• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

Status
Not open for further replies.
While Western countries unite against Russia, its neighbour China is less condemnatory.

In a phone call on Friday, China's President Xi Jinping told Vladimir Putin that China supports Russia in efforts to resolve the Ukraine crisis via dialogue, Chinese state television CCTV reports.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world...18c471ec502b53cd47f97c&pinned_post_type=share

China and its friends are always peaceful and never starts wars, that's something the evil west does... so they pretend that Russia did not start a war. Ironically, when the Chinese governments criticism that "human rights" are just an excuse to meddle in other countries domestic affairs (that means their own) is actually spot on, they don't want to acknowledge it. After all Russia's invasion is supposedly motivated by the Nazi-Fascist Ukrainians persecution of ethnic Russians...
 
Last edited:
So how many sanctions should they have imposed when Russia annexed Crimea? Or is it that the annexation vote is to be deemed legitimate even if it's not considered a legitimate referendum by most countries?
I believe the Crimean status vote held in 2014 was acceptable, and no sanctions, very crippling for the Crimean economy, should have been imposed. I believe that Russia has sometimes been treated unfairly by the international community (I mean, before this horrible current invasion of Ukraine, about which I suspect it is somewhat supported by China, because they would like to see this as a kind of rehearsal for their possible invasion of Taiwan).
I assume your issue is the UN charter violation as the conditions under the charter hadn't been met (and considering China and Russia vetoing UNSC resolutions, would never be met). Does that also mean that you consider NATO's unilateral decision to intervene to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians to be a bad thing?
The mass expulsion of Kosovars done by the Serbs in 1999 was actually carried out after NATO had started their illegal bombing campaign, not before, and had been triggered by the bombing (it was a reaction to the bombing by the exasperated Serbs). The president of Kosovo Ibrahim Rugova had said at the time that he was against the bombing.

There was probably some persecution of the Kosovo Albanians by the Serbs, and Kosovo Albanians may have had a right to fight back in a limited way, but the bombing was, in my opinion, illegal and excessive (too violent). It is possible that Bill Clinton was trying (in a bad way) to restore U.S. prestige after he had been ridiculed by the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Wouldn't this go the other way as well? If these actions are to be considered absolutely reprehensible then shouldn't other countries try and act better than that instead of sinking themselves down to the immoral behaviour of others?
I agree with your last sentence: bad actions by others are no excuse for behaving badly yourself. Nervertheless, the political context must be taken into account. It is possible that Putin has a kind of "If NATO could do it, I can do it too with the support of China" mentality.
 
There is little dignity in death, and it is permanent. I hoped that it was still recognised that 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' was a lie.

The truth is old men send young men to fight and women and children die. The truly brave action is to make the decision that will save lives not face.

People fighting oppression against overwhelming odds are just trying to save face, and there's no real bravery or dignity if they're killed doing it?
Interesting.
 
This is pretty good: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/a-moment-of-clarity?utm_source=url

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is different both quantitatively and qualitatively. It represents a great power simply declaring that a weaker country has no sovereignty, and invading it based on nothing more than irredentism and dictatorial pique. Whether or not Putin declares any additional pieces of Ukraine to be part of the Russian Federation, the norm that kept the peace since World War 2 — the idea that great powers are guarantors of the inviolability of weaker countries’ borders — is no longer a universal norm. And the invasion also shows that although America can presumably still defend its treaty allies, it does not have the power to prevent other great powers from having their way with weaker countries within their spheres of influence.

The law of the jungle has returned, and the strong will dominate the weak if they see fit.
 
One could make an excellent case to have Russia removed from the UN Security Council for violating the basic principle of the Organization.
 
Russian troops in northern districts of the capital Kyiv, Ukraine says
Videos show armoured vehicles advancing through northern district of Kyiv. The Russian forces who have reportedly entered the Ukrainian capital are seemingly centred around the northern district of Obolon, heavily residential area is just 9km north of Kyiv’s parliament and the city centre.
Just before 10am local time, Ukraine’s Defence Ministry tweeted that enemy Russian operatives were in the area. The defence ministry called on locals to rally and make Molotov cocktails to fight back. Several videos online appear to show armoured vehicles rolling down mostly-empty roads in Obolon.There are also videos appearing to show fighting between civilians and people in military uniform.

Russia has lost 450 personnel, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says.
It would probably be hardest to advance along the Line-Of-Control in the east, as that area was heavily reinforced before the Russian invasion with experienced troops.
Frankly, I have some doubts about the Ukrainian strategy here.

How smart is it to put the most experienced troops in Donbass, while ordinary citizens in Kiev are invited to attack armoured vehicles with Molotov cocktails?

Wouldn't it be better that the experienced troops defend the capital Kiev, by using bazookas or anti-tank missiles?
 
Frankly, I have some doubts about the Ukrainian strategy here.

How smart is it to put the most experienced troops in Donbass, while ordinary citizens in Kiev are invited to attack armoured vehicles with Molotov cocktails?

Wouldn't it be better that the experienced troops defend the capital Kiev, by using bazookas or anti-tank missiles?

Of course you have doubts. :rolleyes:

Presumably, the most experienced troops were left where they were because they were already doing a job there. Had they left then the separatists would have engaged in wholesale slaughter of the locals.
 

Yes that's why this war is so much more concerning than most, if not all, wars since the end of WW2. Seizing another states territory by force is treated as among the worst thing you can do.

The great powers are norm setters when it comes to international relations, so when one brazenly violates one of the most important norms it's setting an extremely dangerous precedent. Russia is not threatened by Ukraine and even most Russians acknowledge this. Putin made no serious efforts in trying to come up with an acceptable excuse for declaring a full-scale war of aggression: he simply didn't care about public opinion. Others like China might feel emboldens to invade Taiwan, while smaller states might increasing settle disputes via arms.
 
Last edited:
Remember last year when Boris said "The old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over," as part of his justification for scrapping British tanks in favour of 'Cyber'?

And at the time I said that Ukraine might beg to differ.
 
Important insights into the warped and outright insane ideological ideas that lie behind Putins revanchism:

“They have only one objective: to prevent the development of Russia. They are going to do it in the same way as they did it before, without furnishing even a single pretext, doing it just because we exist.”

These were Vladimir Putin’s words on 21 February, in his now notorious speech on Ukraine. They repeat the argument already formulated in his speech on Crimea in March 2014: “The politics of the containment of Russia, which continued throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today. There is a constant attempt to push us back into a corner because we have an independent position, because we stand up for ourselves.” Putin’s vision of Russian history is one of an emergence continually blocked by enemies.

...

Putin leans here on a strange theory advanced by the 20th-century historian and ethnographer Lev Gumilev. The son of two of Russia’s most famous poets, Nikolai Gumilev and Anna Akhmatova, Gumilev maintains that every people possesses a distinct life force: a “bio-cosmic” inner energy or passionate substance that he calls passionarnost. Putin may have known Gumilev in St Petersburg at the start of the 1990s. At any rate, he has embraced his ideas and never misses an opportunity to refer to them. In February last year, he said: “I believe in passionarnost. In nature as in society, there is development, climax and decline. Russia has not yet attained its highest point. We are on the way”. According to him, Russia carries the power and potential of a young people. “We possess an infinite genetic code”, he has said.

In addition to Gumilev, Putin relies on another thinker – a minor figure in the history of Russian thought. Last October, he spoke of regularly consulting a collection of political essays titled Our Tasks, the major work of Ivan Ilyin, who died in 1954. In one of the president’s preferred essays, “What does the world seek from the dismemberment of Russia?”, Ilyin denounces the country’s “imperialist neighbours”, these “western peoples who neither understand nor accept Russian originality”. In the future, he suggests, these countries will inevitably attempt to seize territories such as the Baltic countries, the Caucasus, central Asia and, especially, Ukraine. The method, according to Ilyin, will be the hypocritical promotion of values such as “freedom” in order to transform Russia into “a gigantic Balkans”. The final object is to “dismember Russia, to subject her to western control, to dismantle her and in the end make her disappear”.

...

What should we think of this perpetual sense of victimhood that allows the Russian president to artificially create situations in which Russia appears humiliated and insulted. Are these the actions of a rational leader? The answer is both simple and worrying. Putin has developed, over decades, a vision of the world that is paranoid but coherent. According to this vision, Russia has for centuries been the victim of an attempt to contain and dismember it. These attempts must be resisted. The logic of this is based on a belief that Russia’s passionarnost must not be constrained.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/putin-mind-words-russia-victimhood
 
Frankly, I have some doubts about the Ukrainian strategy here.

How smart is it to put the most experienced troops in Donbass, while ordinary citizens in Kiev are invited to attack armoured vehicles with Molotov cocktails?

Wouldn't it be better that the experienced troops defend the capital Kiev, by using bazookas or anti-tank missiles?

No, in a built up area you would waste your best troops. They need to be in the field doing the task they were trained for.
 
No, in a built up area you would waste your best troops. They need to be in the field doing the task they were trained for.
It is possible to use rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles in cities too.

Why are specialized anti-tank units of the Ukrainian military apparently not defending the capital Kiev against these incoming armoured vehicles, using possibly modern weapons supplied recently by the U.S. and the U.K. ?

Taking a well-deserved vacation in Crimea? Is it the best time?

During the battle of Berlin in 1945, the Nazis used 36 divisions, 767,000 soldiers, 1500 armoured vehicles, 2200 aircraft, and 9300 artillery pieces, and were able to resist for 16 days (they had of course been weakened by their defeats elsewhere), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin.

Being obsessed with defending Donbass and neglecting the capital with all the official buildings doesn't seem to be the best strategic choice when you are dealing with an adversary suspected of seeking regime change.
 
I think that the West is guilty of having imposed too many sanctions on Russia (especially before this latest offensive on Ukraine), and has therefore an indirect responsability in the current situation.

And I did not even mention the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters), and the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).

Difficult to blame someone when you have done the same thing (or even worse) yourself.
If only you were comparing apples to oranges. But no, in your zeal to excuse Russia's actions, you're comparing apples to meatloaf.
 
If only you were comparing apples to oranges. But no, in your zeal to excuse Russia's actions, you're comparing apples to meatloaf.
It has been argued by US and British governments that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council.[111] International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, have denounced this rationale.[112][113][114]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#International_law)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom