ing the fact that CrazyP is alive and well, not that you are Awesome-ing the contents of his post. (CrazyP is a Russian forumer who currently resides in a place that is not Russia.)


News & Information:

While the fog of war always exists and it is very difficult to verify all reports, there does exist a standard of credibility. Major, established news outlets such as The New York Times or Reuters are generally accepted sources. Independent journalists, open source intelligence analysts, and official government sources should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Blog posts from J. Random Dickbag should be avoided or placed in the correct speculative context. All news should be prefaced with the source and, where appropriate, caveated as unreliable or speculation. Niche or less well-known sources should have corresponding descriptions of their reliability and sourcing.
Please remember that many forumers visit this thread precisely because it typically eschews random internet speculation and propaganda talking points.



Gore and NSFW/NSFL Content:

In addition, all content which shows gore, horrific injuries, corpses, mass graves, and similar themes must always be spoilered and tagged appropriately. Failure to do so in the past has resulted in moderator intervention. Inflicting trauma on other forumers is not cool. Please remember that this place is still considered PG-13.
Also, be cautious when viewing such content, as you can inflict trauma upon yourself in doing so. Please take care of your mental health.

There are a number of sources if you want to keep yourself up to date about the current conflict. Obviously news sites such as BBC or Reuters etc, but also:
Useful links

Perun: Perun's videos are highly recommended analytical videos of many aspects of the Ukraine war, the logistics and procurement part in particular but also the historical background of military and political choices that have influenced this conflict. The videos also have a high degree of objectivity that's seldom seen when analysts are talking about this war, even very high level ones.

ISW: Institute for the Study of War, an american thinktank on military issues, frequently adds updates on the Ukraine war, focusing on the strategic and operational view.

Live Universal Awareness Map: Liveuamap.com runs a continual update on the Ukraine conflict, using a variety of sources. While some of those sources are obviously biased (and mostly on Ukraine's side, but then who isn't?) the overall analysis is often on point and frequently days ahead of mainstream media. The site is a collaborative project by a team of independent journalists and software developers who, back in 2014, wished to highlight and inform the world about the Ukrainian conflict.

UA control map: UA Control Map is run by Project Owl OSINT, and uses open source intelligence to assess the deployment of Ukrainian and Russian units.

Fiendishrabbit

An also useful link, but perhaps a bit too biased to belong in the OP is Reporting from Ukraine, a youtube reporting channel that has documented tactical operations by the Ukraine military. Biased, but also very focused on recent events and informative about what's happening on an operational level.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ArbitraryDescriptor

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

Never mind my necromancy. It was by mistake.

Ain't no good gonna come from hanging 'round them Ukranian battle-witches, I said. Ain't natural, I said, ain't right!

But oh no, you all knew better than to listen to ol' CrazyOldDescriptor; what's he know about it?



What indeed!

Jokerman

Is it strictly necessary to make a new thread before the old thread is locked?

TryCatcher

Cringe POLITICO deadline of course, but Zelensky was fucking vicious against the Bulgarian president for not being with the program:

Zelenskyy was visiting Bulgaria largely to meet the pro-NATO and pro-EU administration of Prime Minister Nikolai Denkov, which has supported arms exports to Ukraine and is also exploring ways to sell civilian nuclear equipment.

The meeting with Radev, a former air force chief who is more sympathetic to Russia and equivocal on NATO, went even worse than expected.

Gathered on each side of a long wooden table, the khaki-clad Ukrainian delegation sat stony faced, occasionally grimacing and taking notes, opposite Radev’s team as the Bulgarian president explained that there was “no military solution” and that “more and more weapons will not solve it.”

Uh huh. Well, the military solution seems to be working so far, as a start. Zelensky responds as such:

“God forbid some tragedy should befall you and you should be in my place,” he said. “And if people with shared values do not help, what will you do? You would say: Putin, please grab Bulgarian territory?

Keeps going for a while, and it ends on:

“I also want to tell you, whatever your army has in terms of munitions, it will not be enough to fight with the Russian Federation. You don’t have a bad army, your people are good but it would not be enough to fight against 160 million people. That’s why it’s good to give [weapons] so [we] can defend [ourselves] and war does not come to you,” he said.

“Ukraine and NATO should have shared values. It can’t be otherwise,” Zelenskyy added. “You cannot support Russia and support a balancing position because Russia wants to destroy NATO, wants to destroy Europe and the European Union; these are their goals. Do you get me?”

Radev finally suggested that he had a proposal, but asked the TV cameras to depart before continuing.

Pissant. Speaking off, a group of former military generals decided to "be creative" and arrange a meeting with Lavrov to pitch a "Let's turn the Ukranian territories you just got into a DMZ and go from there" proposal. Biden just poured cold water over it:

“The Biden administration did not sanction those discussions,” a state department spokesperson said on Thursday. “And as we’ve said repeatedly, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

The spokesperson was referring to an administration policy of not discussing possible negotiations on ending the war without involving Ukrainian officials. He said the administration would continue providing weaponry to Kyiv so Ukrainian officials “can negotiate from a position of strength when they think the time is right”.

A former western official said they were aware of the talks but their status was unclear: “But even if not authorised this visit shows that some ‘realists’ in DC want to do a deal with Russia over Ukraine’s head.”

One Richard Haass, Bush admin diplomat leftover recently let go from the Biden administraton for multiple disagreements with the administration, point blank admitted that he was on it. Naturally, he complained that people were being mean to him:

Haass is a former White House, Pentagon and state department official who has just stepped down as head of the Council on Foreign Relations after two decades. He has been described as “the dean” of the foreign policy establishment.

In a Substack post on Friday, he confirmed his participation in the meeting but declined to offer details, arguing that such exchanges have the best chance of success when kept confidential. He also defended himself against “nasty, ad hominem attacks” and suggested the intervention could undermine Ukraine’s position.

Dude just admitted that what he did undermines Ukraine's position and is offended that people dared to call him names over it. But that's "Realism" for you, the most inhumane Kissingerian takes ever, but don't be rude about it.

Fiendishrabbit

Jokerman wrote: »

Is it strictly necessary to make a new thread before the old thread is locked?

As demonstrated by my confused necromancy of the thread-before-the-previous-thread there has been a peaceful transition over the last few War in Ukraine threads, complying with the megathread rules without the intervention of Mod powers.

manwiththemachinegun

Today is a good day.

Ukrainian forces made tactically significant gains in the Bakhmut area and continued counteroffensive operations in at least three other sectors of the front on July 7. Geolocated footage published on July 6 indicates that Ukrainian forces have made tactically significant gains near Yahidne (2km north of Bakhmut).[1] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces conducted offensive operations north and south of Bakhmut, and Ukrainian Ground Forces Commander Colonel General Oleksandr Syrsykyi reported that Ukrainian forces established control over unspecified previously lost positions in the Bakhmut area.[2] Ukrainian General Staff Spokesperson Andriy Kovalev reported that Ukrainian forces also achieved partial success near Klishchiivka (7km southwest of Bakhmut).[3] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces continued offensive operations in western Zaporizhia Oblast and along the administrative border between Zaporizhia and Donetsk oblasts.[4] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) and other Russian sources claimed that Ukrainian forces conducted offensive operations in the Kreminna direction along the Kharkiv-Luhansk Oblast border.[5]

Russian forces have reportedly committed almost the entirety of the Russian Eastern Grouping of Forces to southern Ukraine. Ukrainian military observer Konstantin Mashovets stated on July 5 that the Eastern Grouping of Forces is comprised of the 5th Combined Arms Army (CAA), the 35th CAA, the 36th CAA, and the 29th CAA (all of the Eastern Military District).[6] ISW cannot confirm the exact composition of the Eastern Grouping of Forces, although it continues to appear that this operational direction command structure is largely coextensive with the Eastern Military District (EMD). Mashovets claimed that the 5th CAA’s 127th Motorized Rifle Division and 60th Motorized Rifle Brigade are operating along the administrative border between Zaporizhia and Donetsk oblasts and that the CAA’s other main unit, the 57th Motorized Rifle Brigade, is operating south of Bakhmut. ISW has observed the 5th CAA‘s 127th Division and 60thBrigade in the Zaporizhia Oblast-Donetsk Oblast border area along with previous Russian claims that the 57th Motorized Rifle Brigade has been operating on Bakhmut’s southern flank.[7] Mashovets stated that the 35th CAA’s 38th Motorized Rifle Brigade, 64th Motorized Rifle Brigade, and 69th Separate Cover Brigade are deployed to western Zaporizhia Oblast and that the 36th CAA’s 37th Motorized Rifle Brigade and 5th Separate Tank Brigade are deployed to areas south of Velyka Novosilka in western Donetsk Oblast.[8] ISW previously assessed that the 35th CAA’s Chief of Staff’s alleged death from a Ukrainian missile strike on June 13 in Zaporizhia Oblast suggested that significant elements of the 35th CAA are likely operating along the Zaporizhia front.[9] The Ukrainian General Staff previously reported on March 19 that elements of the 37th Motorized Rifle Brigade would deploy to western Donetsk Oblast.[10] Mashovets also stated that the 29th CAA, the smallest combined arms army in the EMD, is the only formation of the Eastern Grouping of Forces in reserve.[11] Mashovets added that the 58th and 49th CAAs and 22nd Army Corps of the Southern Military District (SMD) are committed to operations in Southern Ukraine.[12] Mashovets stated that elements of the 68th Army Corps (EMD) are also deployed to southern Ukraine, but suggested that the 68th Army Corps is not a part of the Eastern Grouping of Forces, making it the only higher-level EMD formation separate from the Eastern Grouping of Forces.[13] ISW has also observed elements of the EMD Pacific Fleet’s naval infantry brigades (40thand 155th) continuing to serve in western Donetsk Oblast after suffering heavy losses during the Russian winter spring 2023 offensive.[14] Mashovets‘ reporting and ISW’s current observation of the Russian order of battle (ORBAT) in southern Ukraine indicates that almost the entirety of the EMD’s combat power is committed to defending against Ukrainian counteroffensives, primarily in southern Ukraine.

The deployment of almost the entirety of the Russian Eastern Grouping of Forces and extensive SMD elements to the frontline in southern Ukraine suggests that Russian defenses in southern Ukraine may be brittle. Mashovets’ report suggests that the only reserve that the Russian military maintains in southern Ukraine consists of elements of the 29th Combined Arms Army – the Eastern Military District’s smallest combined arms army that has only one maneuver brigade: the 36thMotorized Rifle Brigade. Elements of the 36th Motorized Rifle Brigade participated in the Battle of Kyiv in early 2022 and fought near Vuhledar in early 2023 and are thus likely degraded.[15]

Russian defenses in southern Ukraine, while formidable, are not insurmountable. Russian forces in southern Ukraine would likely have to fall back on prepared defensive positions without significant support from operational reserves if Ukrainian forces achieved an operational breakthrough. Withdrawal in contact is an exceedingly difficult military task, and it is unclear that Russian forces in contact would be able to successfully withdraw from their first lines to other prepared lines in good order, especially if those forces - and the forces behind them in echelon - are worn-down and unsupported. ISW previously assessed that Ukrainian forces are likely conducting a gradual effort to systematically degrade Russian combat power in southern Ukraine over time, increasing the brittleness of the Russian defenses.[16]

Fiendishrabbit

manwiththemachinegun wrote: »

Today is a good day.

[...]

It would be nice if you had linked that this is from ISWs June 7th report. But it reminds me that I need to add ISW to my OP.

ArbitraryDescriptor

TryCatcher wrote: »

Cringe POLITICO deadline of course, but Zelensky was fucking vicious against the Bulgarian president for not being with the program:

Zelenskyy was visiting Bulgaria largely to meet the pro-NATO and pro-EU administration of Prime Minister Nikolai Denkov, which has supported arms exports to Ukraine and is also exploring ways to sell civilian nuclear equipment.

The meeting with Radev, a former air force chief who is more sympathetic to Russia and equivocal on NATO, went even worse than expected.

Gathered on each side of a long wooden table, the khaki-clad Ukrainian delegation sat stony faced, occasionally grimacing and taking notes, opposite Radev’s team as the Bulgarian president explained that there was “no military solution” and that “more and more weapons will not solve it.”

Uh huh. Well, the military solution seems to be working so far, as a start. Zelensky responds as such:

“God forbid some tragedy should befall you and you should be in my place,” he said. “And if people with shared values do not help, what will you do? You would say: Putin, please grab Bulgarian territory?

Keeps going for a while, and it ends on:

“I also want to tell you, whatever your army has in terms of munitions, it will not be enough to fight with the Russian Federation. You don’t have a bad army, your people are good but it would not be enough to fight against 160 million people. That’s why it’s good to give [weapons] so [we] can defend [ourselves] and war does not come to you,” he said.

“Ukraine and NATO should have shared values. It can’t be otherwise,” Zelenskyy added. “You cannot support Russia and support a balancing position because Russia wants to destroy NATO, wants to destroy Europe and the European Union; these are their goals. Do you get me?”

Radev finally suggested that he had a proposal, but asked the TV cameras to depart before continuing.

Pissant. Speaking off, a group of former military generals decided to "be creative" and arrange a meeting with Lavrov to pitch a "Let's turn the Ukranian territories you just got into a DMZ and go from there" proposal. Biden just poured cold water over it:

“The Biden administration did not sanction those discussions,” a state department spokesperson said on Thursday. “And as we’ve said repeatedly, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

The spokesperson was referring to an administration policy of not discussing possible negotiations on ending the war without involving Ukrainian officials. He said the administration would continue providing weaponry to Kyiv so Ukrainian officials “can negotiate from a position of strength when they think the time is right”.

A former western official said they were aware of the talks but their status was unclear: “But even if not authorised this visit shows that some ‘realists’ in DC want to do a deal with Russia over Ukraine’s head.”

One Richard Haass, Bush admin diplomat leftover recently let go from the Biden administraton for multiple disagreements with the administration, point blank admitted that he was on it. Naturally, he complained that people were being mean to him:

Haass is a former White House, Pentagon and state department official who has just stepped down as head of the Council on Foreign Relations after two decades. He has been described as “the dean” of the foreign policy establishment.

In a Substack post on Friday, he confirmed his participation in the meeting but declined to offer details, arguing that such exchanges have the best chance of success when kept confidential. He also defended himself against “nasty, ad hominem attacks” and suggested the intervention could undermine Ukraine’s position.

Dude just admitted that what he did undermines Ukraine's position and is offended that people dared to call him names over it. But that's "Realism" for you, the most inhumane Kissingerian takes ever, but don't be rude about it.

I hope someone clarified that those "nasty, ad hominem attacks" were intended to point out that he was a goose for pushing ideas that were clearly terrible, not that his ideas were clearly terrible on the sole basis that he is a goose.

Edit: It would be amazing if they hit this guy with the fucking Logan Act. Guessing it wouldn't get past SCOTUS, but the spite value seems like it would be in the public interest.

Dhalphir

nobody screams ad hominen louder than people who don't know what it means

Zibblsnrt

manwiththemachinegun wrote: »

Today is a good day.

(ISW update snipped)

The bit about Russia possibly only having one brigade's worth of mobile reserve on the southern front is kind of striking. I didn't think they were stretched quite that badly yet. There's not a lot of room for things going wrong at that point on Putin's end.

Also seems consistent with the British MoD's claims that Russia's depleted enough that they can't launch offensives beyond the local, opportunistic level they've been doing.

Fiendishrabbit

Zibblsnrt wrote: »

manwiththemachinegun wrote: »

Today is a good day.

(ISW update snipped)

The bit about Russia possibly only having one brigade's worth of mobile reserve on the southern front is kind of striking. I didn't think they were stretched quite that badly yet. There's not a lot of room for things going wrong at that point on Putin's end.

Also seems consistent with the British MoD's claims that Russia's depleted enough that they can't launch offensives beyond the local, opportunistic level they've been doing.

Yep. Unless Russia reinforces their mobile reserve (with what?) the russians might conduct an organized fallback until Tokmak/Tarasivka/etc (all some 15-20km behind the current front line), because any retreat is facilitated by already dug defences. But if that line breaks, then it's Izium all over again.

zepherin

Solomaxwell6 wrote: »

Zibblsnrt wrote: »

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

Zibblsnrt wrote: »

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Of course, the problem with this solution is governments can just be fucking stupid.

Like, this war hasn't worked out well for the Russian economy. And yet, here we are. Still going.

On the other hand Russia scores 16 (Authoritarian state) on the Freedom house index while Hungary scores 66 and Poland scores 81 (and other indexes on how well functioning a democracy is paint a similar picture). Those are some of the lowest scores in the EU, but I wouldn't really worry until/if they start to dip below the 40-50 point mark.

P.S: US score is 83.

Yeah no, "partly free" ratings like Hungary has are well past the point where it's time to start worrying about them, especially when the government's committed to making things worse.

Worry about them politically? Yes.
Worry about them thinking about invading their neighbours? No.

Orban's actively sabotaging EU economic and military aid to Ukraine and is openly supportive of Putin. Saying Hungary's not worth worrying about is absurd given its yay-for-strongmen policies are currently getting people killed.

There's a very big jump from "Hungary is being a pain in the ass about Ukraine" to "Hungary is going to invade Romania".

It was unthinkable that Russia would invade Ukraine, but here we are. A lot of things that were unthinkable now aren’t. It’s not likely now since they are both NATO members and Hungary has the smaller less well funded/equipped military.

Raiden333

zepherin wrote: »

It was unthinkable that Russia would invade Ukraine, but here we are.

you should google "crimea"

TryCatcher

There was probably an error on The Guardian article and what Haass says is that his argument does not undermine Ukraine's position.

Which is nonsensical of course. Let's see from the source:

For this reason I wrote an article (with Charles Kupchan) advocating that a cease-fire be proposed at the end of this fighting season should Ukraine fall short of recovering all the territory occupied by Russia. Such a cease-fire would be accompanied by a commitment to provide long-term military and economic support to Ukraine, the extension of formal security assurances, and a pathway to EU membership. As we wrote in the piece, “Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas.” But Ukraine would pursue that goal at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. Ideally, there would be two negotiating tracks: one between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and NATO.

Is completely obvious even to the most casual observer that those two statements are completely opposite of each other. Haass trying to claim otherwise is deeply insulting, and that's outside the fact that he's suggesting that NATO and Russia should just draw lines on a map without the Ukranian government just to get this over with. Just dripping with imperialistic contempt for Ukraine's agency.

hiraeth

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/07/7/7410322/

At that time, Gazprom also stated that it considered the filing of Naftogaz's appeal to the court an unfriendly step and a continuation of the dishonest behaviour of the Ukrainian company.

gasp.

Fiendishrabbit

Doesn't that depend on what a negotiating track between Russia and NATO would entail?

If it entails military support to Ukraine or Ukrainian land, then yes that's a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
If it limits itself to NATO's post-war relations with Russia, then no? Just the final deathblow to the principle of Finlandization has shaken NATO/Russian relations to the core.

Fiendishrabbit

https://youtu.be/RSOOo1p7IPU

Jasconius

i dont think there's any reason to be outraged at these faux peace discussions

there's a reason these people on the US side are not official in any capacity

it is useful to know exactly where russia stands and what they are willing to even put on the table

knowing the way russia operates, the reality is probably like 10x worse than whatever it is they're willing to say to an american diplomat

therefore the fact that they are even willing to say "you know what how about just a DMZ" is already a huge walkback from last year and a sign that things are probably pretty bad for russia right now

intel acquired, we can move on

TryCatcher

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

Doesn't that depend on what a negotiating track between Russia and NATO would entail?

If it entails military support to Ukraine or Ukrainian land, then yes that's a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
If it limits itself to NATO's post-war relations with Russia, then no? Just the final deathblow to the principle of Finlandization has shaken NATO/Russian relations to the core.

Haass is explicitely calling for negotiations while Ukranian territory is occupied, so is not "post-war".

Inquisitor77

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

Jokerman wrote: »

Is it strictly necessary to make a new thread before the old thread is locked?

As demonstrated by my confused necromancy of the thread-before-the-previous-thread there has been a peaceful transition over the last few War in Ukraine threads, complying with the megathread rules without the intervention of Mod powers.

As is SOP in politics, you can always blame your predecessor for the first few mistakes in your new term...

shryke

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

valhalla130 wrote: »

zagdrob wrote: »

Dongs Galore wrote: »

This whole thing has been a desperately needed wakeup call to European NATO on the need to maintain a baseline standard of military readiness

I mean, maybe? But not really?

The entire point and reason to have militarily strong European allies is to provide a counter to Russian imperialism and aggression into their neighbors. There's not really another enemy waiting in the wings that the EU needs to be ready to defend against. The only other nations that are poised to maybe be a threat, someday, are a half a world away and someone else's problem.

With Russia having pissed away its entire Soviet inheritance along with any military power they may have built up on their own in the subsequent 30 years, they aren't a threat to Europe (nukes aside, ofc). If Russia pulled out of Ukraine today, licked their wounds, and singularly focused on rebuilding themselves into an actual strong professional military it would still be 20-30 years before they posed a real legitimate threat to a pan-European NATO backed by the US.

Which, notably, US military power isn't going anywhere since even if Russia isn't a threat, our interests in the Pacific will still keep the US militarily strong as a counterbalance to Chinese imperialism. So it absolutely makes sense and might actually not be a bad thing if European NATO members let their militaries largely atrophy to small professional units that provide some internal security and are prepared to integrate and support one another (and US forces) in the event they are needed.

This is as myopic as what everyone thought about Russia from the 90's up till they invaded Ukraine in 2014. Just because Poland and Hungary aren't gunned up now, doesn't mean they won't be in 10 years, especially if those right wing governments get bigger and maintain control. You never know what will happen, which is why you should be prepared.

EU though is a project designed to make war impossible by making sure that any declaration of war will fuck up your economy so bad that it would make Russia's economic decline pale by comparison. The economic impact of Brexit, despite tanking the portions of the UK economy, was with exit deals in place.
Poland in particular would just have 90% of it's economy disappear and mass unemployment if polish workers and wares could no longer travel freely in the EU.

Of course, the problem with this solution is governments can just be fucking stupid.

Like, this war hasn't worked out well for the Russian economy. And yet, here we are. Still going.

On the other hand Russia scores 16 (Authoritarian state) on the Freedom house index while Hungary scores 66 and Poland scores 81 (and other indexes on how well functioning a democracy is paint a similar picture). Those are some of the lowest scores in the EU, but I wouldn't really worry until/if they start to dip below the 40-50 point mark.

P.S: US score is 83.

It doesn't matter how authoritarian they are. What matters is how demonstratively stupid countries can be. Cause governments will very willingly shoot themselves in the dick even though everyone knows it's a bad idea.

SharpyVII

Latest UK Ministry of Defence assessment:

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1677556024620843009

Other reports state Ukraine have "tactically significant" gains around Bakhmut.

Fiendishrabbit

shryke wrote: »

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

valhalla130 wrote: »

zagdrob wrote: »

Dongs Galore wrote: »

This whole thing has been a desperately needed wakeup call to European NATO on the need to maintain a baseline standard of military readiness

I mean, maybe? But not really?

The entire point and reason to have militarily strong European allies is to provide a counter to Russian imperialism and aggression into their neighbors. There's not really another enemy waiting in the wings that the EU needs to be ready to defend against. The only other nations that are poised to maybe be a threat, someday, are a half a world away and someone else's problem.

With Russia having pissed away its entire Soviet inheritance along with any military power they may have built up on their own in the subsequent 30 years, they aren't a threat to Europe (nukes aside, ofc). If Russia pulled out of Ukraine today, licked their wounds, and singularly focused on rebuilding themselves into an actual strong professional military it would still be 20-30 years before they posed a real legitimate threat to a pan-European NATO backed by the US.

Which, notably, US military power isn't going anywhere since even if Russia isn't a threat, our interests in the Pacific will still keep the US militarily strong as a counterbalance to Chinese imperialism. So it absolutely makes sense and might actually not be a bad thing if European NATO members let their militaries largely atrophy to small professional units that provide some internal security and are prepared to integrate and support one another (and US forces) in the event they are needed.

This is as myopic as what everyone thought about Russia from the 90's up till they invaded Ukraine in 2014. Just because Poland and Hungary aren't gunned up now, doesn't mean they won't be in 10 years, especially if those right wing governments get bigger and maintain control. You never know what will happen, which is why you should be prepared.

EU though is a project designed to make war impossible by making sure that any declaration of war will fuck up your economy so bad that it would make Russia's economic decline pale by comparison. The economic impact of Brexit, despite tanking the portions of the UK economy, was with exit deals in place.
Poland in particular would just have 90% of it's economy disappear and mass unemployment if polish workers and wares could no longer travel freely in the EU.

Of course, the problem with this solution is governments can just be fucking stupid.

Like, this war hasn't worked out well for the Russian economy. And yet, here we are. Still going.

On the other hand Russia scores 16 (Authoritarian state) on the Freedom house index while Hungary scores 66 and Poland scores 81 (and other indexes on how well functioning a democracy is paint a similar picture). Those are some of the lowest scores in the EU, but I wouldn't really worry until/if they start to dip below the 40-50 point mark.

P.S: US score is 83.

It doesn't matter how authoritarian they are. What matters is how demonstratively stupid countries can be. Cause governments will very willingly shoot themselves in the dick even though everyone knows it's a bad idea.

Actually it matters a great deal. Democratic peace theory (functioning democracies do not go to war with each other) has for the last 200 years been the strongest predictor of international relations.

Gaddez

TryCatcher wrote: »

There was probably an error on The Guardian article and what Haass says is that his argument does not undermine Ukraine's position.

Which is nonsensical of course. Let's see from the source:

For this reason I wrote an article (with Charles Kupchan) advocating that a cease-fire be proposed at the end of this fighting season should Ukraine fall short of recovering all the territory occupied by Russia. Such a cease-fire would be accompanied by a commitment to provide long-term military and economic support to Ukraine, the extension of formal security assurances, and a pathway to EU membership. As we wrote in the piece, “Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas.” But Ukraine would pursue that goal at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. Ideally, there would be two negotiating tracks: one between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and NATO.

Is completely obvious even to the most casual observer that those two statements are completely opposite of each other. Haass trying to claim otherwise is deeply insulting, and that's outside the fact that he's suggesting that NATO and Russia should just draw lines on a map without the Ukranian government just to get this over with. Just dripping with imperialistic contempt for Ukraine's agency.

It's also of case of "what is the point of a ceasefire?" Russia's military is showing signs of exhaustion, they're losing ground and they've lost their most elite troops in Wagner. This is the time to fight and push and to keep doing so until the 1992 borders are restored.

Further, russia having it's military might permanently broken can only be a good thing for American interests; with them out of the way that means that America can turn it's gaze fully towards the east and potential problems with china.

This is the realist perspective on this and completely ignores both the fact that russia initiated this war for insane reasons and that it has tirelessly engaged in an absolue buffet of warcrimes everywhere they've planted their feet for more then 20 minutes. Or How russia has violated every agreement it has ever had with Ukraine.

El Skid

The very best thing the international community can do is tell Russia to leave Ukraine (all of it) and return all Ukrainian citizens… and when that’s done talks to end sanctions can begin.

No throwing Russia a bone, no negotiating to keep any of the territory they’ve seized, no cease fires or treaties until the above is done.

Russia started this and has the means to stop it, force them to come out of this with nothing so they don’t ever try this again.

Gaddez

El Skid wrote: »

The very best thing the international community can do is tell Russia to leave Ukraine (all of it) and return all Ukrainian citizens… and when that’s done talks to end sanctions can begin.

No throwing Russia a bone, no negotiating to keep any of the territory they’ve seized, no cease fires or treaties until the above is done.

Russia started this and has the means to stop it, force them to come out of this with nothing so they don’t ever try this again.

This.

Russia can not under any circumstances come out of this with anything. Not Kherson, not Zhaporisia. not Donbas, not Luhansk, not crimea and not the countless thousands abducted.

The eat their shitty losses and have it both clearly communicated to them and internalized that they are the sick man of europe.

V1m

Gaddez wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

There was probably an error on The Guardian article and what Haass says is that his argument does not undermine Ukraine's position.

Which is nonsensical of course. Let's see from the source:

For this reason I wrote an article (with Charles Kupchan) advocating that a cease-fire be proposed at the end of this fighting season should Ukraine fall short of recovering all the territory occupied by Russia. Such a cease-fire would be accompanied by a commitment to provide long-term military and economic support to Ukraine, the extension of formal security assurances, and a pathway to EU membership. As we wrote in the piece, “Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas.” But Ukraine would pursue that goal at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. Ideally, there would be two negotiating tracks: one between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and NATO.

Is completely obvious even to the most casual observer that those two statements are completely opposite of each other. Haass trying to claim otherwise is deeply insulting, and that's outside the fact that he's suggesting that NATO and Russia should just draw lines on a map without the Ukranian government just to get this over with. Just dripping with imperialistic contempt for Ukraine's agency.

It's also of case of "what is the point of a ceasefire?" Russia's military is showing signs of exhaustion, they're losing ground and they've lost their most elite troops in Wagner. This is the time to fight and push and to keep doing so until the 1992 borders are restored.

Further, russia having it's military might permanently broken can only be a good thing for American interests; with them out of the way that means that America can turn it's gaze fully towards the east and potential problems with china.

This is the realist perspective on this and completely ignores both the fact that russia initiated this war for insane reasons and that it has tirelessly engaged in an absolue buffet of warcrimes everywhere they've planted their feet for more then 20 minutes. Or How russia has violated every agreement it has ever had with Ukraine.

This is why the Useful Idiots are squealing louder than ever about pushing Ukraine to accept just a little small temporary ceasefire.

manwiththemachinegun

El Skid wrote: »

The very best thing the international community can do is tell Russia to leave Ukraine (all of it) and return all Ukrainian citizens… and when that’s done talks to end sanctions can begin.

No throwing Russia a bone, no negotiating to keep any of the territory they’ve seized, no cease fires or treaties until the above is done.

Russia started this and has the means to stop it, force them to come out of this with nothing so they don’t ever try this again.

That British guy interview (forgot his name) pointed out last thread that there's this weird disconnect with many politicians going off of the old model of "Russia is scary, and a world player because of nukes/army/history etc". Their paradigm hasn't updated yet to fully process that Russia is coming apart at the seams.

I can barely process that Russia has lost half of its total military in a little over a year, depleted their entire Soviet legacy of hardware, and has pulled defense units from across the entire country to hold a line on a map a few hundred miles from their borders and they are being pushed back.

Muzzmuzz

It’s amazing to me that Crimea is on the table. A year ago, I would have thought it was beyond feasible to even demand it back, expecting Ukraine to demand the 2022 borders. But Russia has deteriorated so badly, it’s now a possibility to make a claim for it.

TryCatcher

Turkey says that Ukraine should be in NATO:

(CNN) - Ukraine deserves to have NATO membership, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, following talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Russia said it was closely watching.

Zelensky spent this week visiting NATO countries, courting support ahead of a NATO summit in Lithuania next week where members are expected to reaffirm that Ukraine will eventually join.

“Without a doubt, Ukraine deserves to be in NATO,” Erdogan said.

Zelensky said he was “happy to hear” that Turkey supports Ukraine’s bid to join during a joint press conference.

This is not just Erdogan saying the opposite of what Biden says and just happening to be right this time. Turkey and Russia have fought over control of the Black Sea for centuries, so any Turkish president would be pushing to fully consolidate their sole supremacy over it, which will happen if they and Ukraine are allies. For starters, that would give Turkey full control over grain exports from Ukraine.

V1m

Yep I fully expect that utter bubo Orban to block it for as long as he can, but Ukraine isn't Sweden, and Turkiye has a completely different relationship with them.

And they will also have an eye one what's going to happen after the war, when food, minerals and energy are being exported from Ukraine. A lot of that is going to go via the Bosphorus or overland through Turkiye.

Gaddez

V1m wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

There was probably an error on The Guardian article and what Haass says is that his argument does not undermine Ukraine's position.

Which is nonsensical of course. Let's see from the source:

For this reason I wrote an article (with Charles Kupchan) advocating that a cease-fire be proposed at the end of this fighting season should Ukraine fall short of recovering all the territory occupied by Russia. Such a cease-fire would be accompanied by a commitment to provide long-term military and economic support to Ukraine, the extension of formal security assurances, and a pathway to EU membership. As we wrote in the piece, “Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas.” But Ukraine would pursue that goal at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. Ideally, there would be two negotiating tracks: one between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and NATO.

Is completely obvious even to the most casual observer that those two statements are completely opposite of each other. Haass trying to claim otherwise is deeply insulting, and that's outside the fact that he's suggesting that NATO and Russia should just draw lines on a map without the Ukranian government just to get this over with. Just dripping with imperialistic contempt for Ukraine's agency.

It's also of case of "what is the point of a ceasefire?" Russia's military is showing signs of exhaustion, they're losing ground and they've lost their most elite troops in Wagner. This is the time to fight and push and to keep doing so until the 1992 borders are restored.

Further, russia having it's military might permanently broken can only be a good thing for American interests; with them out of the way that means that America can turn it's gaze fully towards the east and potential problems with china.

This is the realist perspective on this and completely ignores both the fact that russia initiated this war for insane reasons and that it has tirelessly engaged in an absolue buffet of warcrimes everywhere they've planted their feet for more then 20 minutes. Or How russia has violated every agreement it has ever had with Ukraine.

This is why the Useful Idiots are squealing louder than ever about pushing Ukraine to accept just a little small temporary ceasefire.

Nah, they're doing it because of a combination of how russia has pumped money out for years to buy the loyalty of cretins and because Russia is like... the shining city on the hill for right wingers and the Manosphere (Women are beautiful and silent, no one questions the strong manly government and there is no "woke").

Ukraine kicking russia's ass for them is like looking up and seeing a meteor just rolling straight in to obliterate all life on earth.

Jokerman

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

Jokerman wrote: »

Is it strictly necessary to make a new thread before the old thread is locked?

As demonstrated by my confused necromancy of the thread-before-the-previous-thread there has been a peaceful transition over the last few War in Ukraine threads, complying with the megathread rules without the intervention of Mod powers.

That would seem to be the exact reason why a new thread shouldn't be created until the old one is locked. If there's three Ukraine threads but they're all active at the same time, there can be some confusion. But I am just a lurker on these threads for the most part, so if it works it works.

TryCatcher

Gaddez wrote: »

V1m wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

There was probably an error on The Guardian article and what Haass says is that his argument does not undermine Ukraine's position.

Which is nonsensical of course. Let's see from the source:

For this reason I wrote an article (with Charles Kupchan) advocating that a cease-fire be proposed at the end of this fighting season should Ukraine fall short of recovering all the territory occupied by Russia. Such a cease-fire would be accompanied by a commitment to provide long-term military and economic support to Ukraine, the extension of formal security assurances, and a pathway to EU membership. As we wrote in the piece, “Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas.” But Ukraine would pursue that goal at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. Ideally, there would be two negotiating tracks: one between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and NATO.

Is completely obvious even to the most casual observer that those two statements are completely opposite of each other. Haass trying to claim otherwise is deeply insulting, and that's outside the fact that he's suggesting that NATO and Russia should just draw lines on a map without the Ukranian government just to get this over with. Just dripping with imperialistic contempt for Ukraine's agency.

It's also of case of "what is the point of a ceasefire?" Russia's military is showing signs of exhaustion, they're losing ground and they've lost their most elite troops in Wagner. This is the time to fight and push and to keep doing so until the 1992 borders are restored.

Further, russia having it's military might permanently broken can only be a good thing for American interests; with them out of the way that means that America can turn it's gaze fully towards the east and potential problems with china.

This is the realist perspective on this and completely ignores both the fact that russia initiated this war for insane reasons and that it has tirelessly engaged in an absolue buffet of warcrimes everywhere they've planted their feet for more then 20 minutes. Or How russia has violated every agreement it has ever had with Ukraine.

This is why the Useful Idiots are squealing louder than ever about pushing Ukraine to accept just a little small temporary ceasefire.

Nah, they're doing it because of a combination of how russia has pumped money out for years to buy the loyalty of cretins and because Russia is like... the shining city on the hill for right wingers and the Manosphere (Women are beautiful and silent, no one questions the strong manly government and there is no "woke").

Ukraine kicking russia's ass for them is like looking up and seeing a meteor just rolling straight in to obliterate all life on earth.

Not to mention the bunch of tankies that, yes, they are also enormous sexists, but on top of that they have a genocidal hatred against everybody around Russia because, to them, if they had been better vassals and didn't complained about Stalin genociding them, the Soviet Union wouldn't have lost the Cold War against the hated US and the hated Capitalism.

klemming

Jokerman wrote: »

Fiendishrabbit wrote: »

Jokerman wrote: »

Is it strictly necessary to make a new thread before the old thread is locked?

As demonstrated by my confused necromancy of the thread-before-the-previous-thread there has been a peaceful transition over the last few War in Ukraine threads, complying with the megathread rules without the intervention of Mod powers.

That would seem to be the exact reason why a new thread shouldn't be created until the old one is locked. If there's three Ukraine threads but they're all active at the same time, there can be some confusion. But I am just a lurker on these threads for the most part, so if it works it works.

To me it sounds more like the old thread should be locked once the new thread has been created.

Inquisitor77

I don't care about thread locking but I do care about the lack of an apostrophe in the thread title.

This is America and we speak American here!

Zibblsnrt

Gah, the "the controversial controversy surrounding the controversial controversization of cluster munitions to Ukraine is controversial in its controversiality" coverage in the news cycle today is exhausting.

manwiththemachinegun

The day keeps getting better, the commanders of the Azovstal plant defenders have been released from Turkey. Russia is crying about how they were "not informed" the prisoners had been released.

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/commanders-of-the-defenders-of-mariupol-are-returning-from-turkey/

Gaddez

TryCatcher wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

V1m wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

TryCatcher wrote: »

There was probably an error on The Guardian article and what Haass says is that his argument does not undermine Ukraine's position.

Which is nonsensical of course. Let's see from the source:

For this reason I wrote an article (with Charles Kupchan) advocating that a cease-fire be proposed at the end of this fighting season should Ukraine fall short of recovering all the territory occupied by Russia. Such a cease-fire would be accompanied by a commitment to provide long-term military and economic support to Ukraine, the extension of formal security assurances, and a pathway to EU membership. As we wrote in the piece, “Kyiv would not be asked or pressured to give up the goal of taking back all of its land, including Crimea and the Donbas.” But Ukraine would pursue that goal at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. Ideally, there would be two negotiating tracks: one between Ukraine and Russia, another between Russia and NATO.

Is completely obvious even to the most casual observer that those two statements are completely opposite of each other. Haass trying to claim otherwise is deeply insulting, and that's outside the fact that he's suggesting that NATO and Russia should just draw lines on a map without the Ukranian government just to get this over with. Just dripping with imperialistic contempt for Ukraine's agency.

It's also of case of "what is the point of a ceasefire?" Russia's military is showing signs of exhaustion, they're losing ground and they've lost their most elite troops in Wagner. This is the time to fight and push and to keep doing so until the 1992 borders are restored.

Further, russia having it's military might permanently broken can only be a good thing for American interests; with them out of the way that means that America can turn it's gaze fully towards the east and potential problems with china.

This is the realist perspective on this and completely ignores both the fact that russia initiated this war for insane reasons and that it has tirelessly engaged in an absolue buffet of warcrimes everywhere they've planted their feet for more then 20 minutes. Or How russia has violated every agreement it has ever had with Ukraine.

This is why the Useful Idiots are squealing louder than ever about pushing Ukraine to accept just a little small temporary ceasefire.

Nah, they're doing it because of a combination of how russia has pumped money out for years to buy the loyalty of cretins and because Russia is like... the shining city on the hill for right wingers and the Manosphere (Women are beautiful and silent, no one questions the strong manly government and there is no "woke").

Ukraine kicking russia's ass for them is like looking up and seeing a meteor just rolling straight in to obliterate all life on earth.

Not to mention the bunch of tankies that, yes, they are also enormous sexists, but on top of that they have a genocidal hatred against everybody around Russia because, to them, if they had been better vassals and didn't complained about Stalin genociding them, the Soviet Union wouldn't have lost the Cold War against the hated US and the hated Capitalism.

So fun fact: I didn't know what a tankie was and I'm not sure If I'm better off for being aware of their existance.

Also, I said it last year and I'll say it again:

manwiththemachinegun wrote: »

This is an incredible shot. Like I know it's a bombed out building from a horror show of a seige, but the lighting and the pose of the man in the shot are absolutely breath taking and assuming it isn't posed (IE the subject is in a natural state) this would be the kind of picture that Photographers dream of being able to take.

Beyond the beauty of it though, there is a sort of metaphor to it that is hard to miss in that even when surrounded by such destruction and certain defeat the Azov soldier is still standing tall with no signs of despair.