Europe War in Ukraine - Thread 5 - thread rules updated

[barreness]

The Europeans are all willing to do something, as long as someone else does it first and they aren't alone. If the UK hadn't donated Challenger tanks first, effectively forcing the Americans to donate some tanks, then Western Europe still probably wouldn't have given any to this point. The Eastern Europeans are more realistic about the threat of Russia and have donated a lot more (in GDP terms), but even they still balk at shooting down anything near their airspace that hasn't crossed the border. Turkey showed that stand up to Russia (when they shot down a Russian jet after warnings not to fly over their airspace) and they back down. Wait for the next Helicopter or plane to violate their borders and shoot it down. It crashes on European soil and they will just suck it up, despite the hysterics.

Everyone is free to shoot down planes in their airspace, it's just you better be damn sure it is. The Russian jet in Turkey/Syria apparently violated Turkish airspace for 15 seconds or something, that's pushing it and hence copped backlash from Russia(increased bombing of Turkish backed militia and various diplomatic stuff). Turks eventually apologised, imprisoned pilots etc

British AWACS fly in the black sea and were in the region of the recent tanker strikes(almost certainly involved in targeting). Will Russia shoot them down? probs not because that's a provocation in international/friendly(NATO) airspace/waters so they keep doing it(as is their right)

 

[barreness]

Ukraine 'ready for elections' if partners guarantee security, Zelensky says

He was speaking after US President Donald Trump repeated claims Kyiv was "using war" to avoid elections.

www.bbc.com

Wonder if he'll un-ban every left wing, or pro peace party.

Would also need to stand down the TCC to allow hiding men to vote. Would Russia be prepared(and follow through) with a temporary ceasefire? quite possibly the easiest of the steps

 

[barreness]

Coming soon to Black/Baltic seas:

No maritime vessels allowed without full insurance and none allowed sailing with flags of convenience.


Turkey/Denmark can take that step and label it a special maritime operation.


Leave Pedo Putin with overland oil pipelines and pacific ports only to make money on.

'Full insurance' just means insured in London, which is illegal for UK companies, so this won't happen.

FOC is like half of global shipping so I think you'll struggle here.

There is a funny argument here; They were empty so limited environmental damage, if they're empty then it's not sanctioned goods.

You're right in that Turkey/Denmark could cook most Russian sea exports. Would also break any semblance of maritime law, laws of the sea, rules based order etc. Let's see how this strategy plays out cotton

 

[barreness]

So there it is.
Lets see how our russian apologist's react to the, and one thing for sure they won't like it as there is no denying that the poison dwarf is saying it.

It's pretty simple right, 2002 Russia and NATO were on pretty good terms, even talks of Russia joining NATO(helping in Afghanistan etc)

Politicians will just say well 'circumstances changed', much like 'Not one inch eastward' changed

 

[barreness]

For all the talk about Ukraine being encircled in Pokrovsk & Myrnohrad going on reports it seems Russians are in trouble and semi encircled in Kypyansk against the Oksil River & Ukraine have cut there supply line to the troops stuck there.

Yeh I believe you're right. AMK and Suryak(the good mappers) have the Russians in trouble here.

Probably a localised counter attack that will fade out like all the others for 3 years now, god speed though. Rip to those lads in Myrnograd

 

[barreness]

Unlike Putin and his gang of far right fascists Ukraine always takes out dodgy shadow fleet tankers when they are returning empty to pick up more oil protesting the environment.

It's a funny justification.

If they don't have Russian oil then they're just a(non Russian) civilian tanker right?

Anyway, Ukraine can go off, this is ok imo. They'll likely cop more escalations(and piss off some neutrals/allies, see the Kazakhs) around their black sea ports but they can make that calculation

 

[barreness]

From a Kyiv Post article
From the outset, lawmakers stressed that the crisis extends well beyond Moscow’s aggression. The deeper danger, they argued, is the precedent Russia is setting for every state that ever trusted security guarantees over nuclear weapons.

Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) delivered the sharpest warning, invoking the 1994 Budapest Memorandum – the deal that persuaded Ukraine to surrender its nuclear arsenal in exchange for protection Russia has since vaporized.

“If we allow Russia to swallow sovereign Ukrainian territory, other nations are going to draw the obvious conclusion: they need nuclear weapons to be safe,” Shaheen said. “That is a deterrence failure that we can’t afford.”

Not just other nations but more so Ukraine.
It seems that no one wants to guarentee Ukraine’s safety and even if they do who knows whether they will honour that guarentee in the furure. Even the vatniks here know that Ukraine’s future isn’t safe from russia no matter how this current war ends.

You understand that Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, and Syria all started to develop nuclear weapons and abandoned those projects(whether on good faith or lack of money).

The issue you raise has been the case since the late 90's with anyone not cool with the US. DPRK being the stand out, surely Iran follows and so on

 

[Crankyhawk]

Almost like the whole show was a means to bleed Russia as much as possible.

Euro's weren't willing to provide guarantees in 2022 and the 'coalition of the willing' doesn't exist. They'll keep throwing weapons at it and decrying all peace deals until the capitulation though. Human rights, sovereignty, democracy and so on

Real least harm vibe, history will tell us the 'civilised' Europeans always take this route.

At some point soon(the end is nigh) someone will ask whether it was worth it; For Zelensky to throw his male pop at the front, for the Euro's to burn their economy and social safety nets. Very dangerous question for anyone currently in political power*

*What about Putin for the same reason yes? Also true; but they get the oblasts, closer ties with China, a demilitarised south-west border, and the rust kicked off their military

i don't see a problem with having an aggressor nation bleed.You always had the option to not wage war

 

[Crankyhawk]

Thanks, honestly.

There is a bit of 'lessons learnt from WW2' that many like to bring up in response to calls of appeasement. Never mind that this is a Churchill history rewrite and all that, there is a few other lessons that could be learnt.

I.e That even a powerful European block will still get it's teeth kicked in if you fight Russia long enough. You want a quick war like the Japanese

i think that europe getting teeth kicked in happens when they make the error of invading Russia; not so sure this applies when russia is the aggressor

 

[barreness]

i don't see a problem with having an aggressor nation bleed.You always had the option to not wage war

Yeh, this is exactly the US argument for getting involved in '14 and the EU argument for it continuing for as long as possible.

However if you don't like seeing people die then this kinda faults right?

*of course Russia go home etc etc, this will work and so on

 

[barreness]

i think that europe getting teeth kicked in happens when they make the error of invading Russia; not so sure this applies when russia is the aggressor

You may be right.

I think that the aggressor(that is Russia is no doubt) and the defender is of not much relevance.

What matters is that you've given Russia a few years to get their shit together, was my point

Re; winter war/continuation war

 

[Crankyhawk]

Discuss?

The Russian Prosecutor General's Office has accused Poroshenko, Umerov, Yermak, Zaluzhny, and other Ukrainian politicians and military personnel of genocide against residents of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Reported by Meduza:

Генпрокуратура РФ обвинила Порошенко, Умерова, Ермака, Залужного и других украинских политиков и военных в геноциде жителей Донецкой и Луганской областей — Meduza

Генпрокуратура России утвердила обвинительное заключение в отношении «высшего политического руководства» Украины. Об этом сообщается на сайте ведомства.

meduza.io

The Russian Prosecutor General's Office has approved the indictment against Ukraine's "senior political leadership," according to the agency's website.

According to the investigation, since April 2014, “the accused and other officials, with the aim of committing genocide” against the population of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, “gave orders to subordinate servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and other armed formations to use firearms, armored vehicles, combat aircraft, missiles, and artillery weapons against civilians.”

As a result, according to the Prosecutor General's Office, nearly 5,000 civilians were killed, more than 18,500 were injured, and more than 13,500 were wounded, including 1,275 minors. More than 153,000 civilian infrastructure facilities were partially or completely destroyed. According to the Prosecutor General's Office, more than 2.3 million civilians were forced to flee their permanent residences.

In total, the agency's press release listed 41 individuals. Among them are former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, former head of the presidential office Andriy Yermak, head of the Security Service of Ukraine Vasyl Malyuk, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrsky, former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valeriy Zaluzhny, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Rustem Umerov, and others. All of them have been charged in absentia under Article 357 of the Russian Criminal Code for genocide. The criminal case has been sent to the court of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR).

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not mentioned in the Prosecutor General's Office statement.

In February 2022, on the third day of the Great War, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russia in the International Court of Justice, arguing that Russian authorities justify the invasion by citing "genocide against the Russian-speaking population of Donbas." Kyiv asked the court to rule that, contrary to Russia's claims, Ukraine did not commit genocide in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, and that Russia has no legal right to take any actions on or against Ukrainian territory. In February, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled to hear the merits of Ukraine's genocide claim against Russia.

Does "ruled to hear the merits" mean that they accepted Ukraines version vs Russias version or that the issue is still in dispute (from a legal standpoint). Would also want to know how much of the death/ damage occurred after Feb 2022 as well.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yeh, this is exactly the US argument for getting involved in '14 and the EU argument for it continuing for as long as possible.

However if you don't like seeing people die then this kinda faults right?

*of course Russia go home etc etc, this will work and so on

don't care if people die. Everyone dies.
Particularly soldiers.

 

[Crankyhawk]

There are problems with the Russian economy.

However it's all going great:

at least he is still releasing data, unlike trump

 

[Crankyhawk]

I haven't forgotten this. I literally concede this every time you bring it up

Russia invaded Ukraine, think I've typed this at least three times for your particularly purity test

What you don't get is it doesn't matter who started it; it's how to finish it that is the big deal

Writing Putin should just go home on twitter has proven ineffectual for ~4 years, I'd suggest looking at some more options

and that the invasion began in 2014

 

[Crankyhawk]

You may be right.

I think that the aggressor(that is Russia is no doubt) and the defender is of not much relevance.

What matters is that you've given Russia a few years to get their shit together, was my point

Re; winter war/continuation war

relevance is around logistical supplies I suppose (easier being the defender with shorter lines and a (presumably) more supportive population. But yes if the aggressor secures territory for a period (as you say a few years) they do get these advantages. Crimea for instance, RUssia would now be the defender there as they have secured it for so long

 

[Aussie in exile]

He's on the money here, and as we all know china can't be trusted on any level

Zelenskyy warns Russia, China stepping up military-industrial cooperation

A new report by Ukraine's foreign intelligence has warned of intensifying ties between the strategic partners.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Aussie in exile]

It's pretty simple right, 2002 Russia and NATO were on pretty good terms, even talks of Russia joining NATO(helping in Afghanistan etc)

Politicians will just say well 'circumstances changed', much like 'Not one inch eastward' changed

I think you agree with me that the sooner putin and his other poison dwarf mate, medvedev are out of the picture the world will be a safer place

 

[1990crow]

I think you agree with me that the sooner putin and his other poison dwarf mate, medvedev are out of the picture the world will be a safer place

It’ll be too late when that happens

 

[Aussie in exile]

It’ll be too late when that happens

I hope not, but that's a problem when you have some people like putin and medvedev suffering from little man syndrome

 

[wannabejack]

Well it was a memo, literally in the title

Look this is a silly argument, treaties/memos etc are just a peace of paper. International law doesn't exist, countries just pretend it does to bat away criticism*(rules based order etc etc)

Now the point of your argument is that Ukraine can never accept a peace treaty with Russia because they won't stick to it. This is considered a pro Ukraine argument; which is beyond me because it means more deaths and destruction, it's pro war.

Soviets pulled out of Korea and Austria(with neutrality that lasts to this day), Finland is still fine after ~80 years. If we are talking Russian federation then Georgia has been fine for 17 years and Chechnya for a quarter century(internal province but you get the point)

If Ukraine would sign a peace treaty and not break it/annoy Russia they would likely be fine from historical precedence. If Ukraine don't stick to it, aka Minsk accords**, you can expect the conflict to continue.

*Hague treaties prevents Ukraine/Russia declaring war because that would demand third parties remain neutral and stop shipping weapons for example. Not that this stuff really matters, just lawfare jargon rubbish, everyone does it

**Zelesnky was elected on a pro peace(constitutional reform to fulfil the Minsk accords) and anti corruption platform. Failing pretty hard on these in his 7th of a 5 year term

“just a peace of paper“. That’s another thing you and Putin agree on. You both agree that signing a “peace of paper” counts for nothing.

It’s not pro war. Ukraine needs more than “just a peace of paper” signed by Putin. They have already signed 2 pieces of paper that russia has ignored. I don’t think 3rd time’s a charm.

So russia will likely abide by a treaty as long as Ukraine don’t break it or annoy them!! russia will break it because they want control of Ukraine, after all it’s “just a peace of paper”.

 

[Zidane98]

Well it was a memo, literally in the title

Look this is a silly argument, treaties/memos etc are just a peace of paper. International law doesn't exist, countries just pretend it does to bat away criticism*(rules based order etc etc)

Now the point of your argument is that Ukraine can never accept a peace treaty with Russia because they won't stick to it. This is considered a pro Ukraine argument; which is beyond me because it means more deaths and destruction, it's pro war.

Soviets pulled out of Korea and Austria(with neutrality that lasts to this day), Finland is still fine after ~80 years. If we are talking Russian federation then Georgia has been fine for 17 years and Chechnya for a quarter century(internal province but you get the point)

If Ukraine would sign a peace treaty and not break it/annoy Russia they would likely be fine from historical precedence. If Ukraine don't stick to it, aka Minsk accords**, you can expect the conflict to continue.

*Hague treaties prevents Ukraine/Russia declaring war because that would demand third parties remain neutral and stop shipping weapons for example. Not that this stuff really matters, just lawfare jargon rubbish, everyone does it

**Zelesnky was elected on a pro peace(constitutional reform to fulfil the Minsk accords) and anti corruption platform. Failing pretty hard on these in his 7th of a 5 year term

You are pretty bad at this.

Ukraine / Russia border treaty:

UNTC

International law is clear on this - these treaties cannot be repealed. France cannot waltz into New Orleans and reclaim it because it doesn't like what the US is doing with it. China cannot reclaim Vladivostock from Russia because it doesn't agree with the treaty signed in the 1800s.

These treaties are absolute - the deal wasn't that Ukraine remain a puppet state of Russia perpetually.

The only state at fault here is Russia - clearly. This is why Russia's attempted annexations are unsuccessful, unsustainable and have no hope of ever being legitamised. Literally the only reason they continue is because your dictator has absolute dictatorial power and dreams of recreating a new Russian empire to replace his beloved USSR.

The reality is Ukraine is not and will not ever be a puppet state of Russia again. The main reason for this is the people of Ukraine now resent Russians that deeply because of imposed Ruscims by Putin ensuring that Ukanians will never accept Russian subjugation again.


Georgia is also not fine at all, that's a claim only a pro Russian shill could possibly make.

There's also a free bottle of vodka on offer if you can guess who signed the Ukraine -Russia border treaty in 2003 on behalf of Russia.

 

[Baldur]

You are pretty bad at this.

Ukraine / Russia border treaty:

UNTC

International law is clear on this - these treaties cannot be repealed. France cannot waltz into New Orleans and reclaim it because it doesn't like what the US is doing with it. China cannot reclaim Vladivostock from Russia because it doesn't agree with the treaty signed in the 1800s.

Pretty sure that Xi Jinping does not agree, China has this entire "century of barbarian humiliation" and "unfair treaties" thing which means they regard any treaty from that era as invalid.

China eyes Russia's Far East as Putin's 'History Lesson' backfires

Chinese nationalists demanded that Russia return Vladivostok following Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin.

www.newsweek.com

China's new map claims swathes of neighboring territory

As India prepares to host the G20 summit in New Delhi, China has published a new map that includes part of its territory from its neighbor

www.newsweek.com

https://ipdefenseforum.com/2024/03/far-east-territorial-dispute-tests-prc-russia-ties/

China's global triumph impossible without some parts of the Far East back - Robert Lansing Institute

Beijing sees the centenary of China in 2049 as a global triumph for powerful China, which most likely involves restoring historical integrity with the

lansinginstitute.org

Russian far east belongs to China - Taipei Times

Bringing Taiwan to the World and the World to Taiwan

www.taipeitimes.com

 

[CD Xbow]

Ukraine has allegedly used a longer range ballistic missile called Sapsan (which means peregrine falcon), though President Z is a bit coy about providing details of it's use and range. It is thought to be a longer range derivative of the Hrim ballistic missile, whose development started after the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014.

If Zelensky’s Claim Of Using Homegrown Ballistic Missile For First Time Is True, It’s A Big Deal

Ukraine has long pined for a missile of its own of this kind to provide a potent means of striking targets deep inside Russia without restrictions. Ukraine has long pined for a missile of its own of this kind to provide a potent means of striking targets deep inside Russia without restrictions.

www.twz.com

 

[barreness]

“just a peace of paper“. That’s another thing you and Putin agree on. You both agree that signing a “peace of paper” counts for nothing.

Welcome to geopolitics

It’s not pro war. Ukraine needs more than “just a peace of paper” signed by Putin. They have already signed 2 pieces of paper that russia has ignored. I don’t think 3rd time’s a charm.

Well he personally didn't sign Budapest or the initial friendship one. But then you can say Minsk one and two were ignored by Ukraine(Zelensky didn't sign these either, though it was his election platform to fulfil them).

Yes Ukraine wants a defensive pact with someone big and hairy, no one is willing to do so. Maybe try some other plan

So russia will likely abide by a treaty as long as Ukraine don’t break it or annoy them!! russia will break it because they want control of Ukraine, after all it’s “just a peace of paper”.

Yeh that's how it works.

They want a neutral state or a Russian vassal, either will work and did for ~25 years. If that is not available then they get ground into dust and strategic areas annexed.

Somewhere like Mongolia understands it's position, Taiwan to a certain extent.
I think Australians get a weird sense of entitlement being an Island at the arse end of the world, we've been invaded once and it was successful