The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

[JoeMorgue]

I love how much more discussion of technicalities the bad side always gets in every argument on the internet.

 

[dudalb]

Moscow has arrested children for bringing peace signs to the Ukraine embassy.

And with that, they have lost the war. At least the moral argument. They are done.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/02/1083...VV9VgwwPWeuBx49kXcKZ3t1Y22uZcmqv8wp7J3JrxjJzo

Remember the demonstrators being slaughtered by the COssacks in "Dr Zhivago"? Some things don't change.

 

[theprestige]

You, like another poster earlier, seem to be under the strange delusion that I am Germany.

I am not.
Germany is a country. I am a natural person.

It is troubling and weird that I have to point this out repeatedly.

My posts implicitly distinguish between you as an individual German, you as a German citizen in a representative democracy and therefore bearing some (small) measure of responsibility for the actions of your government, and the German government that represents you.

Any time you find me saying something that you believe would make more sense if applied to your government rather than you personally, please feel free to interpret it in the way that makes more sense.

 

[lobosrul5]

My misgiving is that handheld missiles are light infantry, and light infantry is extremely vulnerable to armor and artillery and air power. Ambushing poorly-led tank platoons in onsie-twosie engagements isn't the same as holding the line against an actual mechanized assault.

Presumably Russia does have armored battalions with artillery support somewhere in its order of battle in Ukraine. Those will be going up against their Ukrainian counterparts. And if the Ukrainian counterparts break, those will eventually overrun the Ukrainian light infantry. Javelins are awesome, but they aren't magic.

Probably what Ukraine needs most right now is mechanized infantry formations, with artillery support and air cover, reconnaissance, and good command and control. Russia likewise. I think ultimately victory comes down to who has more and better of these things, and who can keep them going longer.

With the caveat that we don't know all the details what with fog of war, and Ukrainians are far more likely to post videos of successes than failures... this phase of the war *should* have been the easiest for the Russians, and toughest for the Ukrainians. When Russia becomes an army of occupation with scattered units and vulnerable supply columns between them is when resistance units armed with handheld weapons will become more effective. I guess I'm basing this on what happened in Iraq to the US military and allies, but maybe its not a good parallel? I actually don't see Russia winning this without resorting to terror bombing/WMD's and that worries me a lot.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

They don't need to fix their problems. If the war goes on like this, Ukraine will run out of supplies earlier,

No they won't. The Ukrainian supply lines seem to be doing fine, and the sending of arms and ammo to them through NATO and the EU doesn't seem to have any issues.

and even if they don't, the shelling wears them down eventually.

Will it? Since when has shelling won a war? You still need to move troops into the area you've bombed the crap out of, and this always assumes that their supply lines for the artillery are somehow magically better than the fuel and food situation which I highly doubt.

Russia has the upper hand in the East and all around Crimea,

Does it? I mean right by Crimea sure, but do they really have the upper hand in the East? They've so far failed to take anything meaningful. They've moved through the already Russian controlled areas into the bits that are immediately adjacent to the Russian controlled areas. What a shock.

and is steadily advancing, taking city after city.

Oh really? Then why are the reports coming out that they haven't taken any major cities?

Defenders in Mariupol are cut off already.

Possibly so, but they still haven't taken it despite it apparently being surrounded for days have they?

Russia may never turn itself into a refined wielder of Samurai swords. But their blunt hammer will do the job.

I don't think it will. You can't make progress with no food and no fuel, and the Russians don't seem to be able to provide either to their own troops. If they don't sort our their utter lack of logistics that's leading to people who aren't even in the country being able to tell that the troops aren't being fed and don't have fuel then their "blunt hammer" will stop swinging.

 

[Hercules56]

Knowing what Putin wants us to believe, his official communication is interesting too. I have no reason to believe that RT journalists are doing a work which is significantly inferior to what Western media are doing.

Interesting that Gestapo-like techniques are apparently getting wide approval on this forum, this is rather revealing, I think.

It is Putin and his govt. who have been acting like the Nazis, for many years now.

This invasion and the propaganda supporting it is right out of Hitler's 1938 Sudentenland playbook.

 

[theprestige]

Without a doubt, Germany was at war from 2001 onwards, with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please describe exactly the amount of censorship you demanded that Germany implement!
How much censorship did you demand in your country?

There was a good argument to be had that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Should Germany have shut out ALL US media outlets, or only those associated with the US government?

or are you saying that the question of whether or not to suppress opposition press is not, and absolutely should not ever, be a matter of law and rights and only of political opportunism?

(In am being difficult on purpose.
But I am in fact worried that considerations of what is actually legal are so confidently brushed aside. That is the hallmark of despotism.)

I mean if you're being difficult on purpose I don't see any reason to keep discussing this with you in good faith.

I'm not saying Germany should do illegal things. The original question I was answering was whether it's difficult to justify cutting off RT. I answered it from an ethical perspective.

From a legal perspective, I think Germany should only do what is legal and that Germany should find a legal basis for suppressing RT, and for doing other practical things to oppose the Russian aggression in Ukraine.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A former NATO Commander proposes that Putin's goal is creating a land corridor to Crimea.

“He’s had Crimea in the Russian Federation since 2014, he’s only been able to supply it across the Kerch Strait bridge, and so of course he’s looking to establish that land corridor down off the Sea of Azov.” said NATO's former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for Europe Richard Shirreff while talking to CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

I don't know if that's Putin's goal, but it's a solid theory that does make some sense.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A former NATO Commander proposes that Putin's goal is creating a land corridor to Crimea.

“He’s had Crimea in the Russian Federation since 2014, he’s only been able to supply it across the Kerch Strait bridge, and so of course he’s looking to establish that land corridor down off the Sea of Azov.” said NATO's former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for Europe Richard Shirreff while talking to CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

I don't know if that's Putin's goal, but it's a solid theory that does make some sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if a more limited territory grab is something that Putin later claims was his intended goal all along, but it's hard to look at this last week as anything but an attempt to regime change Ukraine through a lightning push to Kiev.

 

[Oystein]

How about then Russians bombing Czech warehouses with weapons and ammunition. in Vrbětice....

That certainly was quite a provocation, to say the least.

Okay, so let's say Czechia is currently, and has been since 2014, in a state of war.
Suppose the Czech government - without going to parliament! - had imposed restrictions on the freedoms of speech and of press in, say 2016 with the reason given that the country is at war now. Would you have been cool with that?

 

[Ryokan]

Kherson has fallen.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I love how much more discussion of technicalities the bad side always gets in every argument on the internet.

That's because the internet has a greater proportion of the "well, actually" sorts of people than the general population does. I'd say that much of the time it's being done not because of actual desire to side with the baddies but out of an irresistable temptation to appear clever for knowing something even if that thing doesn't and shouldn't change the equation.

Like the "should we correct for wind resistance?" moment on The Simpsons. Theoretically, yes, it would play a factor. In actuality, however, that factor is so minor it may as well not exist and therefore bringing it up is at best pointless and at worst actively detrimental.

 

[lobosrul5]

Kherson has fallen.

Maybe not? https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-new...s-03-02-22/h_94fb56edc8c774021fe635cda015d2fd

 

[theprestige]

I see that this opinion has something going for it - but only in some colloquial meaning of the word "war".

When a country is at war, that generally implies state authorities can curb civil rights, restrict freedoms. Like YOUR freedoms.
Please list the freedoms YOU would accept your government taking away from you today, because your country is at war
Would you accept it if, say, your government censored YOU today - without at least your parliament deciding that you are, in legal fact and not merely colloqually, informally, at war?

That's where a formal declaration of war is useful, for establishing a legal basis for taking certain extreme measures in support of the war effort.

I think we are talking past each other. You seem to be taking my "you're already at war" as meaning "therefore gross infringement on the rights of ciitizens is justified without requiring any legal or constitutional basis".

That's not what I mean at all. Rather, I mean "therefore it's in your interests to acknowledge that a de facto state of war exists, and to figure out what you can and should be doing to better fight this war, and to get busy establishing the legal basis to do what you need to do, where such legal basis is required for more effective action."

If your question is, "is it good for Germany to suppress RT without establishing a legal basis for doing so?" My answer is "no." If your question is "is there anything wrong with establishing a legal basis for suppressing RT, and then suppressing RT on that basis?" My answer is also "no."

 

[theprestige]

Will it? Since when has shelling won a war? You still need to move troops into the area you've bombed the crap out of

Nobody's claiming that shelling wins a war all by itself. But it has long been understood - correctly - that artillery barrages are instrumental in preparing the ground for successful capture by infantry.

I'd even go so far as to argue that both Gulf Wars were effectively decided on Day 0, by vigorous application of air power against key Iraqi positions and infrastructure.

 

[lobosrul5]

Nobody's claiming that shelling wins a war all by itself. But it has long been understood - correctly - that artillery barrages are instrumental in preparing the ground for successful capture by infantry.

I'd even go so far as to argue that both Gulf Wars were effectively decided on Day 0, by vigorous application of air power against key Iraqi positions and infrastructure.

I have to wonder, if Russia has the capability of doing similar then why have they not done so by day 7?

 

[Meadmaker]

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...

Not to mention that you end up in complete control of a pile of rubble. These days, conquering a place just makes you responsible for a bunch of unemployed people who can't work because their office is destroyed.

And they hate you and know how to make IEDs.

It's really not worth it.

 

[Oystein]

Ethically?

No. Legally.

I think it would be reasonable to arrest you and put you on trial for treason.

Based on what law?
In your country, if someone were to do the same today, would that person be liable to arrest and trial for treason today - legally?

Why not?

That's a political and legal question your own government will have to answer.

The ethical question is if you advocate restricting rights without there being a law that restricts said rights, just because you (and not, explicitly, your Supreme Court nor your parliament) are of the opinion you are somehow at war.

Legally and politically in Germany? That's for the Germans to decide amongst themselves.

Well, by what process do you propose for "the Germans to decide amongst themselves"? I suggested a parliamentary decision, as parliament is, per our constitution, the representation of the people.

I think we're this far and it is my fervent wish that the German people and their government will figure it out sooner rather than later.

I insist that you have not actually provided any reasons why we (your country as well as mine) are actually already "this far" (i.e. legally at war), and I think you are wrong, and that this is actually pretty obvious.

---

I'm not advocating sinking to their level.

I think you almost are if you advocate arresting to trial for treason (i.e. the real possibility of ending up killing) anyone who disagrees sharply with you on the Russia question and instead is of the opinion that what RT says is true and good - while your country is not in fact at war with Russia.

I'm saying that ethically, suppressing an enemy's propaganda arm is totally fine.

It's an actually enemy when you are actually at war.

If Germany has rules and laws that allow for these actions to be taken, then Germany should get off its ass, invoke those rules and laws, and do everything their constitution provides for opposing Russian aggression, consistent with military practicalities.

I'm sure that if there were sufficient political will in Germany, your government would be able to find a constitutional basis for shutting down RT, without having to formally declare war on Russia.

Make no mistake: Germany (the German government, in coordination with the EU) is shutting down Russian state media where they can. That is not the question here.

 

[theprestige]

I have to wonder, if Russia has the capability of doing similar then why have they not done so by day 7?

Sometimes the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence. I don't think we have to wonder much, at this point, whether Russia is capable of establishing air supremacy on Day 0, against a peer enemy.

To be honest, I doubt that any nation could establish air supremacy against a peer enemy. At least, not theaterwide.

I've seen an argument that the USSR/Russia had figured out by the 80s that it would never be able to deny NATO air superiority, but that as long as they were able to contest the airspace, it would fall to ground-based artillery to decide the battles. Therefore they invested in enough air defense to ensure the airspace would remain contested, and invested in having more long-range artillery - especially rocket artillery - than their NATO counterparts. I had been expecting (perversely: hoping) to see this doctrine in action in the current conflict. However it seems that the vaunted Russian artillery is also lagging somewhat behind expectations.

Russian performance in this war puts me in mind of a line from the movie Ronin:

"You're great in the locker room, pal, and your reflexes might die hard, but you're weak when you put your spikes on."

 

[Oystein]

My posts implicitly distinguish between you as an individual German, you as a German citizen in a representative democracy and therefore bearing some (small) measure of responsibility for the actions of your government, and the German government that represents you. ...

Be assured that I do exercise my (small) measure of responsibility responsibly here. This forum is not where I do that. On this forum, I try to find the best rational reasons to form judgement or to determine what is factual.

Of course I am much influenced by the society and legal system in which I grew up and which strongly focus on civil rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and non-escalation. I think that may explain why I wonder what, ideally, should be the formal and legal basis for shutting down part of the press - yes, even of "unfriendly" and foreign press organs, when freedom of the press is generally agreed upon as a very valuable principle.