Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

[Mike!]

Yes, I think so.

NATO bombed illegally Yugoslavia in 1999, in violation of the U.N. Charter.

See for example:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters)

NATO has also collaborated with the US and UK to help in their illegal invasion of Afghanistan

Was Russia's invasion of Afghanistan legal?

BTW, you think silly things.

 

[Michel H]

Putin regards Finland, the Baltics, Ukraine and Moldova as the rightful property of Russia

You would need to provide evidence to justify such a strange statement.

 

[Steve]

You would need to provide evidence to justify such a strange statement.

Why? Evidence supporting your rather bizarre opinions is noticeably lacking. But then you do seem to hold democratic countries to much higher standards than you hold the Russian dictatorship.

 

[sackett]

Now we're seeing reports -- stories anyway -- of Ukrainian drones causing those explosions in Russia. I saw and now can't locate mention of Ukrainian spec forces inside Russia helping guide the drones to their targets. A hybrid sabotage/robokaze operation?

The USA says it wishes the Ukes really wouldn't do that sort of thing. Me too. A 75kg warhead isn't a strategic weapon, it's tactical. Use 'em to make life miserable and short for the last Russian on Ukrainian soil. Then Michel and I will have peace.

 

[Michel H]

Was Russia's invasion of Afghanistan legal?

A Soviet military assistance was, to some extent, requested:

The Amin government, having secured a treaty in December 1978 that allowed them to call on Soviet forces, repeatedly requested the introduction of troops in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979. They requested Soviet troops to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujahideen ("Those engaged in jihad") rebels.
...
According to Colonel General Tukharinov and Merimsky, Amin was fully informed of the military movements, having requested Soviet military assistance to northern Afghanistan on 17 December.[164][165]

(a very complex situation)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War#Soviet_deployment,_1979–1980)

 

[junkshop]

For the benefit of anyone who has not previously engaged in debate with our friend Michel (the one that posts here, not the one that was rolled in linoleum*): He doesn't get sarcasm, metaphors, similies, parodies, allegories, any of that jazz.

Shameless and hyper-literal facist apologism is more his wheel-house.

No, that's not fair. I apologise. Oblivious hyper-literal facist apologism is a better description.



The best one I can post without breaching the MA, anyway.



_{*there are points available for identifying the reference. PM me for details.}

 

[Aridas]

For the benefit of anyone who has not previously engaged in debate with our friend Michel (the one that posts here, not the one that was rolled in linoleum*): He doesn't get sarcasm, metaphors, similies, parodies, allegories, any of that jazz.

Given his Nazi inclinations and the demonstrated insanity of his logic when it comes to Ukraine, it would be just as believable that he's just pretending not to understand to better troll.

 

[Wildy]

It would be up to the Russians to make such a decision.

But in order to protect its population, Russia should adopt democracy, instead of arrogance and confrontation.

That would mean accepting quickly that Crimea and the Donbass republics are Ukrainian.

They did not surrender when they were invaded by Nazi Germany, which got very close to Moscow.

Why is Russia permitted, in your mind, to get away with waging war (either offensively or defensively) while other countries aren't?

The basic principles which should, in my opinion, govern a solution to this conflict are:
(1) Try to avoid war, including economic war in the form of various sanctions.
These "sanctions" are not forgotten, and may lead to a "hot" war.

So is invading another country and illegally annexing territory. And what happened because of Russia's actions in 2014? Well it looks like a hot war to me.

(2) Try to respect the will of the local people. This is called the principle of self-determination, it is part of the Charter of the United Nations and is therefore mandatory.

Only within the frameworks of the governing country in question. Which isn't what happened here. Only Ukraine is authorised to permit such referendums which hasn't happened.

To know the real wishes of local people, use reliable sources. Don't pay too much importance to minor details, such as whether a referendum was conducted by the Ukrainian government (and in agreement with Ukraine) or not.

Sources that I've seen from people in Kherson Oblast, for example, don't support Russia's annexation.

Ukraine considers for example Crimea as its "property", much like a painting or a laptop computer.

They don't seem to realize that there are human beings who live there.

And Russia doesn't think of these places as property in the same vein? I feel like their deportation of Ukrainian people and the separation of children from their families seems very property-like. As does their treatment of the Crimean Tatars.

Because this could end the war, and end all the suffering associated with the war.

Moscow has annexed four regions of Ukraine: the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

At the time of annexation Russia controlled only one of those oblasts fully, Luhansk. Is your position now that Ukraine is to give up not only Crimea, but those four oblasts as well, including the parts that they hold?

Moscow hasn't annexed Kiev, Lviv, or even Odessa or Kharkiv.

Had Russia been able to break past Mykolaiv and reach Odesa you can be certain that you would be writing "Moscow has annexed six regions of Ukraine: the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Nikolaev, and Odessa"

If Ukraine doesn't unnecessarily provoke its large Eastern neighbor (possibly excited by the US, UK and EU), stays away from NATO, lifts all the economic sanctions, and stops shelling Russia, I see no reason why the highly professional Russian leaders would want to attack Ukraine (again).

One reason they would want to attack Ukraine again, imperialistic ideals. Make Russia great again by bringing former parts of the country back under its control.

A second reason, Russia wants a land bridge to Transnistria, they're only two Ukrainian oblasts away from it and doing so would also landlock Ukraine putting pressure on them to get closer to Russia for access to the Black Sea ports.

I believe it is very bad taste for Ukraine to try to join a criminal organization, and even more so if the said criminal organization is hostile to Russia and/or its allies.

That's completely irrelevant to what I said at all. Why should Ukraine be forced to make decisions that are in Russia's best interests instead of what the Ukrainian people desire?

This fresh water is basically rainwater flowing freely, using infrastructure which was built by the Soviet Union.

So, this essentially doesn't cost anything to Ukraine.

Except for the upkeep costs involved for the man-made canal that became Ukrainian on their independence from the USSR.

If some repair work is needed specifically for Crimea, then Crimea should contribute financially.

So why didn't Russia do that? The canal was dammed because Russia was refusing to pay for their share of the water, which would go to the maintenance of the canal.

The details of a past treaty may be less important than the fundamental principle of self-determination of peoples (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination).

If you actually read the Wikipedia page properly you would have seen this section.

The most important part is:

However, there are far more self-identified nations than there are existing states and there is no legal process to redraw state boundaries according to the will of these peoples. According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence.

 

[dudalb]

But some problems would still remain unsolved:

- Heavy sanctions imposed by the West since 2014 (unfair hostility towards Russia)
- The issue of fresh water water supply to Crimea through the North Crimean canal
- Sporadic shelling of Donetsk by Ukrainian forces.
- Attempts by Kiev to join NATO, which I view as a anti-Russia criminal organization (remember NATO's past, in Serbia for example).

Hey, this contrarian act is old,old,old....

 

[Michel H]

At the time of annexation Russia controlled only one of those oblasts fully, Luhansk. Is your position now that Ukraine is to give up not only Crimea, but those four oblasts as well, including the parts that they hold?

I believe they should consider this option seriously, in order to end this war, which is so painful and dangerous for many people, especially for the Ukrainians themselves (perhaps with some negotiation about the exact borders).

However, my preferred solution is a little bit more pro-Ukrainian: I believe it would be better that Russia withdraws completely from recently conquered territories, while Ukraine should make a fundamental change (and should be sanctioned if it does not) by accepting that Crimea and the (former) people's republics are Russian.

The Washington Post has conducted an interesting poll in the people's republics of Donbass:

Do people in Donbas want to be ‘liberated’ by Russia?
We surveyed people in Ukraine’s contested eastern region to see what they wanted. Here’s what we found.
Analysis by John O’Loughlin, Gerard Toal and Gwendolyn Sasse
April 15, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...kraine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/).

From this poll, it is clear (see the bar diagram, and the red bars for the people's republics) that the percentage of respondents who want to be Russian citizens is significantly higher that the percentage of respondents who want to be Ukrainian.

 

[Wildy]

I believe they should consider this option seriously, in order to end this war, which is so painful and dangerous for many people, especially for the Ukrainians themselves (perhaps with some negotiation about the exact borders).

Should the Soviet Union have made the same decision during WWII?

However, my preferred solution is a little bit more pro-Ukrainian: I believe it would be better that Russia withdraws completely from recently conquered territories, while Ukraine should make a fundamental change (and should be sanctioned if it does not) by accepting that Crimea and the (former) people's republics are Russian.

The only way that is pro-Ukrainian is that you're saying Ukraine is required to give up the entirety of two oblasts instead of the entirety of four.

In no way has any form of your "peace plan" been fair to Ukraine at all. Can you even tell me what is the difference between your plan and just capitulating to Russia?

The Washington Post has conducted an interesting poll in the people's republics of Donbass:

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...kraine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/).

From this poll, it is clear (see the bar diagram, and the red bars for the people's republics) that the percentage of respondents who want to be Russian citizens is significantly higher that the percentage of respondents who want to be Ukrainian.

Immediately underneath those bar graphs:

But the figure in which we averaged data from all the survey firms summary data hides some big differences. While the Ukrainian and Russian pollsters found similar opinions in areas controlled by the Ukrainian government, in the breakaway area, pollsters calling from Russia found higher support (70 percent) for joining Donbas with Russia than did the pollsters calling from Ukraine (16 percent). (Some respondents may have decided whether to answer the call or participate in the survey according to whether it originated in Kyiv or Moscow, or may have replied with answers that they thought the interviewers wanted to hear.)

(emphasis mine)

I wonder why people in the separatist regions would give answers they thought the interviewers would want to hear?

Also from that article:

Our research suggests that in a free and fair referendum held throughout the Donbas — under international supervision and with impartial, transparent and inclusive voting rules that allowed those displaced since 2014 to vote — the majority would be likely to vote to remain in Ukraine. However, a vote restricted to just those remaining in the Donbas would be likely to endorse joining Russia. Either way, war has hardened attitudes, so any such referendum would be bitterly contentious.

Those results would probably continue skewing towards Ukraine considering that Russia seems to be using this war as a way to ethnically cleanse both the Donbass and their own country.

 

[Michel H]

Should the Soviet Union have made the same decision during WWII?



The only way that is pro-Ukrainian is that you're saying Ukraine is required to give up the entirety of two oblasts instead of the entirety of four.

In no way has any form of your "peace plan" been fair to Ukraine at all. Can you even tell me what is the difference between your plan and just capitulating to Russia?



Immediately underneath those bar graphs:



(emphasis mine)

I wonder why people in the separatist regions would give answers they thought the interviewers would want to hear?

Also from that article:



Those results would probably continue skewing towards Ukraine considering that Russia seems to be using this war as a way to ethnically cleanse both the Donbass and their own country.

Should the Soviet Union have made the same decision during WWII?

I believe that, during WWII, the Soviets should have sent the Germans home through negotiation after Stalingrad, when they were in a position of strength (they could also have demanded some reparations).

Instead, they did basically what the Germans did: invading another country (and destroying a lot).

The only way that is pro-Ukrainian is that you're saying Ukraine is required to give up the entirety of two oblasts instead of the entirety of four.

No, I would recommend going back to the February 1 situation, I wouldn't give the entireties of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts to Russia if I could decide anything.

In no way has any form of your "peace plan" been fair to Ukraine at all. Can you even tell me what is the difference between your plan and just capitulating to Russia?

The difference is obvious since Russia has annexed four oblasts, while I would give them two "half-oblasts" only.

Some explanations here, from wikipedia:

In November 2014 over 50% of the total Donetsk oblast population, around 1,870,000 people, lived in separatist controlled territory.(according to a November 2014, separatist estimate, which is roughly in line with the estimate of the Ukrainian government)[22]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...c&oldid=1069460256#Geography_and_demographics , this is an old revision of wikipedia, dated 2 February 2022)
(see also map)

The LPR extends to approximately half of Luhansk Oblast, including its densely populated areas, the regional capital Luhansk, as well as the major cities Alchevsk and Krasnodon.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luhansk_People's_Republic&oldid=1020937166 , date: 2 February 2022)
(the map here is a little bit less clear)

Immediately underneath those bar graphs:



(emphasis mine)

I wonder why people in the separatist regions would give answers they thought the interviewers would want to hear?

Also from that article:



Those results would probably continue skewing towards Ukraine considering that Russia seems to be using this war as a way to ethnically cleanse both the Donbass and their own country.

I don't think that your observations change much about the WaPo's conclusions, summarized in their bar graph.

 

[steenkh]

You would need to provide evidence to justify such a strange statement.

Take a look at Putin’s speech from February 21 where he declared the war special military operation:
https://www.riotimesonline.com/braz...ext-of-february-21-2022-speech-to-the-nation/

In this speech, Putin rants about how the Brest-Litowsk treaty signed by the Bolsheviks, was an error giving in to the nationalists, thus losing peoples whose home was Russia.

By the way, the link is to a pro-Putin page, so you should be all right with the translation.

 

[Michel H]

Take a look at Putin’s speech from February 21 where he declared the war special military operation:
https://www.riotimesonline.com/braz...ext-of-february-21-2022-speech-to-the-nation/

In this speech, Putin rants about how the Brest-Litowsk treaty signed by the Bolsheviks, was an error giving in to the nationalists, thus losing peoples whose home was Russia.

By the way, the link is to a pro-Putin page, so you should be all right with the translation.

But claiming an error was made by the Bolsheviks isn't the same thing as

Putin regards Finland, the Baltics, Ukraine and Moldova as the rightful property of Russia

which is a much radical statement, which is threatening to Finland and the Baltic states.

 

[jimbob]

Now we're seeing reports -- stories anyway -- of Ukrainian drones causing those explosions in Russia. I saw and now can't locate mention of Ukrainian spec forces inside Russia helping guide the drones to their targets. A hybrid sabotage/robokaze operation?

The USA says it wishes the Ukes really wouldn't do that sort of thing. Me too. A 75kg warhead isn't a strategic weapon, it's tactical. Use 'em to make life miserable and short for the last Russian on Ukrainian soil. Then Michel and I will have peace.

I disagree.

There are probably better tactical drones and hitting Russian strategic bomber bases on two separate days will mean that the Kremlin will have to consider spreading its air defenses wider.

It also sends a clear political message. The drone could have hit the Russian capital, but instead hit bombers preparing to hit Kyiv. Forcing Russia to spread its resources is god.

It is a shame that a fully loaded and fuelled bomber with crew and groundcrew attending wasn't hit though.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Because this could end the war, and end all the suffering associated with the war.

Moscow has annexed four regions of Ukraine: the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

Moscow hasn't annexed Kiev, Lviv, or even Odessa or Kharkiv.

If Ukraine doesn't unnecessarily provoke its large Eastern neighbor (possibly excited by the US, UK and EU), stays away from NATO, lifts all the economic sanctions, and stops shelling Russia, I see no reason why the highly professional Russian leaders would want to attack Ukraine (again).

Er, only because they were beaten back, they certainly bloody tried - or are you just ignoring that long column of troops and armour that got within a few miles before their logistics failed?

 

[steenkh]

which is a much radical statement, which is threatening to Finland and the Baltic states.

That together with Poland rightfully belong to mother Russia, if only they were not taken away by nationalists.

By the way, in the same speech Putin also claims his intention is not to occupy Ukraine.

 

[Wildy]

I believe that, during WWII, the Soviets should have sent the Germans home through negotiation after Stalingrad, when they were in a position of strength (they could also have demanded some reparations).

And if the Nazis decided that the only terms they would accept were ones where they prevail?

No, I would recommend going back to the February 1 situation, I wouldn't give the entireties of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts to Russia if I could decide anything.

And when Russia demands the territorial claims of the pseudo-republics? What are you going to do then?

The difference is obvious since Russia has annexed four oblasts, while I would give them two "half-oblasts" only.

They have claimed to have. But AFAIK nobody apart from Russia accepts that to be the case. At this point in time Russia does not have complete control of any of the oblasts they have claimed to annex.

I don't think that your observations change much about the WaPo's conclusions, summarized in their bar graph.

That bar graph is not a conclusion. That's a depiction of the results that they obtained. The first quote I posted talks about potential issues with the data they collected, that being that people might be giving the answer preferred by the pollsters depending on where they are. The second quote is an actual conclusion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I believe it is very bad taste for Ukraine to try to join a criminal organization ...

Your dismissal of NATO as "a criminal organisation" is pathetic and ridiculous. Any country, any alliance, any military force of any kind which has been involved in conflict will have some events during operations which at least some of its opponents will have declared criminal. Try to think of one that hasn't. By your definition every single one is a criminal organisation. What's the use of that, description then? It's effectively meaningless.

You have failed to make the case that NATO is characterised by criminality for the obvious reason that it isn't true.

Clutching your pearls and swooning over the "bad taste" of Ukraine trying to join a mutual self defence alliance against the country which is literally invading their own country just makes you look absurd and detached from any reality.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

i think he is talking about FIFA.