Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

[lomiller]

If they aren't going to train they're probably better off just using semi mode.

You still want some form of burst mode for suppressing fire.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It would be mind boggling difficult for Ukraine to stoop lower than anything Russia has done to date.

Indeed. But we call Russia terrorist state and we imposed severe sanction on them. Ukraine must not just be slightly better than Russia. They must be as clean as possible, otherwise they will lose the support.

 

[jimbob]

I hope it's not true that Ukraine has been launching these drone attacks on Moscow. This should purely be a defensive war and attacking the capital city of the invading country is not a defensive act.

I think Ukraine should do whatever possible to maintain the moral high ground.

I don't fully disagree, but it kind of sucks, then. It leaves them fighting with one arm tied behind their back. Further, with no direct consequences to Putin, it gives Russia room to carry on being beligerent.

The drones are reported to target the most expensive area of Moscow - with houses in the tens of millions of dollars, so full of those who have profited the most under Putin. Which makes me think it did have a strategic purpose, as they will demand more protection.




https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/drones-hit-several-buildings-moscow-mayor-2023-05-30/

 

[steenkh]

Indeed. But we call Russia terrorist state and we imposed severe sanction on them. Ukraine must not just be slightly better than Russia. They must be as clean as possible, otherwise they will lose the support.

Possibly, yes.

But Western powers are also known - or suspected - to have committed war crimes in more or less recent times, and they are still considered “good”. The press might force an examination, but often it will lead to nothing.

The US will not submit itself to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, so how can we expect others to do it?

My country, Denmark, has refused to investigate whether Danish troops have delivered Iraqi prisoners to torture.

At least we can discuss these matters. In Russia it is slander of the armed forces, and can cost you many years in prison, so there certainly is a difference.

 

[Oystein]

Indeed. But we call Russia terrorist state and we imposed severe sanction on them. Ukraine must not just be slightly better than Russia. They must be as clean as possible, otherwise they will lose the support.

I would like to doubt this, mostly.

While "we" (the leaderships of the collective West?) may entertain lofty ideas about the innocence, goodness and saintly restraint of our Ukrainian partners, it's not at all like that is a sine qua non: Ukraine will very definitely NOT "lose the support" just because some VERY limited actions appear a little untowards. We don't support Ukrain out of the pure goodness of our hearts, and also not because they are the most morally unblemished and incorruptible people this earth as ever seen. We support them because it is in our own very vital and hard interest to see Ukraine win and Russia lose, and lose very badly.
If we withdraw support, we act totally against our own interests. We might just as well shoot a HIMARS salvo into each of our feet.

An argument could be had on whether such long-range, low-yield drone attacks serve any military purpose - increase Ukraine's chance of repelling the aggression and making Russia lose badly.
The answer has to do with the assumption that purely militarily, i.e. in terms of taking out, disrupting, distracting, exhausting the enemy's military resources, such attacks do very little.
Instead, they have some PR value. And the audience is not the West.

 

[theprestige]

Ukraine will very definitely NOT "lose the support" just because some VERY limited actions appear a little untowards.

Sure, but each such incident has to be addressed, and the cumulative effect of them will eventually be counter-productive. The fewer such incidents, the easier Ukraine's job of getting and keeping support becomes.

 

[Oystein]

Sure, but each such incident has to be addressed, and the cumulative effect of them will eventually be counter-productive. The fewer such incidents, the easier Ukraine's job of getting and keeping support becomes.

I think as each such incident will have been addressed in turn, we'll discover that they go the way of weapons systems deliveries: The West will learn that the looming negative consequences just don't materialise. Just as Russia does not, because it cannot, "escalate" when precision artillery, then guided rockets, then air defense systems, then MBTs, then F-16s get delivered.

Ukraine will escalate its attacks on Russian soil. And keep the support. And annoy the hell out of Putin, who can't do anything about it.

Boiling a frog.

 

[jeremyp]

That, or it's partisans, or incompetence, or something. Nobody flew a drone all the way from Ukraine, much less multiples.

It would be appropriate for a false flag. You need to convince your citizens they're in an existential conflict while not damaging too much of your infrastructure.

If I was trying to make a false flag attack, I would, at least, make sure the drones looked like they were coming from the country on which I wanted to pin the blame. Maybe it was a false false flag operation.

That said, I don't think Ukraine would attack Moscow with drones when there are plenty of high value targets much closer to home and whose destruction would make a difference to the course of the war.

 

[jeremyp]

If you want to go with sports... a bunch of US college kids beating the USSR's Olympic (and fully professional) hockey team in 1980.
Upset beating Man O' War in 1919.
The Miami Dolphins beating the Chicago Bears in early December 1985.
The Oakland A's beating the Atlanta Braves last night.

The USA beating England in the 1950 World Cup.

 

[erwinl]

Russia attacking Ukraine was a total trap game.

If they lose, they look incompetent militarily and politically.
If they win, the world says 'oooh big deal you beat a non-nuclear country without a highly ranked military.'

it will go down in history with:

• The US invading Vietnam,
• Michigan Football playing Appalachian State at home
• The Romans attacking Hannibal at Cannae

others?

Italy invading Greece in 1940.

 

[Oystein]

If I was trying to make a false flag attack, I would, at least, make sure the drones looked like they were coming from the country on which I wanted to pin the blame. Maybe it was a false false flag operation.

That said, I don't think Ukraine would attack Moscow with drones when there are plenty of high value targets much closer to home and whose destruction would make a difference to the course of the war.

These drone attack clearly were not designed to effect huge destruction. Good enough to set an oil depot on fire maybe - which they actually did elsewhere at the same time -, but otherwise not so much that they can actually take out.

The purpose was more probably along lines such as...
...checking out RU air defence
...asymmetric expenditures (the Pantsir rockets used to shoot them down are probably far more expensive)
...sawing doubts in the minds of Muscovites whether Putin really has everything under control
...forcing Putin to decide whether to escalate and politicize the event and his so far uninterested citizens, or to play it down to keep them depoliticized while angering the more hawkish among the elites
...demonstrating perhaps that an enemy already operates within Russia

In short: to destabilize the political and military leadership

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Russia attacking Ukraine was a total trap game.

If they lose, they look incompetent militarily and politically.
If they win, the world says 'oooh big deal you beat a non-nuclear country without a highly ranked military.'

it will go down in history with:

• The US invading Vietnam,
• Michigan Football playing Appalachian State at home
• The Romans attacking Hannibal at Cannae

others?

If you want to go with sports... a bunch of US college kids beating the USSR's Olympic (and fully professional) hockey team in 1980.
Upset beating Man O' War in 1919.
The Miami Dolphins beating the Chicago Bears in early December 1985.
The Oakland A's beating the Atlanta Braves last night.

The USA beating England in the 1950 World Cup.

Italy invading Greece in 1940.

The Athenian invasion of Sicily (415-413 BCE).

 

[Ziggurat]

The US will not submit itself to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, so how can we expect others to do it?

Do you seriously think Russia would submit itself to ICC jurisdiction if the US had done so? Of course not, don't be absurd.

 

[theprestige]

The US will not submit itself to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, so how can we expect others to do it?

We don't expect others to do it. The ICC is basically a collective justice arrangement, agreed-upon by members of the collective. Kind of like how a labor union is a collective bargaining arrangement. And in both cases, it's the members of the collective who expect others to join, not the non-members.

The members of the ICC agree that if their court finds that someone is a criminal according to the agreed-upon standards of the collective, then all members of the collective agree that that person is a criminal. And all members of the collective agree that if one of them gets their hands on charged, or alleged, or suspected such criminal, that member will remand the person to their collective court for judgement and sentencing.

The ICC still depends might makes right, for enforcement. Members still have to go out and get the offending party themselves. Unless the offending party is already one of their own citizens. In which case they're simply obligated by the collective agreement to remand the person to the ICC instead of trying them in their national court (I think). Which would be one reason why the ICC members would dearly like for the US to join. Then the US would voluntarily give up its citizens to the ICC, rather than ICC members having to grapple with the distasteful task of forcing the US to submit to their regime.

In the case of the US, it's kind of a non-issue. ICC member states aren't going to go to war with the US over ICC jurisdiction. And the US is generally content to let its allies make use of the ICC for any alleged (non-US) criminals that end up in their clutches. And in situations like the 1990s Balkans conflict, it's a convenient, widely-accepted venue for trying war crimes. The victors don't have to spin up an ad hoc Nuremberg tribunal every time.

Of course Moscow, while being objectively less moral and more depraved than the US, has similar reasons for not joining the ICC. If Moscow did seek to join the ICC it would almost certainly be with the intent of corrupting and co-opting the institution, so that it serves Moscow's interests to the detriment of everyone else.

Incidentally, for you anti-American agonistes, this is probably a concern if America joins the ICC. America already has a controlling interest in pretty much every other global economic, diplomatic, and military institution in the world. The ICC is one of the few exceptions. It's probably in Europe's interest to keep it that way.

tl;dr - Contra steenkh, the US does not think other countries have a moral obligation to join the ICC. It's the ICC members themselves, who think that the US (and others) have a moral obligation to join the ICC and turn over their citizens to its judgement.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

...sawing doubts in the minds of Muscovites whether Putin really has everything under control

You misspelled "sowing", but I'm not sure I don't like this image even better.

ETA: That's a lie; I definitely like this image better.

 

[sackett]

Ditto hear.

You misspelled "sowing", but I'm not sure I don't like this image even better.

ETA: That's a lie; I definitely like this image better.

Ditto here. A non-native speaker can often make improvements on his acquired language.

Badly needed improvements, as in the present case.

 

[dudalb]

Possibly, yes.

But Western powers are also known - or suspected - to have committed war crimes in more or less recent times, and they are still considered “good”. The press might force an examination, but often it will lead to nothing.

The US will not submit itself to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, so how can we expect others to do it?

My country, Denmark, has refused to investigate whether Danish troops have delivered Iraqi prisoners to torture.

At least we can discuss these matters. In Russia it is slander of the armed forces, and can cost you many years in prison, so there certainly is a difference.

Ah, the Moral Equivilency card.
Note how playing that card helps nobody but the bad guy?

 

[steenkh]

Do you seriously think Russia would submit itself to ICC jurisdiction if the US had done so? Of course not, don't be absurd.

No of course not. Every nation should be bound by the rules of conflict, but the strongest feel that only the little ones should be tried.

 

[steenkh]

The ICC still depends might makes right, for enforcement. Members still have to go out and get the offending party themselves. Unless the offending party is already one of their own citizens. In which case they're simply obligated by the collective agreement to remand the person to the ICC instead of trying them in their national court (I think). Which would be one reason why the ICC members would dearly like for the US to join. Then the US would voluntarily give up its citizens to the ICC, rather than ICC members having to grapple with the distasteful task of forcing the US to submit to their regime.

Any country that expects its military to commit war crimes will not want to join. The question is why does its voters not force the leadership to join? Is this because the country as such accepts war crimes?

Of course Moscow, while being objectively less moral and more depraved than the US, has similar reasons for not joining the ICC. If Moscow did seek to join the ICC it would almost certainly be with the intent of corrupting and co-opting the institution, so that it serves Moscow's interests to the detriment of everyone else.

So we should not wish for Moscow to abide to The Hague conventions? Or they should abide, but without needing trial.

Incidentally, for you anti-American agonistes, this is probably a concern if America joins the ICC.

I am not anti-American. You seem to look at things in black and white. I did point out that my own country is not to keen to have its military tried for possible war crimes.

 

[steenkh]

Ah, the Moral Equivilency card.
Note how playing that card helps nobody but the bad guy?

Nope. I have no idea what you are talking about. But I am sure it would be nice if only the bad guy can be tried. It is only a matter of time before details of Ukrainian war crimes will surface, particularly if they manage to get a successful counteroffensive rolling. How are we going to handle this situation?