The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

[Jimbo07]

It's not like nothing is being done in retaliation. It's just being done with the important caveat in mind that direct confrontation is something likely to rapidly spiral to nuclear exchange.

No, indeed. Some of these sanctions might wind up being quite brutal (on the Russian public, at least)!

For those clamoring for a more direct military intervention, or absolutely no compromise at all, they have to at least consider the ultimate consequences... and it's not "what could they live with?" It's, "they wouldn't be living, anyway."

An even grosser thought than dying in a nuclear war... what if you survived?

ETA: CNN Rolling - The US retains a portion of its ballistic missiles under a state of heightened alert, ready to be launched within minutes should the order come down from the President. The US also retains a launch-under-attack option to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles in the event of a confirmed attack.

Total travel time for ICBMs is about 30 minutes. If you're busy doing something, maybe in the field, away from your cell phone, you might not even get the news before the flash.

 

[theprestige]

Is that war, or is that not war?
By "war" I mean the extra-ordinary state that would/might justify censorship where otherwise censorship is forbidden by constitutions.

It's definitely a state that justifies this form of censorship (shutting down Russian propaganda outlets). Just as it justifies other attempts to blunt or cripple Russian capacity and willingness to wage war, such as economic sanctions, without committing to a military confrontation.

I even think it justifies secret warfare: cyberwarfare, sabotage, espionage, assassination, etc.

Being understandably reluctant to escalate to direct military confrontation doesn't mean you have to pretend there's not a war on, or that you can't or shouldn't do any number of other things to resist and deter your enemy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

BBC Rolling

Who voted against condemning the invasion?

Five countries voted against condemning Russia's invasion at the emergency UN General Assembly in New York. Unsurprisingly, one was the Russian Federation itself. But who were the others?

Equally unsurprisingly, Belarus also opposed the motion. A long-time Russian ally, the small country is described by analysts as Moscow's "client state". Some Russian troops invaded Ukraine from Belarusian territory.
Another to oppose was Syria - whose leader Bashar al-Assad relied on large-scale Russian military assistance to stay in power during Syria's civil war.

Eritrea in the Horn of Africa also opposed, as did North Korea in Asia.
However China - which earlier this year joined Russia in opposing further Nato expansion - abstained. Last week it abstained during a similar vote in the UN Security Council.

 

[theprestige]

It's horrible that they will run out of shells because they bombarded too many cities.

Yeah I see what you mean there.

 

[Michel H]

Slovenia. Twitter and Youtube are gone, but the main site is still accessible and readable.

One might wonder for how long:

March 2, 2022
2:43 PM GMT+1
Last Updated 6 hours ago

EU bans RT, Sputnik over Ukraine disinformation

BRUSSELS, March 2 (Reuters) - Russian state-controlled media outlets RT and Sputnik will be banned in the European Union with immediate effect for systematic disinformation over Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the 27-country bloc said on Wednesday in an unprecedented move.

The sanction means EU operators will be prohibited from broadcasting, facilitating or otherwise contributing to the dissemination of any RT and Sputnik content.

(https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...anned-over-ukraine-disinformation-2022-03-02/)

I found that RT.com actually did a generally good reporting work, and was a good source for knowing Putin's demands.

This ban (and censorship) does show you that bad things are happening in our Western countries too. It should perhaps be an eye-opener for many of you in this thread who seem to naively believe that only Hitler and Putin can do bad things.

 

[dudalb]

One piece of good news

:https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/02/28/russia-chechnya-ukraine-magomed-tushayev/

Could
nt have happned to a nicer guy. One less disgusting bigot cluttering up the planet.

 

[timhau]

ETA: I think it's an open question whether the Ukrainian military is in much better shape than their Russian counterparts. If they're not - and why would they be? - then this probably comes down to who has deeper reserves. And that's probably Russia. If Russia can keep feeding crap conscripts and crap tanks into the meatgrinder, and Ukraine can't... Well.

One reason they could be is that post 2014, they have received not insignificant aid (incl. training) from countries that do have their **** together.

 

[dudalb]

I'm not



I don't think that appeasement works, in general. In fact, I don't think it would work this time. Your only hope is that with NATO parked right on his doorstep, Putin gets too old and dies, before he can try anything again.

Seriously. What's your military alternative? The conventional military advantage enjoyed by NATO is being exposed here, but if even half of his nukes work, that's it.

That's really, really it. There's no you to type "that was tried in the 1930's and did not work." Even if you have a backyard bunker (I don't know you), I don't, so there probably wouldn't be a me to read it. Worse, it would all happen in about 30 minutes. There was nothing comparable in 1939. Aruguably, there wasn't anything like it in all of history before the Trinity test in 1945.

Impose the maximum santions on Russia, total economic boycott, and stick with it until PUtin is out of office and Russia is out of the Ukraine.

 

[dudalb]

No, indeed. Some of these sanctions might wind up being quite brutal (on the Russian public, at least)!

For those clamoring for a more direct military intervention, or absolutely no compromise at all, they have to at least consider the ultimate consequences... and it's not "what could they live with?" It's, "they wouldn't be living, anyway."

An even grosser thought than dying in a nuclear war... what if you survived?

ETA: CNN Rolling - The US retains a portion of its ballistic missiles under a state of heightened alert, ready to be launched within minutes should the order come down from the President. The US also retains a launch-under-attack option to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles in the event of a confirmed attack.

Total travel time for ICBMs is about 30 minutes. If you're busy doing something, maybe in the field, away from your cell phone, you might not even get the news before the flash.

Think everybody here does not know that?

 

[dudalb]

BBC Rolling

Who voted against condemning the invasion?

Five countries voted against condemning Russia's invasion at the emergency UN General Assembly in New York. Unsurprisingly, one was the Russian Federation itself. But who were the others?

Equally unsurprisingly, Belarus also opposed the motion. A long-time Russian ally, the small country is described by analysts as Moscow's "client state". Some Russian troops invaded Ukraine from Belarusian territory.
Another to oppose was Syria - whose leader Bashar al-Assad relied on large-scale Russian military assistance to stay in power during Syria's civil war.

Eritrea in the Horn of Africa also opposed, as did North Korea in Asia.
However China - which earlier this year joined Russia in opposing further Nato expansion - abstained. Last week it abstained during a similar vote in the UN Security Council.

Belerus is being sanctioned by the West and will soon join Russia as a pariah.

 

[dudalb]

The irony of the Russian destruction is, if they actuall have to take the cities, ruins often make better defensive positions then intact buildings.
You think the Russians would have remembered that from Stalingrad...

 

[Oystein]

I'm sure the dead Ukrainians care a lot that it's not a war, it's just a sparkling military action.

Silly.
There is no question that Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are at war.

The question is: Is the USA at war, the UK, Germany, Poland? Is Australia at war? Switzerland? India? Indonesia? Every last country on planet Earth?

Surely not.

Where do you draw the line?
I think the only reasonable line to draw is to look at the territories where there is hot fighting, and the nationalities of those commanding the operations.
That's Ukraine (territory, command) and Russia and Belarus (command).

If you assume that one or the other NATO country has special forces on the ground in Ukraine under its own command (as opposed to mercenaries), or is commanding Ukrainian troops in some way, then yes, perhaps those countries are at war, too.
I am not sure this is the case.

 

[theprestige]

So am I and next chap on the street, and so we will at all times have a multitude of opinions on that.
Your opinion is not being cited as legal grounds for restricting RT, and I am glad it isn't.

I was answering the question from an ethical point of view. Ethically I think it's an easy question to answer. Even if Germany is struggling to find the ethical answer politically expedient.

Like I said: Government has a leeway and a duty to react, fast, but also a duty to get parliament involved ASAP.
Anything else is approving the way politics in done in Russia.

I can't say I'm impressed with the way politics is being done in Germany right now.

But is it always, automatically warfare when you have propaganda and economic actions? That would soften the term "war" so much it would be essentially useless, wouldn't it?

Is there EVER a time without propaganda and economic action?


It's deterrence if you have armed forces trained and active.
Is it ALWAYS war when you have a military?

Russia is literally waging war in Ukraine right now. The only question for you is whether Germany will ally itself with Ukraine and give them meaningful support, or not.

Ah. So we have, literally, always been at war with Eurasia (since Peter the Great at least), and thus censorship is always okay.
Or not?

Suppression of enemy propaganda outlets is always okay.

Is an insult a legitimate reason to implement censorship?
Like, is that a standard you wish to uphold consistently, always, everywhere?

Sorry, I forget that English may not be your first language. By "insult" here I mean "blatant existential threat".

I agree with that. We should be ready for war.
Doesn't mean we are at war.
Which levels of preparedness legitimize restricting basic rights?

Russia has no basic right to unrestricted propaganda in support of its war efforts.

I think it would be a very grave mistake to take parliaments and courts out of the action. And the fact is: We are not at war, yet, and thus the full provisions of the constitution are in effect, including the prohibition on censorship.

This is a legal and political issue that is embarrassing to Germany. It does not make the ethical question of whether to suppress Russian propaganda any more difficult to answer.

The ethical question is easy to answer: Yes, suppress that ****. Germany should not be struggling so much to establish the necessary legal basis to take that step.

Also I think the fact is that you are at war, you just don't want to admit it yet. Russia is certainly at war with you, even if they haven't yet confronted you directly.

IANAL, but I believe there are legal routes to restrict communication (incitement of violence, ..., general rules of broadcasting regulation), and my impression is that these are being tried, and contested.

Good for you. I hope you get it sorted out soon and take meaningful steps to suppress Russian propaganda in support of its war efforts.

 

[dudalb]

Russian jets violated Swedish air space but withdrew after Swedish jets scrambled to intercept them.
I was afraid Putin would start playing these games.
Would not be surprised if a US Warship being buzzed by a Russian jet is next.

 

[Oystein]

the WMD attack on Britain (using military chemical weapons on UK soil) was an Act of War by any definition.

Was.
And I am sure there are plenty of good arguments to rebuke this. And that you know this. (For starters, it's a WMD if its deployment has the purpose and chance of effecting mass destruction - which I doubt it had. Calling individual targeted killings "war" is bordering on Orwellian in my dictionary.)

I am talking however about the presence. Are ("are", not "were") we at war right now?

 

[theprestige]

I found that RT.com actually did a generally good reporting work, and was a good source for knowing Putin's demands.

Putin's propaganda arm does a good job of telling us what Putin wants us to know? That's some first class rocket surgery you're doing, Michel.

 

[lobosrul5]

ETA: I think it's an open question whether the Ukrainian military is in much better shape than their Russian counterparts. If they're not - and why would they be? - then this probably comes down to who has deeper reserves. And that's probably Russia. If Russia can keep feeding crap conscripts and crap tanks into the meatgrinder, and Ukraine can't... Well.

Does the west keep sending in handheld missiles? Those Javelins sure seem quite effective against, well, any Russian ground vehicle. Not sure if their latest and greatest, the T-90 ,is vulnerable, but Russia doesn't have all that many of them. Handheld missile platforms are far cheaper to manufacture than any armored vehicle and "the west" has vastly more combined resources than Russia does.

 

[theprestige]

Silly.
There is no question that Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are at war.

The question is: Is the USA at war, the UK, Germany, Poland? Is Australia at war? Switzerland? India? Indonesia? Every last country on planet Earth?

Surely not.

Where do you draw the line?
I think the only reasonable line to draw is to look at the territories where there is hot fighting, and the nationalities of those commanding the operations.
That's Ukraine (territory, command) and Russia and Belarus (command).

If you assume that one or the other NATO country has special forces on the ground in Ukraine under its own command (as opposed to mercenaries), or is commanding Ukrainian troops in some way, then yes, perhaps those countries are at war, too.
I am not sure this is the case.

I think it's reasonable to draw the line by looking at the nations that are giving aid and comfort to each side. Every nation sending military aid to Ukraine right now is effectively at war with Russia, even if they won't admit it and even if Russia doesn't see an advantage in acknowledging it openly.

From its own stockpile, the German government will send 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger anti-aircraft defense systems to Ukraine. The government has also authorized the Netherlands to send Ukraine 400 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and told Estonia it ship over send nine howitzers.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-russia-germany-still-blocking-arms-supplies/​

Germany can't send weapons to front-line troops fighting against Russia and still pretend it's not in the war.

 

[Jimbo07]

Think everybody here does not know that?

Everybody here? Maybe. Everybody, everywhere? Those braying for blood? Maybe not. I think its too easy for folks to gloss over the nuclear threat. It's too easy to say, "Oh, they'll never launch." It's even too easy to say, "don't appease a dictator, they'll never stop." So speaking of knowing, do you think anybody here doesn't know that, either?

Nuclear weapons change the equation. It doesn't matter what we know. How likely is Putin to use nukes? What are the escalation angles, here? I bet there's a lot of game theory being worked right now.

 

[Venom]

EA Sports pulls Russian teams and clubs from video games: EA Sports will remove the Russian national team and all Russian club teams from FIFA 22, FIFA Mobile, FIFA online, and NHL 22, the video game company announced on Wednesday.

This is getting bizarre tbh.

Olympic teams having to play neutral, Russian characters being removed from video games. Maybe we can leave Ivan Drago alone since he's Scandinavian.