Ukraine/Russian Conflict - General Discussion

[dbrenn]

5 hours ago, EdwardV said:

Translation = Russia has the right to invade a sovereign country and murder its people to create a buffer state. Never mind Putin has already said this is a war to return land that rightfully belongs to mother Russia. Never mind that Ukraine was precluded from joining NATO and Russia already held that key (therefore already had a buffer state). Never mind NATO was already adjoining Russia. Never mind the plan blew up in his face by convincing Sweden and Finland to join NATO adding over 800 miles of border adjoining Russia. 
 

We aren’t even talking about all the other things that have boomeranged on Russia because of invading Ukraine. 
 

the best part of the video is fact he blows up Mearsheimer in front of him. 

The man in the YouTube clip is Radek Sikorski, a Liberal politician and European Member of Parliament from Domald Tusk's Civic Platform party.

Of course any Liberal Eurocrat will vehemently oppose Russia just like the Americans do. The EU is an empire, and is as obsessed with promoting the Liberal globalist world view (into places where it isn't wanted) as the US is.

Fact is that Mearsheimer graduated from the US Military Academy, has an MA from the University of Southern California and a PhD from Cornell University. He's a recognised expert in international relations, unlike the low grade Eurocrat politician in your clip. Mearsheimer knows a lot more about military affairs than this man, or you.

You'll have to try harder than that. Why nor start by taking a map and a tape measure. Compare the distance between Ukraine's eastern border and Moscow with Ukraine's western border and Washington DC, then get back to me with what you find.

Maybe realism trumps US wokism? Just a thought. 

[EdwardV]

18 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Maybe realism trumps US wokism? Just a thought.

Is that an attempt to change the subject? You wrote a lot but never once actually countered any of his arguments. Why I’m I not surprised? 

 

21 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Why nor start by taking a map and a tape measure.

Does that somehow justify the invasion of a sovereign country and the murder of its civilians? I’m guessing you think it does. 

[Fanta]

Lysyschansk has fallen and with it the Luhansk oblast - time to roll out the “that place wasn’t important anyway” dismissal. If you believe the pro Ukraine propaganda that Russia’s Army is a shuffling mess of higher functioning zombies than this latest setback doesn’t speak volumes for the highly motivated, well trained, numerically superior UAF. In other news the UAF launched missiles into Belgorod, Russia hitting the airfield, 11 apartment buildings and 39 houses. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Western cries of outrage and will try to turn a deaf ear to Zelenskyy’s proclamations of it being “karma”. 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/3/explosions-reported-in-the-russian-city-of-belgorod-3-dead

[dbrenn]

17 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

Is that an attempt to change the subject? You wrote a lot but never once actually countered any of his arguments. Why I’m I not surprised? 

Does that somehow justify the invasion of a sovereign country and the murder of its civilians? I’m guessing you think it does. 

You seem to be running out of suggestions. Russia viewed the situation on it's western border, with the eastward expansion of a hostile military bloc as a casus belli. Now, you might not agree with that, but that's your Western Liberalism coming out. Many countries attack or invade other countries citing casus belli - the US has done it lots of times, for often dubious and self-serving reasons, rather than the idea of just war, but you'd be cheering them on.

[dbrenn]

6 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Lysyschansk has fallen and with it the Luhansk oblast - time to roll out the “that place wasn’t important anyway” dismissal. If you believe the pro Ukraine propaganda that Russia’s Army is a shuffling mess of higher functioning zombies than this latest setback doesn’t speak volumes for the highly motivated, well trained, numerically superior UAF. In other news the UAF launched missiles into Belgorod, Russia hitting 11 apartment buildings and 39 houses. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Western cries of outrage and will try to turn a deaf ear to Zelenskyy’s proclamations if it being “karma”. 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/3/explosions-reported-in-the-russian-city-of-belgorod-3-dead

People here will claim that Lysychansk is just a scratch. 

[EdwardV]

1 hour ago, Fanta said:

In other news the UAF launched missiles into Belgorod, Russia hitting the airfield, 11 apartment buildings and 39 houses.

Besides the fact you are writing that as if it’s fact when your link clearly shows it’s a Russian allegation. However from your link: 

What appears is that somewhere around 25 missiles were fired towards the airport which is a Russian base in Belgorod. It appears that some of those missiles may have hit a residential area. That’s certainly what the media is saying …” he said.

I seem to recall you making the argument in prior Russian strikes. That aiming for a military target and accidentally hitting a civilian one is at least somewhat acceptable. Did I get that right? 
 

On a side note, I never did see any Russian statement on the Odesa strike of a few days ago. They are usually quite fast at at least saying something. Did I miss it?

[EdwardV]

1 hour ago, dbrenn said:

Many countries attack or invade other countries citing casus belli - the US has done it lots of times, for often dubious and self-serving reasons, rather than the idea of just war, but you'd be cheering them on

You are putting word in my mouth, don’t. 

A classic whataboutism, how did I know that would be coming? So because the US has done something horribly wrong, that gives  license for Russia to do the same? Many counties? Really? I can’t think of many since WW2. Certainly not many that actually got away with it. I noticed you still haven’t refuted anything Mr. Sikorski said. 

Exactly how was a non-NATO Ukraine a threat to Russia? Because we know by rule Ukraine didn’t qualify for NATO. Not as long as Russia occupied Crimea. 

[Fanta]

13 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

Besides the fact you are writing that as if it’s fact when your link clearly shows it’s a Russian allegation. However from your link: 

So Russia attacked themselves? Interesting. I thought my point was clear.  The outrage expressed at the damage inflicted on civilian infrastructure only goes one way. Russia couldn’t post a cute puppy video on social media without it being mocked and largely ignored. I guess that is human nature. Did I get that right?

In other news the new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited Ukraine yesterday and was given the scenic war crimes tour. He must have left his cheque book at home as no announcements were made of further aid to Ukraine. He was allowed to leave the country the same day after he recited the correct password to the waiting media “War crimes”.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-04/anthony-albanese-visit-to-ukraine-secret-revealed-social-media/101205090

[EdwardV]

7 minutes ago, Fanta said:

So Russia attacked themselves? Interesting. I thought my point was clear.

Not that I think so, but it wouldn’t be the first time either. Russia might not have invented false flag operations, they did perfect them. And yes you did get it right. Hahaha 

 

9 minutes ago, Fanta said:

He was allowed to leave the country the same day after he recited the correct password to the waiting media “War crimes”.

Damn almost spit my drink on that one. Worse it’s almost believable. 

[EdwardV]

In other war news: 

Heger said that Bratislava will transfer its MiG-29s to Ukraine and also mentioned the possibility of sending tanks to Ukraine.

https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-ato/3521138-slovakia-planning-to-send-mig29-fighter-jets-and-tanks-to-ukraine.html

While Slovakia only has some 20  T-72s and another 20 Mig29s. The possibility of transferring planes might finally cross that imaginary red line that’s held them up for so long. If it happens, and it’s still a huge if, would those from Poland and others follow? 

I had wanted to mention this before, but never got around to it. The upcoming NASAMS air aircraft systems being donated is an interesting development. It shows a long term commitment to supporting Ukraine since they probably won’t be operational for a couple of months at best. It’s also one more step in the developing integration of Ukraine into NATO weapon systems. Wonder what’s next? 
 

https://interestingengineering.com/us-ukraine-advanced-nasams-820m-military-aid

 

[dbrenn]

33 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

You are putting word in my mouth, don’t. 

A classic whataboutism, how did I know that would be coming? So because the US has done something horribly wrong, that gives  license for Russia to do the same? Many counties? Really? I can’t think of many since WW2. Certainly not many that actually got away with it. I noticed you still haven’t refuted anything Mr. Sikorski said. 

Exactly how was a non-NATO Ukraine a threat to Russia? Because we know by rule Ukraine didn’t qualify for NATO. Not as long as Russia occupied Crimea. 

This new fad word 'whataboutism' is another way of saying that we can't make perfectly valid comparisons and show examples in a debate, to illustrate a point. It's a flawed argument.

In this case, you were defending the views of a liberal EU politician against a renowned academic,  because you're a liberal yourself. You went on to say that no country has the right to invade another country. I rebutted you by illustrating, using examples how many countries, even the one you support (the US), use casus belli as a reason to violate the sovereignty of other countries.  Your viewpoint is a wholly political one, rather than a moral one.

If you're OK with one side using casus belli, but not the other, simply because of your liberal political beliefs, then you're starting to come across as a bit of a hypocrite.

[dbrenn]

49 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

You are putting word in my mouth, don’t. 

A classic whataboutism, how did I know that would be coming? So because the US has done something horribly wrong, that gives  license for Russia to do the same? Many counties? Really? I can’t think of many since WW2. Certainly not many that actually got away with it. I noticed you still haven’t refuted anything Mr. Sikorski said. 

Exactly how was a non-NATO Ukraine a threat to Russia? Because we know by rule Ukraine didn’t qualify for NATO. Not as long as Russia occupied Crimea. 

Do you really believe that a way wouldn't have been found to get around that? Joining NATO was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution. Over time, NATO has been really accommodating in absorbing almost all of Eastern Europe. Where there's a will, there seems to be a way.

[Smithydog]

15 hours ago, dbrenn said:

When we listen to the interview with Professor Mearsheimer, he's already explained the following points raised by the Daily Cardinal:

Your point: It seems that Mearsheimer has a fundamental double-standard in that he believes the U.S. should be considerate not to hurt Russia’s feelings whenever making a decision about Eastern Europe — but at the same time — Russia’s “Great Power” status enables them to do whatever they please within their sphere of influence.

Professor Mearsheimer makes it clear that Ukraine is in Russia's backyard, which it is, and that the US is using NATO to "make Eastern Europe like Western Europe". He also makes the valid point that NATO was a hostile military bloc during the Cold War, so it's understandable that Russia would want a bulwark between an ever expanding NATO, now that it has the capacity to enforce this on the ground. In any case, how is it reasonable that the US's sphere of influence includes across the Atlantic past Western Europe, ever expanding eastward to include Ukraine, but Russia's sphere of influence is only allowed by the US to extend to it's western border, a few hundred kilometres from it's capital - Professor Mearsheimer uses the analogy of Canada having to move its capital to Ottawa to get it further away from the US, where its original capital (Toronto) was located.

On the subject of great powers feeling hurt, how do you think the US would feel if the Warsaw Pact had not been disbanded, and was courting Mexico as a candidate member? It's common sense. Why does NATO still exist, when the Cold War ended in 1991?

Worthy of note too is that Russia showed no hostility to an independent Ukraine until the Bush administration invited it to join NATO in 2008, and NATO membership was subsequently enshrined into Ukraine's constitution.

Daily Cardinal also makes another erroneous statement: Mearsheimer seems to conveniently forget that Poland joined NATO on March 12, 1999, without any sort of military provocation from Russia. From a land perspective, Poland is nearly as close to Russia as Ukraine. Furthermore, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all also member states of NATO, and they directly border Russia.

Professor Mearsheimer explained that NATO expanded in three tranches - the first (which included Poland) and second tranches were undertaken when Russia was weakened following the collapse of the USSR - you may remember at that time it underwent a massive contraction, with government servants and military not getting paid. Since, as Professor Mearsheimer explained, Russia  has become powerful again and is able to act. Ukraine, as Professor Mearsheimer went on to say, is also a much more strategic asset than Poland, being on the confluence of East and West. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back - when the unrelenting eastern expansion of NATO "blew up in America's face".

I note that you also write Professor Mearsheimer off as an academic. Who do you think would be more qualified to put forward an analysis like this? The Democrat Party?

I wasn't going to reply until your silly last sentence. Despite your thoughts, the majority of the rest of us in  the world don't subscribe to America's senseless and never ending fascination with partisan politics. Analysis is fine, but needs to be tempered with real life experiences and ethics, not excused by ones simply making an academic study whilst in a tenured role for life with little consequence happening because of their musings.

For greater background, I would encourage you to read the following previous piece of work by Professor Mearsheimer. 

https://samuelbhfauredotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s2-mearsheimer-2001.pdf

In that he states: "because the study of international relations, like the other social sciences, rests on a shakier theoretical foundation than that of the natural sciences. Moreover, political phenomena are highly complex; hence, precise political predictions are impossible without theoretical tools that are superior to those we now possess. As a result, all political forecasting is bound to include some error. Those who venture to predict, as I do here, should therefore proceed with humility, take care not to exhibit unwarranted confidence, and admit that hindsight is likely to reveal surprises and mistakes."

What his musings generally lack is any sense of the moral ethics that abound real life. That is often a criticism of "theoretics" and academics. Theories are fine but the world lives in real life, not an academic game where the only thing hurt by the theories is another academic's ego!

His theory espouses the idea that as a "Great Power" resident in Europe, Russia has a greater right to exert it influence on other countries in its realm. My opinion is different. To me, no country has the singular right to invade another sovereign country unless mandated by the United Nations, the body put in place by the world and not just one nation. Granted, its effectiveness is restricted by its structure, but it is the place for debate or analysis. 

Is Russia even a "Great Power" by definition? Only because of its Nuclear weapon potential I would suggest. In the other defining categories, China is exhibiting far greater political influence through its "Belt and Road" scheme than Russia can hope for.

 

From an economic standpoint, they lag significantly behind China and the US in this regard. They only actually reach 13th by GDP, pre sanctions, with 4 other European countries placed higher than them! In reality, as they have nuclear weapons, economic strength and political influence in a variety of areas, including permanent seating on the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom and France actually have more right than Russia to be called a "Great Power"! 

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php

The reality, not academic analysis, is that Russia has "inherited" things set up when they were part of the USSR not really earnt it like other countries have. Their actions are more akin to a bully who can't win people over with their deeds, but have to use intimidation and violence to achieve their goals signs of  the characteristics attributed to "Small Man Syndrome" . (The same could be said of the US at times. But Russia, in my opinion, has perfected it to an art form.)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/naturally-selected/201405/does-putin-suffer-the-napoleon-complex

 

Russia did not and has not presented verifiable evidence to the UN member countries of what it "claims" are its justification for invading Ukraine. In fact there has been a notable dearth of such evidence being provided, despite the countless opportunities for the Russian Ambassador to do so. It is a sign that they believe they do not have to justify their actions, something Professor Mearsheimer makes us seem to feel that as a "Great Power", Russia doesn't have to.

Many in the rest of the world seem to differ in opinion on this as evidenced by this UN vote.

 

"On 2 March, the UN General Assembly adopted — by an overwhelming majority of 141 against 5 — a resolution rejecting the Russian Federation's brutal invasion of Ukraine and demanding that Russia immediately withdraw its forces and abide by international law."

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/un-general-assembly-demands-russian-federation-withdraw-all-military-forces-territory-ukraine_en

Ukraine is just the latest victim of Russian bullying. At least to join NATO, all of the members countries have to agree to the membership of a new country or it doesn't happen. Not just one. If that represents a more realistic and democratic viewpoint, then so be it. 

[dbrenn]

This is interesting ... https://liveuamap.com/

Edited July 4 by dbrenn

[Fanta]

6 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

While Slovakia only has some 20  T-72s and another 20 Mig29s. The possibility of transferring planes might finally cross that imaginary red line that’s held them up for so long. If it happens, and it’s still a huge if, would those from Poland and others follow? 

So many red lines, so little time. Why can’t Slovakia just unbolt the wings and send the lot as spare parts? The last war Warsaw saw was not very enjoyable for them so the red lines might well be of their own drawing. I think the PM of Poland has already written  his rejection speech to Elenskyy based on lines from  “A Few Good Men”  - You want me in this war? you need me in this war? The truth? You can’t handle the truth!” 

19 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

The upcoming NASAMS air aircraft systems being donated is an interesting development. 

All 2 of them. How many more to follow? Until they arrive we know who will have the safest bunker in Kyiv.

[EdwardV]

17 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

we can't make perfectly valid comparisons

It’s only a valid comparison if you accept the premise that any country has the right to invade a sovereign nation and murder its citizens. 
 

 

22 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

because you're a liberal yourself.

Please don’t label me, you don’t know me. 
 

 

24 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

I rebutted you by illustrating, using examples how many countries,

Actually you didn’t do that. Regardless the fact any have done so doesn’t create a right. 

 

26 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Your viewpoint is a wholly political one, rather than a moral one

Don’t you have that backwards? Exactly how is murdering citizens of a different country moral? 

 

28 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

If you're OK with one side using casus belli,

I’ve never justified the US invading another country. I’ve also said more than once they were wrong in doing so. 

 

22 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

Do you really believe that a way wouldn't have been found to get around that?

So it’s ok to invade a country on the off chance something might happen in the distant future? When did that become ok? The fact it’s blown up in Putin’s face with the addition of Sweden and Finland is sweet irony of the highest degree. 

[Fanta]

18 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

This is interesting ... https://liveuamap.com/

That map updates daily based only on the reports from the Ukrainian General Staff. Because of it’s info source it is slow to show changes in territorial positions and has a very pro Ukrainian slant. The YouTube channel Defense Politics Asia uses both Russian and Ukrainian sources to produce maps. 

[Smithydog]

20 minutes ago, dbrenn said:

This is interesting ... https://liveuamap.com/

It does. Thanks for the link. Will be interesting to see how quickly it gets updated and how accurate it is. But certainly helps pinpoint where things are happening.

[Smithydog]

Hi members,

When using the name of one of the Leaders, no matter your level of respect for them or not, please use their proper name (surname if sufficient) and not one you have chosen to adapt or make up! 

Might seem fun, but after a while it just becomes annoying.

Thanks

Moderator

[EdwardV]

25 minutes ago, Fanta said:

The last war Warsaw saw was not very enjoyable for them so the red lines might well be of their own drawing.

Maybe but considering they have twice tried to unload, I mean donate those planes to Ukraine I kinda of doubt it. I think Warsaw already figures it’s on Putin’s naughty list, not sending planes isn’t going to change that. 

 

25 minutes ago, Fanta said:

All 2 of them. How many more to follow? Until they arrive we know who will have the safest bunker in Kyiv.

To be fair, until they learn how to use them. There isn’t much good in sending a whole bunch of them right off the bat. Training takes time, especially with something as complex as an anti aircraft system. I doubt that changes even when they do show. 
 

I wonder how many launchers come with each system? Just curious. 

[Transam]

A very informative chat with the Polish head military guy, well worth watching, oh, he speaks perfect English too.....

 

[Transam]

A frank interview with Lord Dannatt, very informative view.....

 

[Transam]

On the ground aftermath at the Mall findings, interesting....

 

[EdwardV]

Ukrainian forces hit a Russian military logistics base with over 30 strikes in the Russian-occupied southern city of Melitopol on Sunday, the city's exiled mayor said. A Russian-installed official confirmed that strikes had hit the city.

The military aerial logistics base has been "taken out of action" and other resistance activity caused a Russian armoured train carrying ammunition to derail on Saturday near Melitopol, Fedorov said.The base was occupied on the second day of Russia's invasion in February and was being used to store ammunition for heavy Russian weapons, he later said on television.

"At present the situation has not calmed down (and) everything is still detonating," he added. Russia's RIA news agency reported that Ukraine had hit the Aviamistechko area of Melitopol where the city's airport is located, but did not specify what had been hit. RIA cited local Russian-appointed official Vladimir Rogov as saying that around 16-18 Ukrainian MLRS rockets had hit Melitopol in two strikes at 0300 and 0445 Moscow time (1200 GMT and 0145 GMT).

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-hits-russian-base-occupied-melitopol-exiled-mayor-says-2022-07-03/

Well that wasn’t very nice of them, bad Ukraine bad. Wait; “and other resistance activity” …

 

[EdwardV]

Note this is a Ukrainian source so take with a little salt: 

"Finally, we received confirmation that a Russian landing craft of project 1176 Akula of the Black Sea Fleet D-106 hit a mine near Mariupol on June 30. Three sailors are already singing songs for fish together with Kobzon," Andriushchenko wrote.

On June 30, Serhiy Bratchuk, spokesman for the Odesa Regional Military Administration, wrote on Telegram that a Russian amphibious assault ship of project 1176 Akula of the Black Sea Fleet D-106 blew up near Mariupol. "We are waiting for confirmation of a 'gesture of goodwill'," he said.

https://www.ukrinform.net/amp/rubric-ato/3520769-russian-assault-ship-sinks-near-mariupol.html
 

If true, I wonder if it was a Russian or Ukrainian mine? Like with the cruiser Moskva, it’s a which one is worse answer. Did they fail in clearing the mines, or did they fail in knowing where they placed them?