UKRAINE WAR - 1 YEAR AND GOING.

[ralfy]

Mearsheimer has a lengthy discussion on the history of Ukraine in light of Russia. He has been slandered several times for being pro-Russian even though his main points make sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

In fact, similar slander has been made against Jeffrey Sachs and others who question what the U.S. and NATO are doing, even though such criticism started way back in the late 1990s:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ ... on-ukraine

Zelensky argued earlier that he wants to turn Ukraine into a "big Israel":

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/5 ... big-israel

has been banning the opposition:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -to-russia

and has made deals with Wall Street:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/28/zelensk ... tment.html

Meanwhile, the Global South is coordinating and slowly moving away from the dollar:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023 ... ot-ukraine

which will be disastrous for the U.S. because it needs the global economy to remain dependent on the dollar for it to continue heavy borrowing and spending which it started back in the early 1980s:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/164163 ... rs-of-debt



with total debts now exceeding $90 trillion, not including unfunded liabilities at over $180 trillion. It can no longer even pay for interest on previous loans.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Finally, more of its citizens are complaining bitterly about aid going to Ukraine which should be going to them because they are experiencing more economic crises. In addition, most of them don't want to serve in the military, don't want conscription, and don't want their loved ones to be sent as part of troops to fight. And most of them are no longer qualified not just for the military but for careers in general due to one or more problems involving illegal drugs, alcoholism, gambling addiction, unwanted pregnancies, obesity, physical illness, mental illness, criminal records, and low test scores:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... rvice.html

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Ukraine LIVE: Alcoholism killing ‘extremely high' number of Russian soldiers, claims MoD

A Russian culture of "alcohol abuse" in its Armed Forces is leading to "extremely high" instances of crime and death among their soldiers in Ukraine, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) has said. In their latest daily update on Twitter, the MoD alleged that a "significant minority" of deployed troops operating and living in the occupied territories in Ukraine were dying as a result of "non-combat causes" and "heavy drinking". While the majority of Russian soldiers are killed or wounded through combat, "poor weapon handling drills, road traffic accidents and climatic injuries such as hypothermia", as well as "pervasive alcohol abuse", are proving catastrophic for the sustainability of Putin's army in Ukraine.

The MoD said: "While Russia has suffered up to 200,000 casualties since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a significant minority of these have been due to non-combat causes.

"On 27 March 2023, a Russian Telegram news channel reported there have been 'extremely high' numbers of incidents, crimes, and deaths linked to alcohol consumption amongst the deployed Russian forces.

"Other leading causes of non-combat casualties likely include poor weapon handling drills, road traffic accidents and climatic injuries such as hypothermia. Russian commanders likely identify pervasive alcohol abuse as particularly detrimental to combat effectiveness.

"However, with heavy drinking pervasive across much of Russian society, it has long been seen as a tacitly accepted part of military life, even on combat operations."

[Dominus Atheos]

I wonder if it's a war crime to leave bottles of very hard alcohol in areas Ukraine knows russia is about to advance into?

[Broomstick]

Zelensky argued earlier that he wants to turn Ukraine into a "big Israel":

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/5 ... big-israel

Right... because all Jews just want to subjugate everyone else, blah, blah, blah the usual conspiracy shit. Because Zelenskyy is Jewish he's less of a Ukrainian, more of the same. I am heartily tired of the assumption.

Read Zelenskyy's words without a racist bias and you'll see he's talking about how to secure a country under siege from a hostile neighbor that wants to obliterate it. Something Israel has managed to do, but that is not because of Jewish conspiracies or plots, it's because the country was turned into an armed camp. Which Ukraine might also have to do to survive, the sole advantage being that their adversary is only partly surrounding them.

and has made deals with Wall Street:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/28/zelensk ... tment.html

Rebuilding Ukraine will require foreign investment. Going to Wall Street is actually pretty smart because there's a lot of money there. This strikes me as responsible leadership on the part of Zelenskyy though he'd probably be smart to find investors from a variety of sources.

Meanwhile, the Global South is coordinating and slowly moving away from the dollar:

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023 ... ot-ukraine

Next time choose a source that doesn't require me to go through layers of bullshit to get to the content.

If this is the usual BRICS argument no, it is NOT the "global south". BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Only two of those are "global south" and they're the junior partners. Yes, there are a bunch of small nations seeking membership but even if southern hemisphere nations do join that does not make it the "global south" as Russia and China will absolutely dominate such an alliance. And we've seen how Russia and China treat client nations.

which will be disastrous for the U.S. because it needs the global economy to remain dependent on the dollar for it to continue heavy borrowing and spending which it started back in the early 1980s:

The US is still large enough that if it goes down the toilet it will take the rest of the world's economy with it. That is in the interest of no one.

Could that change? Sure. But not overnight.

Finally, more of its citizens are complaining bitterly about aid going to Ukraine which should be going to them because they are experiencing more economic crises. In addition, most of them don't want to serve in the military, don't want conscription, and don't want their loved ones to be sent as part of troops to fight.

Based on what?

People in the US are interested in whether or not Trump will be perp-walked tomorrow (personally, I don't think we'll see that), the war in Ukraine is largely a non-issue for the majority. Utter indifference for the most part. When someone does give a damn it's mostly to lament what a waste of human life. If asked, most are pro-Ukraine. Pro-Kremlin are a very small fringe.

And most of them are no longer qualified not just for the military but for careers in general due to one or more problems involving illegal drugs, alcoholism, gambling addiction, unwanted pregnancies, obesity, physical illness, mental illness, criminal records, and low test scores

America is doomed blah blah blah... I've heard it all my life. Sure, the US has problems, every country does, but rumors of America's imminent demise are greatly exaggerated.

I'll also note that in the event of an actual war recruitment standards can be and frequently are lowered. The US can be choosy because we're a country of 300+ million people and we don't need to recruit a high percentage of the population for military service.

[Zaune]

I wonder if it's a war crime to leave bottles of very hard alcohol in areas Ukraine knows russia is about to advance into?

Only if it's spiked with meths or something, probably.

[Raw Shark]

I wonder if it's a war crime to leave bottles of very hard alcohol in areas Ukraine knows russia is about to advance into?

Only if it's spiked with meths or something, probably.

I seem to recall reading (here, I think) that Ukraine has already been leaving bottles of vodka+ in areas Russia is about to advance to, but it's not Trailer Toot they're spiking it with. Is setting up the enemy to swill some rat poison a war crime? Maybe, but so is shelling a maternity hospital.

[Dominus Atheos]

I wonder if it's a war crime to leave bottles of very hard alcohol in areas Ukraine knows russia is about to advance into?

Only if it's spiked with meths or something, probably.

But alcohol is inherently poisonous, and you'd be leaving it for the explicit purpose of hoping that your enemy dies of alcohol poisoning. On the other hand, the other guy would be choosing to poison themselves, not like you're shooting mustard gas into there trenches, right?

If you leave a canister of mustard gas around because you know the enemy is stupid enough to huff it, does it count as "using mustard gas"?

[Ralin]

If you leave a canister of mustard gas around because you know the enemy is stupid enough to huff it, does it count as "using mustard gas"?

Does it violate the laws of war to leave meth and fentanyl for the Russian soldiers to use if its clearly labeled as such?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

I wonder if it's a war crime to leave bottles of very hard alcohol in areas Ukraine knows russia is about to advance into?

Only if it's spiked with meths or something, probably.

I seem to recall reading (here, I think) that Ukraine has already been leaving bottles of vodka+ in areas Russia is about to advance to, but it's not Trailer Toot they're spiking it with. Is setting up the enemy to swill some rat poison a war crime? Maybe, but so is shelling a maternity hospital.

The thing is, by the Rules of War, Russia will have its Rules of War privileges revoked. The rules have clauses that are basically summed up as 'do shit, get hit'. Do war crimes, then you'll get hit with the escalation.

[Ralin]

The thing is, by the Rules of War, Russia will have its Rules of War privileges revoked. The rules have clauses that are basically summed up as 'do shit, get hit'. Do war crimes, then you'll get hit with the escalation.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Pretty sure that's the exact opposite of how it works; parties are held responsible for their war crimes regardless of the conduct of the other side because otherwise the whole concept quickly breaks down. Could you cite those clauses please, and explain which Rules of War you are referring to?

[wautd]

Oh Turkey approved Finlands nato application now, so we're in

Welcome, Finland

[Broomstick]

Welcome, Finland! ::: throws confetti :::

May this alliance be long and beneficial to all. Glad to have you on the team.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

And you can see just from looking at a map that the Finland/Russia border is extremely long, which is important because Russia threatened to send forces to that border to defend it. Exactly how they intend to do that since they're already short on manpower and equipment for the conflicts they have, they didn't elaborate on

[Solauren]

I wonder if it's a war crime to leave bottles of very hard alcohol in areas Ukraine knows russia is about to advance into?

Alcohol is not recognized as a chemical agent or biological weapon, or a poison (legally at least), so probably not.
Leaving behind stuff in containers labeled to appear to be Alcohol, and it being filled with something harmful probably is.

Also, what does it matter if it was left in an apartment, grocery store, or in the street? They're going to steal and drink it anyway.

If I was a Ukrainian general, I'd be tempted to stage a withdraw, leave alot of booze behind, and wait until the Russians are all drunk, and then hit them hard with Artillery and Bombing. Pretty much what's probably going to happen to them anyway, but at least they'll die drunk and not really notice.

[Highlord Laan]

Oh Turkey approved Finlands nato application now, so we're in

Welcome, Finland

*snip image*

A more accurate picture for "joining" russia would be children raped to death and piled in a basement (That picture got spring on me via reddit.)

[Jub]

Alcohol is not recognized as a chemical agent or biological weapon, or a poison (legally at least), so probably not.
Leaving behind stuff in containers labeled to appear to be Alcohol, and it being filled with something harmful probably is.

Also, what does it matter if it was left in an apartment, grocery store, or in the street? They're going to steal and drink it anyway.

If I was a Ukrainian general, I'd be tempted to stage a withdraw, leave alot of booze behind, and wait until the Russians are all drunk, and then hit them hard with Artillery and Bombing. Pretty much what's probably going to happen to them anyway, but at least they'll die drunk and not really notice.

Assuming you have them in great enough supply, you'd be better off planting mines rather than scattering alcohol around in hopes that a bit of extra booze degrades Russian unit effectiveness by a few more percentage points.

[loomer]

The thing is, by the Rules of War, Russia will have its Rules of War privileges revoked. The rules have clauses that are basically summed up as 'do shit, get hit'. Do war crimes, then you'll get hit with the escalation.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Pretty sure that's the exact opposite of how it works; parties are held responsible for their war crimes regardless of the conduct of the other side because otherwise the whole concept quickly breaks down. Could you cite those clauses please, and explain which Rules of War you are referring to?

This is one I can speak on. You're correct that there's no such thing as 'The Rules of War' where you can have your privileges revoked. However, it is an accepted element of ICL - despite API to the GC - that some excursions into war crimes territory is actually permissible in reply to an opponent doing it first. These are the 'reprisals' carve-outs, and the basic principle is that when you are dealing with an opponent who, as demonstrated by repeated serious violations of humanitarian law, does not obey the laws of war and IHL, who has ignored all other measures to induce them to cease their violation, and to whom adequate warning is given of your intent to engage in reprisals, you may do so provided that these reprisals are proportionate, direct, and on the special directive of the highest command level, and are not wantonly inhumane or extend beyond the immediate necessity of forcing the opponent to desist.

Its a limited carveout, but a carveout nonetheless, and Russia is probably inching into the territory in which the very narrow room to engage in them is open to Ukraine. That said - the only existing wiggle room is very limited and doesn't permit mass executions, indiscriminate shelling of civilians, etc. Consult Martić for more, but basically, its of very limited utility to Ukraine both strategically (the bits that are probably still allowed - mass destruction of civilian property (but not civilian lives), for example - aren't really favourable in terms of international optics nor within the effective reach of Ukrainian forces to implement) and in terms of what the courts are likely to accept as a valid reprisal after a solid century of the carveout being reduced.

[AniThyng]

ICL - despite API to the GC

Ok I assume icl = international criminal law but what are the other two...

[loomer]

GC = Geneva Conventions, and API - Additional Protocol I. API is the one that pretty concretely said 'no reprisals on civilians, guys', though the precise legal status of that as binding on non-signatory parties is still ambiguous as the consistent refusal to endorse of it of several major powers may - or may not (more likely not given they've acted in tacit agreement) - be sufficient to prevent it from actually being part of customary international criminal law.

This is actually part of why the idea there's a single set of Rules of War breaks down very quickly. There are universal (mostly, anyway) customary laws of war, specific treaties and conventions that for some components embody and formalize part of that customary law but for other components are additional-to and binding only on signatories, and then individual military's rulebooks on how to interpret and abide by the latter two, which in turn can help inform the first category's scope.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The thing is, by the Rules of War, Russia will have its Rules of War privileges revoked. The rules have clauses that are basically summed up as 'do shit, get hit'. Do war crimes, then you'll get hit with the escalation.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Pretty sure that's the exact opposite of how it works; parties are held responsible for their war crimes regardless of the conduct of the other side because otherwise the whole concept quickly breaks down. Could you cite those clauses please, and explain which Rules of War you are referring to?

This is one I can speak on. You're correct that there's no such thing as 'The Rules of War' where you can have your privileges revoked. However, it is an accepted element of ICL - despite API to the GC - that some excursions into war crimes territory is actually permissible in reply to an opponent doing it first. These are the 'reprisals' carve-outs, and the basic principle is that when you are dealing with an opponent who, as demonstrated by repeated serious violations of humanitarian law, does not obey the laws of war and IHL, who has ignored all other measures to induce them to cease their violation, and to whom adequate warning is given of your intent to engage in reprisals, you may do so provided that these reprisals are proportionate, direct, and on the special directive of the highest command level, and are not wantonly inhumane or extend beyond the immediate necessity of forcing the opponent to desist.

Its a limited carveout, but a carveout nonetheless, and Russia is probably inching into the territory in which the very narrow room to engage in them is open to Ukraine. That said - the only existing wiggle room is very limited and doesn't permit mass executions, indiscriminate shelling of civilians, etc. Consult Martić for more, but basically, its of very limited utility to Ukraine both strategically (the bits that are probably still allowed - mass destruction of civilian property (but not civilian lives), for example - aren't really favourable in terms of international optics nor within the effective reach of Ukrainian forces to implement) and in terms of what the courts are likely to accept as a valid reprisal after a solid century of the carveout being reduced.

Yeah, you said it with the legal language. You be surprised at how stuff like this comes up in idle conversation (it came up in a thread about Star Wars fanfiction, believe it or not). Also, blame the popular consensus making all the protocols and conventions umbrella'd into 'Rules of War'.

[Lord Revan]

It should be noted that those international treaties are more simply writing out unwritten rules that existed even before, those customary laws, so it's not a case of "we didn't sign them so anything goes but you have to obey them" , it was just there was a lot more room for interpretation before what you can and cannot do was written down.

There has been "rules" in war as long as the ancient times if not before that, but those were unwritten "gentleman's agreements" rather concrete and unambiguous set of rules.

[loomer]

Well, sort of, but also - not really. Some of them are simply formalizing the unwritten customary law, but quite a few - the conventions on landmines, for instance - are attempts to create a new piece of law that did not, and often still doesn't, enjoy the status of an international customary law. Quite a lot of what is now accepted as customary law began specifically as an expansion found only in the treaties and conventions, as well.

[LaCroix]

Big news:

China Diplomat openly stated that China does not recognize the annexation of Crimea or any other regions of Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/worl ... -cong.html

But yeah, the BRICS are going to stand together as one against the west and smash their hegemony...

Internally:
Russia changed the law - conscripts can still not be used in a war - but they can be used as "peace keepers"...
Russia enacted the "no step back" order. Historically, this never ended well, and if enforced, we will see russian losses spike sharply.

[Lord Revan]

I really can't see how anyone who has paid attention how China has behaved publicly here would think their going "lets smash the west *insert evil laugh*" when they're seemed to be going "WTF Russia?! We had this nice thing where everyone profited and you had to pull this shit and ruin everything!"

Instead of standing together with Russia, China seems to become more and more friendly with west as the conflict drags on granted without totally cutting ties with Russia but it's quite clear which way China is leaning and it ain't Russia.

[Solauren]

Instead of standing together with Russia, China seems to become more and more friendly with west as the conflict drags on granted without totally cutting ties with Russia but it's quite clear which way China is leaning and it ain't Russia.

As i said it before, China is probably using this to purchase cheap resources to stockpile. Beyond that, I think they see that Russia (under it's current administration) is a politically lost cause.

China is getting more and more about profit and advancement. Wars waste resources, and kill your customer base.
After all, dead people can't buy things.