Russian invasion of Ukraine

[DeeTillEhDeh]

More from Reuters.

Russia says it has set a 5am deadline to surrender Mariupol.
“Lay down your arms,” Colonel-General Mikhail Mizintsev, the director of the Russian National Center for Defense Management, said in a briefing distributed by the defence ministry.
“A terrible humanitarian catastrophe has developed,” Mizintsev said. “All who lay down their arms are guaranteed safe passage out of Mariupol.”
Mizintsev said at a briefing today that humanitarian corridors would be opened tomorrow in both the eastern and western directions from Mariupol. “The Mariupol authorities now have the opportunity to make a choice and go over to the side of the people, otherwise the military tribunal that awaits them is just a little that they deserve for their terrible crimes, which the Russian side is very carefully documenting,” he said.

 


I'm a bully and I'm documenting how you deliberately put your face into my fist. . .

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Some Russia has to stop being a gimp and take one for the team and decapitate Putin as soon and as gruesomely as possible.

[Left Back]

45 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

More from Reuters.

 

Wow.  That is unbelievably mental.

[Fullerene]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Its child logic seen all over the media and internet that Russia must climb down completely and get nothing out of this deal etc etc. Russia are slowly but surely pounding Ukraine into submission. Are they losing battles? Yes.... Have they invited an economic and political catastrophe upon themselves? Yes. But militarily, they are slowly destroying Ukraine and killing its people. Only a fucking idiot thinks Ukraine can somehow produce a full Russian about turn and go home from a position of weakness, albeit nowhere near as weak as anyone anticipated. Anyone demanding that Ukraine concedes nothing becasue Russia are baddies is a child.

Before World War 2 and also before the EU, countries in Europe were constantly disputing borders, especially when a dictator was involved.  After WW2, it was recognised that even if there were lots of silly borders, the issue should not be resolved by aggression.

NATO did not care about dictatorships but the EU did (although I might be wrong).

If Russia is allowed to take a bite out of Ukraine, where does it stop?

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Fullerene said:

Before World War 2 and also before the EU, countries in Europe were constantly disputing borders, especially when a dictator was involved.  After WW2, it was recognised that even if there were lots of silly borders, the issue should not be resolved by aggression.

NATO did not care about dictatorships but the EU did (although I might be wrong).

If Russia is allowed to take a bite out of Ukraine, where does it stop?

It stops when Ukranian leadership decides that the cost of blood is higher than the price being demanded by the aggressor to stop. No one is condoning the aggression, and sure, if the aggression takes a different form in the future our response may have to be different, but for now we are a borderline bystander in this war so our opinion on what shouldnt and shouldn't be demanded/conceded is largely irrelevant. Nothing can be done about this except Ukraine fight or Ukraine concede. Right now I am sure they are doing a bit of one so they can hopefully do less of the other but all of this "where will it end" chat strikes me a as a bit pointless. We are where we are, and there is millenia of historical precedence for one country being aggressive towards another in order to gain something. I'm not a historian, I just know that wars have happened as long as there have been humans. 

It does seem that Putin has become a bit unstable, and for me his actions are deplorable in the extreme. I hope he dies an imminent and painful death but thats not a reason to start WW3 IMO. If you want to stop Russia in their tracks, remove them from Ukraine by force and ensure Ukraine have to make no concessions whatsoever, you need NATO forces to go in their and batter them. Perfectly doable on the face of it, but are you prepared to risk the end of humanity on earth so that you can have the headline that Putin gets NOTHING!!!!

 

[Fullerene]

11 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

It stops when Ukranian leadership decides that the cost of blood is higher than the price being demanded by the aggressor to stop. No one is condoning the aggression, and sure, if the aggression takes a different form in the future our response may have to be different, but for now we are a borderline bystander in this war so our opinion on what shouldnt and shouldn't be demanded/conceded is largely irrelevant. Nothing can be done about this except Ukraine fight or Ukraine concede. Right now I am sure they are doing a bit of one so they can hopefully do less of the other but all of this "where will it end" chat strikes me a as a bit pointless. We are where we are, and there is millenia of historical precedence for one country being aggressive towards another in order to gain something. I'm not a historian, I just know that wars have happened as long as there have been humans. 

It does seem that Putin has become a bit unstable, and for me his actions are deplorable in the extreme. I hope he dies an imminent and painful death but thats not a reason to start WW3 IMO. If you want to stop Russia in their tracks, remove them from Ukraine by force and ensure Ukraine have to make no concessions whatsoever, you need NATO forces to go in their and batter them. Perfectly doable on the face of it, but are you prepared to risk the end of humanity on earth so that you can have the headline that Putin gets NOTHING!!!!

 

There are a lot of crap borders in Europe (and elsewhere).  The attitude of most European countries is "they are what they are".  War is not the solution.  Even if it was what went on for centuries.

It is not so much that Putin is unstable.  It is simply that nobody wants to be friends with Russia apart from the other kleptocracies.  Maybe Armenia and Tajikistan for defence reasons but apart from that nobody.

[Fullerene]

3 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Just occurred to me that the reason Russia never refers to Ukrainians as fascists, only ever as Nazis, is because Putin is the closest Europe has seen to an actual Fascist leader since WW2, mini me's like Ceausescu, Milosevic and Hoxha excepted. 

Maybe but I suspect the Russians remember the Nazis as the real b**tards who caused misery in WW2 whereas the Italian fascists, Romanians and so on were the useless idiots who were easily defeated in the battle of Stalingrad.

[DiegoDiego]

Maybe Armenia and Tajikistan for defence reasons but apart from that nobody.

In recent years up to 45% of Tajik GDP has been remittances from Russia, so it's not just the defence side of things, it's all that's propping up an incredibly poor country.

[Hillonearth]

1 hour ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Some Russia has to stop being a gimp and take one for the team and decapitate Putin as soon and as gruesomely as possible.

Who knows what's going on in Russia right now, but I have seen the name of Alexander Bortnikov being touted as potential successor should Putin meet with a bizarre gardening accident that involves him being shot 17 times in the back of the head.

He's currently in charge of the FSB though so that might be a case of goodbye frying pan, hello fire...

[Fullerene]

1 minute ago, DiegoDiego said:

In recent years up to 45% of Tajik GDP has been remittances from Russia, so it's not just the defence side of things, it's all that's propping up an incredibly poor country.

I believe you.  I suspect Tajikistan see Russia as less bad than all its neighbours - and similarly Armenia. 

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

I believe you.  I suspect Tajikistan see Russia as less bad than all its neighbours - and similarly Armenia. 

Armenia's security guarantees haven't paid off too well recently. Russia < NATO.

[Fullerene]

23 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Armenia's security guarantees haven't paid off too well recently. Russia < NATO.

Don't forget that Turkey is part of NATO and their final solution for the Armenians inspired Hitler to do similar to the Jews.

I don't think Armenia loves Russia.  I suspect it is simply they despise them less than their immediate neighbours.

 

[Arabdownunder]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Reuters.

 

Hiroshima  and Dresden notable absentees from the list. Maybe cities destroyed by the good guys don't count?

[Bairnardo]

2 hours ago, Fullerene said:

There are a lot of crap borders in Europe (and elsewhere).  The attitude of most European countries is "they are what they are".  War is not the solution.  Even if it was what went on for centuries.

It is not so much that Putin is unstable.  It is simply that nobody wants to be friends with Russia apart from the other kleptocracies.  Maybe Armenia and Tajikistan for defence reasons but apart from that nobody.

Aye, agreed. But if no one is willing to use force to stop the playground bully from taking lunch money and flushing heids down lavvies, some lunch money and heid flushing is going to have to be conceded. There is no higher level of intervention than full scale international war. There isn't some appeals court or arbitration society we can invoke once Russia chose a course of war. From a morality standpoint we can and should condemn their actions, but if Ukraine are unable to stop them, and the rest of the world is unwilling, then concessions from both sides of the conflict, with the one taking the brunt of the damage and least willing to stomach the cost of continuation likliest to concede the most, is the only logical place you can arrive. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Bairnardo

[Newbornbairn]

Some level of victim blaming going on here. Russia is murdering men, women and children indiscriminately and it's Ukraine's fault for not surrendering?

[BFTD]

Can't imagine why the Ukrainians would rather fight than go back to being ruled by Russia. What's the worst they could do to them, again?

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

Some level of victim blaming going on here. Russia is murdering men, women and children indiscriminately and it's Ukraine's fault for not surrendering?

There's no evidence of indiscriminate murder of women and children FFS. Once Ukraine's defence strategists - quite understandably - opted for defending urban areas to the death, high civilian casualties were the all too inevitable consequence of the fighting. They knew this as much as Russian generals know that any offensive would be extremely grisly business. That's the reality of urban warfare. 

If Ukraine's military wanted to defend its country while being concerned to limit civilian casualties then both sides could have deployed its forces for a relatively open Kursk-type battle. It would likely have led to military defeat for Ukraine, but a decisive end to war is much better for most parties involved than turning every major city into a hellscape because you don't want to change a ridiculous clause in your constitution. 

[vikingTON]

4 minutes ago, BFTD said:

Can't imagine why the Ukrainians would rather fight than go back to being ruled by Russia. What's the worst they could do to them, again?

The 'Holodomor' is a right-wing nationalist myth with no grounding in reality.

It is well documented that the Soviet government prioritised Ukraine for food aid in the early 1930s over the Russian and most other Soviet republics - for geopolitical reasons of course, rather than the kindness of Uncle Joe's heart.

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Before World War 2 and also before the EU, countries in Europe were constantly disputing borders, especially when a dictator was involved.  After WW2, it was recognised that even if there were lots of silly borders, the issue should not be resolved by aggression.

It was only 'recognised' as part of a global superpower conflict, that forced European countries to pick a side and stick to that. Not because German leaders decided that their loss of huge lands in the east from the old Weimar Republic was justified, nor the Hungarians and other territorial revisionists renounced their ambitions because WW2 was so bad. 

A shit ton of brutal expulsions and population transfers also went some way to clarifying Europe's border disputes. I don't think that's a great model all round for the post-Soviet space. 

Quote

If Russia is allowed to take a bite out of Ukraine, where does it stop?

Erm, Ukraine or mebbe Georgia. Russia is a power in disastrous long-term decline and its fragility has currently been shown up by a war with a non-NATO opponent. Its fighting power only goes downhill from here as sanctions on an  already decrepit economy and pathetic levels of research funding kick in.

The idea that they're going to go waltzing into Riga off the back of this non-existent 'triumph' is just nonsense. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by vikingTON

[Granny Danger]

42 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

Some level of victim blaming going on here. Russia is murdering men, women and children indiscriminately and it's Ukraine's fault for not surrendering?

Yeah imagine defending the Russian killings in order to try to score points on a football forum.  Sad, yet not surprising.