The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[Klimax]

...
Using these outdated, inefficient and barbaric methods they have slowed to, on average, gaining around 10 km² a day but they continue to do so.

Where the hell you are getting that number? Source!

 

[BrettM]

...
Using these outdated, inefficient and barbaric methods they have slowed to, on average, gaining around 10 km² a day but they continue to do so.

Is this another Hundred Years' war? At that rate, it will take them well over a century to gain most of Ukraine.

 

[The Don]

Where the hell you are getting that number? Source!

The source was in the quote.

 

[The Don]

Is this another Hundred Years' war? At that rate, it will take them well over a century to gain most of Ukraine.

Yes, it's clear that Russia will not conquer the whole of Ukraine while Ukraine has the support of the West, and particularly the support of the United States.

IMO Putin's original objective was to install a puppet regime in Kyiv but that has proved to be impossible. Now the objectives seem to be

• To gain ground gradually whilst attempting to hold what they already have
• To make sure that the cost to Ukraine is as high as possible
• To attempt to outlast Western support for Ukraine

edited to add....

Although the hundred years war was far more dynamic than the Russian invasion of Ukraine

 

[Drewbot]

I hope there are good Russians over there secretly dismantling nukes.

 

[uke2se]

Okay, everybody else - show of hands, please: Who is in favor of murdering civilians they way lobosrul5 is?

"Murder is okay - if only you feel desperate enough"

I don't view her as a civilian. She's not an innocent victim. She fought the war by other means.

 

[Mike!]

I don't view her as a civilian. She's not an innocent victim. She fought the war by other means.

This.

 

[jimbob]

I don't view her as a civilian. She's not an innocent victim. She fought the war by other means.

Yup, she would have been a legitimate target, but a waste of effort and resources for Ukraine to attack.

It is slightly ironic that she was probably killed by those whose war she was trying to facilitate.

 

[The Don]

Looks like even more Russian troops could be on their way to Ukraine:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree to add more than 137,000 service personnel to the country's armed forces.

Currently Russia has slightly more than a million military personnel and almost 900,000 civilian staff.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62677262

That's nearly double the number of Russian troops estimated to have been killed or wounded.

Whether they will be successfully recruited is a different matter of course.

 

[Oystein]

This forum seems dominates by would-be murderers an war criminals. What a nauseating smell this gives.

 

[jimbob]

This forum seems dominates by would-be murderers an war criminals. What a nauseating smell this gives.

What criteria do you use to determine this?

Would Eva Braun have been a justified target?

What about people working for Goebbels? Whether male or female?

 

[lobosrul5]

This forum seems dominates by would-be murderers an war criminals. What a nauseating smell this gives.

Do you realize that war is, essentially, just state sponsored murder? You neutralize their guy before he kills you through the most effective means you can. That's it. I don't see how its somehow more honorable or moral to drop a bomb on a guy in a uniform (who may have been forced with threat of death to wear it), versus a civilian who is actively and willingly supporting the enemy. And that ratchets up 1000x over when talking of a country like Ukraine, who was attacked through no fault of their own, facing annihilation, and against an enemy who sporadically follows general rules of war if and when it suits them. In other words, context matters.

None of which is in anyway relevant to the King of Saudi Arabia murdering a Saudi journalist BTW.

 

[theprestige]

This forum seems dominates by would-be murderers an war criminals. What a nauseating smell this gives.

It's not murder if it's morally justified*. A lot of the "laws" of warfare have to do with not letting people gamesmanship their way out of combatant status. For example, this is why it's a war crime to not distinguish your military from your civilians. And it's why you are the war criminal, not your enemy, if your enemy kills some of your civilians as a result of your failure to make this distinction.

Nobody gets to say, "I'm not wearing a uniform, you can't touch me!" while contributing materially to the war effort.

Should we start a separate thread to discuss the moral permissibility of collateral damage, and of targeted attacks on civilian collaborators? Seems like this forum could probably use it, if only to clarify certain questions and get people actually thinking about them in a reasoned, critical way. Instead of this miserable pile of moral high-horsiness and appeals to emotion.

---
*I'm not saying it would have been justified in this case.

 

[Ziggurat]

A lot of the "laws" of warfare have to do with not letting people gamesmanship their way out of combatant status.

And more generally and more importantly, the entire concept of laws of war in the first place is reciprocity. There is no global authority which can enforce laws of war the way that ordinary laws are enforced by governments on their citizenry. Countries created and to a large extent abide by laws of war because the incentive is that if you agree not to do certain things to your enemy, they will agree not to do those things to you.

The morality of those things is a separate matter. There is some correlation between the laws of war and morality, but laws of war may prohibit moral acts, and they may allow immoral acts, but morality really isn't the point. The point is, what are you willing to forego doing to your enemy in exchange for them not doing it to you? Because it's all about reciprocity. That's the only way it ever works. What qualifies, for the most part, is either stuff that you don't need to do to win but which you really don't want to happen to you even as the winner (such as targeting civilians), or stuff which is worth giving up in exchange for not having to deal with it from the enemy (such as combatants having to dress in uniform).

 

[Jimbo07]

This forum seems dominates by would-be murderers an war criminals. What a nauseating smell this gives.

IANAL, but according to The Other Side of Civillian Protection

controversy centers on whether unprivileged belligerents or unlawful combatants (UCs), terms not found in the text, who fulfil the Article 4 nationality criteria are protected by the Convention upon falling into the power of the enemy

and

the treaty provides, in Article 5, that a person suspected of or engaged in activity hostile to the security of a State in its territory may be denied such rights and privileges under the Convention as would, if exercised, be prejudicial to its security. The gist of the formulation relevant to occupied territories is similar, albeit more specific as to the rights that may be “suspended.”

Now, was she ever on their territory? Or occupied territory? Or, with the controversy, does it matter? As theprestige said

Nobody gets to say, "I'm not wearing a uniform, you can't touch me!" while contributing materially to the war effort.

So, even legally, your moral outrage may be misplaced. Why not focus your moral outrage on a country, who, completely unprovoked, and under a cloud of lies, launched an aggressive invasion against a smaller power. I know that rhymes with some other world events, but almost worse, is that the country in question seems to have a complete disregard for its own troops, much less civillians and enemy combatants! Also, before anyone condemns young Russian soldiers for war crimes as if the leadership can't be held unaccountable, NATO trainers are including Law of Armed Conflict in their syllabus when working with Ukrainian troops. Are the Russians?

 

[theprestige]

And more generally and more importantly, the entire concept of laws of war in the first place is reciprocity. There is no global authority which can enforce laws of war the way that ordinary laws are enforced by governments on their citizenry. Countries created and to a large extent abide by laws of war because the incentive is that if you agree not to do certain things to your enemy, they will agree not to do those things to you.

The morality of those things is a separate matter. There is some correlation between the laws of war and morality, but laws of war may prohibit moral acts, and they may allow immoral acts, but morality really isn't the point. The point is, what are you willing to forego doing to your enemy in exchange for them not doing it to you? Because it's all about reciprocity. That's the only way it ever works. What qualifies, for the most part, is either stuff that you don't need to do to win but which you really don't want to happen to you even as the winner (such as targeting civilians), or stuff which is worth giving up in exchange for not having to deal with it from the enemy (such as combatants having to dress in uniform).

Agreed. Morality, enlightened self interest, reciprocity... Oystein seems to be framing it as a moral conundrum, and I don't mind addressing that concern as such. I also don't mind viewing the laws of war as purely pragmatic conventions.

But the pragmatic view gets is into traditionally moral gray areas, such as using torture to extract intelligence, or using weapons of mass destruction to win a decisive battle. And that is definitely a subject for some other thread.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Looks like even more Russian troops could be on their way to Ukraine:




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62677262

That's nearly double the number of Russian troops estimated to have been killed or wounded.

Whether they will be successfully recruited is a different matter of course.

Wasn't Russia already having difficulty filling the quotas they already had? If so, this is nothing more than showmanship.

 

[lobosrul5]

Wasn't Russia already having difficulty filling the quotas they already had? If so, this is nothing more than showmanship.

I saw earlier somewhere (sorry no link), that they are now offering prisoners their freedom for military service. So, sure they might be able to fill out their numbers with troops with little to no military training and who really don't want to be there. Not exactly the making of an effective fighting force.

 

[plague311]

I saw earlier somewhere (sorry no link), that they are now offering prisoners their freedom for military service. So, sure they might be able to fill out their numbers with troops with little to no military training and who really don't want to be there. Not exactly the making of an effective fighting force.

I would think it also opens up the door to a bit more sabotage. Who would say no to being released? I'd sure yes and then the moment I could I'd either bail, or blow some of their **** up.

Looks like even more Russian troops could be on their way to Ukraine

If Russia is doing as well as their talking heads say they are, it makes you wonder why they'd need more troops.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I saw earlier somewhere (sorry no link), that they are now offering prisoners their freedom for military service. So, sure they might be able to fill out their numbers with troops with little to no military training and who really don't want to be there. Not exactly the making of an effective fighting force.

Also, they've been hemorrhaging officers, so new formations would spread their leadership cadre even thinner. Especially if the formations' rank and file are filled out be released convicts (cue jokes about "General Population").