Russia invades Ukraine

This evening a lot of reliable sources are saying Russia has now committed >95% of the troops it had massed at the start of this. Russia will need to rapidly start making gains because by the middle of next week their forces in Ukraine are going to start running out of ammo, missiles, everything. This is becoming an absolute disaster for Putin and the Ukrainians are teaching them how to war. Here's an entire column of Russian vehicles captured. Could you imagine the Taliban doing this to US forces? A major military superpower shouldn't sustain losses like this, but it keeps happening and sooner rather than later the Russian forces are going to collapse.

 

A long post from me, and I don't want anyone here to think I'm fishing or deliberately trying to play devil's advocate. I've seen a lot of stuff online, and I'm mentioning it here not to try to persuade anyone to a particular point of view, but to actively seek your disagreements and pick holes where I think the disinformation machine (on any side) might have got one over on me. I'll give my points from each point of view, labelled as from the Ukranian/NATO side, or from the Russian side. Some conjecture is just my feeling/opinion, but if you completely disagree with it we're not enemies - I want to hear an opposite side. If I've heard or read something incorrectly, then I want you to point it out.

I don't want to be that person who marches up to a sensitive topic and spews a load of crap that favours one point of view because "muh feelings" or "but you haven't read this".
And the number of any arguments from each side isn't an endorsement. One argument from one side can be more important than four arguments from the other side. The first argument I bring up being the strongest in my opinion.

Pro-Ukrainian side:
- Invading a sovereign nation is abhorrent. Civilian casualties and potentially overthrowing a democratically elected government are two things that have no place in the 21st century. Personally, I feel very strongly about this.

Russia:
- The elected government came from an undemocratic revolution, backed by the west to diminish Russian influence in Ukraine in favour of NATO influence. Media coverage of said revolution was highly biased. (I agree).

Ukraine:
- The Russian government is not democratic. Putin has essentially appointed himself a king, and kings can seldom be reasoned with.

Russia:
- Cannot see a Russian counter argument. It's simply true, and highly damning.

Ukraine:
- Russia had no right to sieze Crimea and arm rebels in Eastern Ukraine. That is infringing on Ukranian sovereign territory, and any grievances Russia had should have been dealt with through diplomatic channels rather than military.

Russia:
- Both Crimea and Donbass/Luhansk are ethnically Russian and Russian speaking as a majority, and their populace as a rule identifies more with Russia than with Ukraine. They are using the right to self-determination to choose to be part of the Russian Federation. We respect their right to self-determination and defend it. (I have an issue with ethnicity being used in a political sense. Feels racist and therefore wrong to me).

Ukraine:
- Russia (maybe) lied to many of its troops about what its intentions were in Ukraine. Many simply believed they were 'on exercise' in Belarus, and when captured by the Ukranians didn't even know they were in Ukraine. If true, this contravenes many international laws.

Russia:
- Denies the above is true. Claims Western propaganda. The thing is, western propaganda here would make sense. I honestly don't know who to believe.

Ukraine:
- Ukraine isn't in NATO, but the government is evidently NATO-aligned. Starting a conflict here brings the doomsday clock closer to midnight than it has ever been. Nobody wants nuclear war. Literally nobody.

Russia:
- Ukraine should never have been NATO aligned in the first place. On the re-unifcation of Germany, there was a promise that NATO would not move 'one inch' further east than the borders of East Germany. It has since gobbled up Baltic states and much of the former Warsaw Pact. The agreement was that these nations would remain neutral.
As a neutal here, I will argue that it is the right of the people in these nations to decide who they want to be aligned with - not the right of any current or former superpower.

Ukraine:
- Russia are lying to their people and the international community about exactly what Russina troops have gotten up to thus far. In Russian media, the armed forces are undertaking a 'special mission' armed at only military targets. In reality, we've all seen the videos of residential tower blocks being hit by artillery, neighbourhoods being struck by cluster bombs, and the completely unnecessary civilian (and child) death count.

Russia:
- Blames Ukraine and NATO for civilian deaths, claiming it is for propaganda value. I'll be honest, I believe the Ukrainians on this one.

And now for some of the more Russia-centric arguments:

Russia:
- Neo-Nazis have a huge influence in Ukranian politics, military, and have been committing war crimes against Russian-speaking peoples since 2014.
Sadly this is just objectively true. As an example, the AZOV battalion are a proudly Nazi group of Ukrainian Nationalists, originally formed from football hooligans and far-right thugs, who are officially affiliated with the Ukrainian National Guard. Their first leader stated their goal was to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]".
Since the invasion, official Ukranian government accounts have shared videos of them lacing their bullets with pork fat because they will be fighting Muslim Chechens. Their emblem is a barely disguised swastika.

Russia:
- Russia accuses the Ukranian government of an attempted genocide in Crimea. After Russia took control of the peninsula (whether you think that's right or abhorrent), Ukraine diverted the Soviet-built canal that provides 85% of Crimea's fresh water. From the Financial Times: "“The water reserves and fields have dried up,” said Viktor, 47, a Crimean who regularly travels to Ukraine for work. “Each year it’s getting worse and worse. We didn’t have this problem before annexation,” he said, adding that most Crimeans blamed Ukraine for the crisis."
Putin's approval rating has been higher in Crimea than in most of Russia, which does display a sense of self-determination in wanting to be Russian, and not wanting to be Ukrainian.
They blame Ukraine because it is the Ukranian government who made the decision to cut off this vital supply and create a humanitarian and ecological disaster, in their eyes.

Russia:
- Why is it that when Russia defends its interests, the West reacts with Ukranian flag photo filters, financial and sporting sanctions, fundraising drives, and total condemnation - but when brown people are subjected to much worse around the world, it's just a normal news story you hear before going to bed and thinking about your mundane job tomorrow? Russia did not invent the term 'collateral damage' to describe 'acceptable civillian deaths' in war. The US invented that term to justify NATO crimes.

All said, I'm inclined to say the invasion is wrong and I want Putin to suffer for it. But we aren't innocent. The news will have you think Putin is a madman who is bombing people for no reason at all. In reality it's just so much more complex than that.

But ultimately this is a war of right-wing vs right-wing. Both can be wrong at the same time, and normal people who just want to live their lives in peace are bearing the consequences.

 

This is intense

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news...-violent-ambush-in-ukraine-this-week-12557585

 

Ukraine people are brilliant. They are like our war heroes in doing what it takes to defend their homeland when some countries people decide to scarper when invaded.

 

A very thoughtful piece GC. Just one point I'd like to make... I listened to a long interview on the radio yesterday with Gordon Brown, apparently he was very involved with this from the mid 1990's...he said the alleged "not an inch more" promise in reference to Nato and new member states was ever a term he came across...the intent was to bring as many states as possible into the alliance to prevent future war, but, and I think this part is critical, the West wanted to reach out and bring Russia into the fold, but despite a lot of talks it never came about. He didn't say this but I wonder if the Russian invasion of Chechnia put the kibosh on it.
As an aside, I have to say I was seriously impressed by Brown, it really is a shame he didn't get a better crack if the whip, he comes across as the kind of 'head' that any country could benefit from.

 

Just one point on the many I could bring up tbh.
It’s that you say parts of Ukraine are Russian influenced and Russian Speaking ,
but it’s still Ukraine .
We in this country have had and have many areas where the ethnic population are from another country ie Bradford , Boston etc dos not mean we should cede control to them or the countries they hailed .
Also the country has been invaded , a democratically elected govt ,overseen by independent bodies is being overthrown .
There is no other pros and cons tbh that act alone should be judged and condemned for what it is .

 

Fascinating thread about the logistical challenges facing the convoy north of Kyiv. Effectively they are eight days into a planned three day operation.

 

The Russian assault on Kharkov, which is almost entirely Russian speaking, shows their claims of protecting Russian speakers in Donbas to be as hollow and opportunistic as I always thought they were. They don't give a ****.

 

Puitin has just been reported as saying that western sanctions on Russia are akin to a declaration of war. Lovely.

 

**** him, war it is then if that’s what he decides sanctions mean. I say that as the most cowardly, pacifist person there is but he can’t be ignored, he just won’t ever stop. Doing nothing is the same as helping him and I truly believe he will just keep steamrolling onward if all sanctions were ended and everyone just allowed him to do whatever he wanted.

 

My thinking is that this is a background to what we're seeing from accounts like Marco Rubio, who sits on the US security council.

The prevailing message is that the logistics are causing the advance to fail, and the longer it goes on the more likely a Ukrainian victory becomes.

 

Isn't it time someone just beat the **** out of the stupid big queen. "Ooh, this is war, that's war, don't you dare do that, I'll have you if you do that." No you won't you boring ***. Will someone please just down him. The world cannot be held to ransom by a narcissistic sociopath. Go in and kill the stupid motherf***er. He won't stop. We've got to take him out. Do it now.

 

Complete speculation, but here's a potential out:

NATO declares a no-fly zone
Putin, knowing his ground forces cannot continue, agrees to withdraw his army, claiming he won't risk a nuclear confrontation
Putin gets to continue to depict NATO as the aggressor, saying it was their forces that first committed a hostile act, in addition to supplying the Ukrainians with munitions throughout
The West cancels the more extreme sanctions, SWIFT etc, while leaving token punitive measures targeting the oligarchs around Putin
Putin accepts NATO expansion in Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden, again strengthening his arguments and supporter base.

Plausible maybe. Right now I don't see a more likely outcome, unless Putin is committed to nuclear war? I've been looking at the Cuban missile crisis and trying to work out a similar outcome, that saves face for Russia.

 

Putin dies of. Novichok poisoning disguised and officially confirmed by the Kremlin as an Heart Attack

 

Perhaps some legal expert on here can answer this for me... reports say Russia was/is being investigated for possible 'War crimes'

Now as a lay-person, it seems self evident that violently invading a Sovereign nation and initiating an unprovoked war is a 'war crime' in itself. Firing shells missiles and bullets in another country, regardless of whether they are targeting civilian or military personnel seems to be an irrelevant distinction. Soldier or non-combatant- they are all people.
It is why, Bush's and Blair's war was not only considered illegal but a War crime in the minds of many. IMO there is no difference between Putin's spurious argument of defending ethnic Russians in Chechnya and Ukraine annexing Crimea etc. and Blair and Bush etc, claiming WMDs and "protecting civilians" in the Middle East.
It comes down to who fires the first shot. Individual war crimes and atrocities are covered on both sides in war zones where evidence exists, but why not the initial act of starting the conflict in the first instance? Every single leader or leaders who start a conflict should be instantly deemed to be War criminals and treated as such. (IMO) If that is not currently the case the UN should make it so.

As regards member countries named in a statement condemning their actions being able to veto the resolution that is a nonsense. Admittedly the majority carries the veto but is seems ridiculous rather like the accused in a court of law being given the deciding vote if the jury is tied.

 

I hadn't realised till this morning that Ukraine gave up their Soviet nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee from the west to protect them from Russian aggression. I think that as a minimum NATO should supply Ukraine with fighter jets to be used by their airforce to police their own no-fly zone.

It's a moral obligation otherwise it was just a lie.

Oh of course, it was just a lie.

 

Not a legal expert or an expert in owt really but I think a war crime can only be committed DURING a war. There is a separate thing called a crime against peace which I'd say this is a slam dunk for

 

An interesting article from Germany.. from 2014.

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-the-budapest-memorandum/a-18111097

''Until recently, the existence of a decades-old Ukraine security guarantee was known only by security experts and some politicians.
But ever since the Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukraine is now, more than ever recalling that so-called Budapest Memorandum.
The document was signed on 5 December, 1994 at the summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In it, Ukraine, a nuclear power at that time, voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
The US, Great Britain and Russia welcomed the decision of the Kyiv regime to accede to the non-proliferation agreement and pledged, among other things, to respect the independence and "existing borders" of Ukraine.
The Soviet Union, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed similar memoranda on the same day.
Twenty years ago, the Budapest Memorandum marked the end of many years of negotiations between the successor states of the Soviet Union and leading Western nuclear powers. Ukraine had a special place in the talks.
After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the eastern European country inherited 176 strategic and more than 2,500 tactical nuclear missiles. Ukraine at that point had the third-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world after the United States and Russia.
But Leonid Kravchuk, then the president of Ukraine, told DW that was only formally the case. De facto, Kyiv was powerless.
"All the control systems were in Russia. The so-called black suitcase with the start button, that was with Russian president Boris Yeltsin."

Western pressure
Ukraine could have kept the nuclear weapons, but the price would have been enormous, Kravchuk says. Though the carrier rockets were manufactured in the southern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk, the nuclear warheads were not. It would have been too expensive for Ukraine to manufacture and maintain them on its own.
"It would have cost us $65 billion (53 billion euros), and the state coffers were empty," Kravchuk said.
Additionally, the West threatened Ukraine with isolation since the missiles were supposedly aimed at the United States. Therefore, "the only possible decision" was to give up the weapons, according to Kravchuk.
The Ukrainian missiles were either transported to Russia or destroyed. As compensation, the regime in Kyiv received financial assistance from the United States, cheap energy supplies from Russia, and security guarantees that were enshrined in the Budapest Memorandum.
Admittedly, these guarantees were only a formality, since no sanctions mechanisms had been established at the time.
"Nowhere does it say that if a country violates this memorandum, that the others will attack militarily," said Gerhard Simon, Eastern Europe expert at the University of Cologne.
German journalist and Ukraine expert Winfried Schneider-Deters agrees, telling DW, "The agreement is not worth the paper on which it was written."
Russia rejects accusations
As recently as August, however, Kyiv was still requesting negotiations with the signatory states based on the agreement - without success.
Ukraine's foreign ministry spokesman said that Russia's answer was that there was no reason for negotiations. Moscow, as early as a few weeks after the Crimea annexation in March, had rejected all accusations from Kyiv. The "exit of Crimea from Ukraine" is the result of "complex international processes," Russian officials said. According to Moscow, this is unrelated to Russia's obligations under the Budapest Memorandum.
The USA also denies that it has not fulfilled its obligations. "The Budapest Memorandum was not an agreement on security guarantees," said US ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in Kyiv in May. It was an agreement to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Both Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity have been violated.#
The Budapest Memorandum, in other words, was respected by neither the Russians nor the West in the case of Crimea.
Current Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko still hopes for a new security agreemnt
Kyiv wants a new agreement
Ukraine is holding firm, however, to the Budapest Memorandum. President Petro Poroshenko emphasized as much at the end of November in an interview with German public broadcaster ARD, and earlier, he had also said his country was striving for a successor agreement.
Experts remain skeptical.
"An agreement only makes sense if Russia would be involved and willing to guarantee Ukraine security," Simon said. He thinks that is unlikely.
"Should the West sign such an agreement, it would be a small accession to NATO, even if not formally," Simon said.
He fears that neither the US, Great Britain or any other country would be ready for that. The Budapest Memorandum is "dead." Nor is a new agreement in sight. Ukraine, then, is left on its own.
Schneider-Deters believes Ukraine should not aim for a successor agreement. Instead, it should build up its own defense.
"I believe that the Ukrainians can build up a deterrence capability," Schneider-Deters said. That is better than "security guarantees that are not met in reality."

 

Putin keeps control of the ‘Russian’ areas from his original claim and Ukraine make some form of agreement about future NATO etc would be my guess.