Ukraine War Thread

[K. A. Pital]

A more urgent question would be why some EU members sell weapons to Ukraine. Or Russia, too. If they consider them neutral warring parties commiting human rights abuses, would it not be useful to introduce a ban on weapon sales to Ukraine and Russia like Switzerland did?

[Mange]

A more urgent question would be why some EU members sell weapons to Ukraine. Or Russia, too. If they consider them neutral warring parties commiting human rights abuses, would it not be useful to introduce a ban on weapon sales to Ukraine and Russia like Switzerland did?

You do have a point, but are there really any EU countries selling arms to Ukraine? I know my country (Sweden) has exported arms to Ukraine, but I really don't know how things are now as the law forbids selling arms to countries involved in armed conflicts. Poland? I am aware that Canada has delivered some non-lethal military aid (tents etc.). There is an arms embargo on Russia. However, Russia is self-sustaining and Russia is arming the militias with heavy weaponry (and, considering what reporters on the Ukrainian/Russian border have photographed and filmed as well as people in for example Luhansk, doesn't even seem to care hiding it anymore).

[Siege]

At best the EU sends a mix message with broad statements like "human rights situation" at the same time saying it "commends the measured response shown so far by the new Ukrainian government". Not once has it specifically mentioned these particular undesirables Kiev has hired (from your links) and I am not sure if hiring people with Nazi sympathies who engage in holocaust denial to fight for you counts as a "measured response."

In the very same paragraph where the government is commended (incidentally "measured response" is a specific reference to the Russian takeover of Crimea in the days before the release date of the statement, 6 March 2014) the EU calls for continued efforts to "reach out to all Ukrainian regions and population groups and to ensure full protection of the rights of people belonging to national minorities". It shouldn't take genius to realize that when the collective heads of government of the EU release an official statement calling for you to do that they're not writing for shits and giggles, they're doing it because there's cause to call on you to do so.

This is reiterated time and time again in EU statements. Like this one: "The Ukrainian government needs to reach out to the population from east to west of Ukraine, and ensure that political processes as well as reforms reflect the regional diversity and respect human and civil rights.". Again: the High Representative isn't just writing for the fuck of it, she's calling on Ukraine to respect human and civil rights. You don't call on nations to respect rights if they're doing well on that front.

Frankly it's nuts to me to suggest Brussels "sends a mix message". It should be perfectly obvious to anyone halfway familiar with interpreting such statements that Brussels isn't happy with the way the Ukrainian government operates. If it was, it wouldn't be continually insisting on further reforms.

Meanwhile you're saying the fascist militias are "hired" by "Kiev". Does that mean you believe they're fighting directly under command of the government?

[K. A. Pital]

Actually it is not simply a matter of belief but a matter of fact the fascist militias are hired (the 'volunteer batallions' are composed of them).

Also Hungary was selling arms to Ukraine (old tanks, I heard?), while France is selling assault landing ships to Russia... It hardly looks like a consistent anti-war policy.

[Siege]

Yes, sure, someone has to be paying for the militias, but what I want to know is who's footing the bill? And what's their chain of command like? If these fucksticks are run by Right Sector that's bad, if they're run by a political party that's currently in government that's worse, and if they're directly on the payroll of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and answering to government commanders that's worst.

The fact that these militias can even operate at all is nasty and speaks poorly for Ukraine regardless of who's footing the bill and running the show, but I would not describe all three options as 'hired by Kiev'. I would reserve that label for people directly paid for by the government. There's clearly degrees of culpability, just like Russia arming rebels is bad but Russia moving its own troops across the border is worse.

[Mange]

Also Hungary was selling arms to Ukraine (old tanks, I heard?), while France is selling assault landing ships to Russia... It hardly looks like a consistent anti-war policy.

There was a limited arms embargo imposed on Ukraine by the EU when Yanukovych was still in power. As for the arms embargo against Russia, it prevents future import/export but existing contracts (such as the delivery of the two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to Russia) can be fulfilled. But since Russia is self-sufficient, the arms embargo has negligible effect.

[K. A. Pital]

Also Hungary was selling arms to Ukraine (old tanks, I heard?), while France is selling assault landing ships to Russia... It hardly looks like a consistent anti-war policy.

There was a limited arms embargo imposed on Ukraine by the EU when Yanukovych was still in power. As for the arms embargo against Russia, it prevents future import/export but existing contracts (such as the delivery of the two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to Russia) can be fulfilled. But since Russia is self-sufficient, the arms embargo has negligible effect.

I was merely remarking that profitting from wars of another is immoral. That is why generally selling weapons to a warzone or nations in civil war is frowned upon.

Answering what Siege asked about the militias, they do answer to Kiev (or rather, there is ambiguity of command: these are 'volunteers' in direct command of the Minister of Interior (Avakov), but since they were drafted from the fascist organizations, they also answer to their old leaders (Yarosh, for example)). However, the financing question is a more difficult one. Word has it, fascist volunteers have to buy their own equipment - as opposed to being provided with Army gear - and the people bankrolling it are some oligarchs interested in becoming de-facto, not de-jure, governors of the eastern regions.

So how they operate is quite easy to understand: they do not answer to their old leaders while in warzones, because the 'voluntary battalions' were formed from scratch, they incorporated the manpower but did not keep the old command structure. However, Yarosh and other rightist leaders do hold some sway over their old men, as evidenced by the recent war of words, when Yarosh promised to 'storm Kiev if Avakov doesn't release Right Sector prisoners', whereas minister of interior Avakov said that Yarosh created 'illegal armed formations' (in Russian, that is a politically correct version of the term 'terrorist'). The war of words ended with Yarosh backing down, being promised that several high-profile cases on 'Right Sector' will be terminated, and then he ordered his men in the Right Sector to not leave the zone of hostilities with state-issued weaponry...

I know this sounds funny. I know.

[Vympel]

Ukraine's Nightmare Drags On

The OSCE reports are also—not surprisingly—painting a picture of an increasingly polarized Ukrainian society. Reports of dueling pro and antigovernment protests in the eastern city of Kharkiv on August 10 put paid to the notion, tirelessly put forward by pro-Maidan mouthpieces, that Vladimir Putin has unwittingly ‘unified’ Ukraine as never before. The SMM report of August 12 notes that IDP’s from the east are facing discrimination in housing and other incidents of harassment from their Western compatriots. A director of a real estate concern in Kiev told the SMM that “many landlords in the capital city did not want to rent their apartments to IDP from Donbas for economic reasons and differences in mentality.” The result is that many IDP’s are living in temporary camps, which, according to the report, are ill equipped for the coming winter.

While the reaction of the American media to the OSCE reports has been to ignore them, the response by State Department automaton Marie Harf has been to dismiss them, all the while endeavoring to absolve Kiev of any responsibility whatsoever for the humanitarian crisis.

Consider this exchange at a State Department briefing on July 30:

QUESTION: Are you concerned at all that, as you have said with Israel, that they [Kiev] are not living up to their own high standards? Are you – do you have the same concerns in Ukraine, that the Ukrainian military is not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties?

Ms. Harf: Well, look, we are going to also hold them to their commitments on – particularly with – when we talk about exclusion zones, right, when we’ve talked about ceasefires, but also in protecting civilian casualties, we’ve seen them exercise extraordinary restraint in the face of incredible opposition from the Russians, and we’ll continue working with them. (emphasis added).

QUESTION: Okay, when you say the Ukrainians have a responsibility to protect their citizens in their own country, does that apply to all Ukrainians, all people in Ukrainian soil?

MS. HARF: What – I don’t understand the crux of your question.

Sadly, one can’t help but believe her.

Yet on the other hand, perhaps it’s more comfortable for her to feign ignorance than acknowledge what the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies undoubtedly know: that ill-trained, far-right paramilitary forces have played a crucial role in the latter stages of Kiev’s military operation in the east. According to a report last week in The Telegraph, battalions that espouse neo-Nazi, white supremacist and anti-Semitic views with “several thousand men under their command” are acting as the tip of the spear in the Donbas campaign. One such battalion, the Azov, is said to have attracted fighters with similar neofascist views from as far afield as Ireland and Sweden.

Sunday’s talks in Berlin between the foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany yielded little in the way of progress toward a cease-fire, much less toward any sort of negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have again started shelling the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, while the rebels reportedly shot down a Ukrainian fighter jet on Sunday. So while the crisis seems primed for a major escalation, the response from the American media and our ever-complacent Commander-in-Chief has been to simply turn a blind eye towards this rapidly unfolding catastrophe.

[mr friendly guy]

In the very same paragraph where the government is commended (incidentally "measured response" is a specific reference to the Russian takeover of Crimea in the days before the release date of the statement, 6 March 2014) the EU calls for continued efforts to "reach out to all Ukrainian regions and population groups and to ensure full protection of the rights of people belonging to national minorities". It shouldn't take genius to realize that when the collective heads of government of the EU release an official statement calling for you to do that they're not writing for shits and giggles, they're doing it because there's cause to call on you to do so.

This is reiterated time and time again in EU statements. Like this one: "The Ukrainian government needs to reach out to the population from east to west of Ukraine, and ensure that political processes as well as reforms reflect the regional diversity and respect human and civil rights.". Again: the High Representative isn't just writing for the fuck of it, she's calling on Ukraine to respect human and civil rights. You don't call on nations to respect rights if they're doing well on that front.

Ok, using that logic the EU also supports peaceful resolution of the disputes in the South China sea. Does that mean the EU believes those countries there are all currently fighting a war with each other?

Going on, China also used similar buzzwords about Sudan, but I somehow doubt Europeans bought it just because they used the right words in vague generalities. The EU statement sounds like something a half competent lawyer would advise a client to say to the media. I would be impress if they went into specifics and outright said the use of fascists as soldiers in this conflict is undesirable or something to that effect.

Frankly it's nuts to me to suggest Brussels "sends a mix message". It should be perfectly obvious to anyone halfway familiar with interpreting such statements that Brussels isn't happy with the way the Ukrainian government operates. If it was, it wouldn't be continually insisting on further reforms.

Well Europe does send a mix message. As noted like selling arms to Russia while condemning it over Ukraine. Or the UK slamming France for selling weapons then we find out Oops, they do it too.

What is hilarious is that the Europeans are telling Latin American nations to forego their national interest (ie selling food to Russia) in favour of doing the moral thing, yet are not willing to do that themselves. Time and time again, from weapons sales to not at least giving Kiev a lecture about fascists being used in the conflict. If you prefer to live in a glass house, don't throw stones. Heck, at least selling food is more benign than selling weapons into a conflict zone.

Meanwhile you're saying the fascist militias are "hired" by "Kiev". Does that mean you believe they're fighting directly under command of the government?

If I changed it to allied with Kiev, or fighting for them, would it make a difference? I think not since you pretty much said the fact they are even there is already bad.

[Siege]

Ok, using that logic the EU also supports peaceful resolution of the disputes in the South China sea. Does that mean the EU believes those countries there are all currently fighting a war with each other?

Let's see some official statements by the European Council or the High Representative concerning the South China Sea, and then I'll tell you what I think they mean.

Going on, China also used similar buzzwords about Sudan, but I somehow doubt Europeans bought it just because they used the right words in vague generalities. The EU statement sounds like something a half competent lawyer would advise a client to say to the media. I would be impress if they went into specifics and outright said the use of fascists as soldiers in this conflict is undesirable or something to that effect.

I really don't care what you're impressed or unimpressed by, what it sounds like to you, or for that matter what you doubt or not. The EU is explicitly condemning human rights violations on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine. If that doesn't constitute 'strings' in your opinion then I find your opinion unreasonable, and that is the end of that as far as I'm concerned.

Well Europe does send a mix message. As noted like selling arms to Russia while condemning it over Ukraine. Or the UK slamming France for selling weapons then we find out Oops, they do it too.

The EU =/= Europe, or individual European states for that matter. If you want to call France and Britain out on their hypocritical bullshit that's fine by me. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm also not getting drawn into a debate about the actions of those states when what we were talking about was the EU.

If I changed it to allied with Kiev, or fighting for them, would it make a difference? I think not since you pretty much said the fact they are even there is already bad.

Yes it would make a difference because as I also said there's degrees of badness. There's a difference in culpability between having a militia operate in-theatre that you dislike but that you can't afford to engage because separatists are shooting at you... And that same militia being bought and paid for and ordered around by yourself. The latter is worse than the former.

Having said that, as Stas explained these guys are basically the national guard at this point, so they are fighting for and answering to Kiev. So the statement that the militias are hired by Kiev is indeed correct.

[K. A. Pital]

To be honest, the status of battalions as 'National Guard' is an ambigious one for some of the volunteer units, but all volunteer formations, regardless of whether they are part of the 'Guard' or not, answer to the Minister of Interior.

Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get heavy weaponry and assault rifles, which is the bare minimum of essential things to do combat in the East.

[Vympel]

Wow, Ukraine actually getting called on bullshit. By the Daily Mail, no less:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... talks.html

Muddled security officials in Ukraine were last night forced to deny a huge Russian military convoy had been deployed in the eastern rebel-run city of Lugansk.

The strong rebuttal suggested an earlier claim about an invasion by Vladimir Putin's troops amounted to a crude propaganda move by the pro-Western Kiev government - or deep confusion in its own ranks.

The original allegation of a Russian column arriving in Lugansk came from Lt-Gen Igor Voronchenko, head of the Ukrainian Anti Terrorist Operation (ATO) in the city, and was backed by military analyst Dmitry Tymchuk.

'There are tanks, Grad artillery, APCs, accompanied by about 1,200 men dressed in the army uniform of Russian Federation,' the general was quoted saying in an assertion calculated to alarm the West.

Yet there was no confirmation on Wednesday from NATO or other Western sources which was widely reported inside Ukraine.

The claim was also contradicted closer to home by Kiev's National Security and Defence Council spokesman Andriy Lysenko who dismissed it as 'strange'.

'Intelligence is not confirming the existence of this column,' he said.

Later after checking it, he stated: 'Rebels who are fighting in Lugansk do have military hardware and Grad artillery but they did not get it yesterday. They had it for a while.'

Vorochenko and a chorus of social media sources had indicated a recent move.

'We can confirm this information. This army column got to Ukraine about three days ago,' he said.

Russia has repeatedly denied supplying heavy arms and fighters to pro-Moscow separatists fighting in Lugansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine.

Rebel spokesman Kostyantyn Knyrik dismissed the reports as 'pure bluff' and 'lies'.

'There is no Russian column, and there never was. It is not the first time that the Ukrainian side makes such statements, and not the first time it is a miss. They seem to be passionate about these columns.'

Kiev is understood to have received 'advice' from Western spin doctors and 'PR specialists', while Moscow also pays attention to an 'information war'.

Ukraine yesterday claimed to have taken control of a large area of Lugansk, another indication that there was no new Russian military presence.

There is speculation Ukraine will hype up its military achievements ahead of a weekend when it will mark its Independence Day.

[cosmicalstorm]

Is there any doubt about Russia not sending tanks, artillery, rockets, crazy guys with guns and everything else across the border?
Putin reminds me of GWB in the early months of 2003 when Iraq was getting started. He is obviously invading Ukraine as we speak. I don't have a big problem with this, it's how the US would respond if Canada was increasingly becoming a Soviet satellite.

[K. A. Pital]

So far it seems more like he's losing Ukraine (except Crimea).

[Vympel]

Is there any doubt about Russia not sending tanks, artillery, rockets, crazy guys with guns and everything else across the border?
Putin reminds me of GWB in the early months of 2003 when Iraq was getting started. He is obviously invading Ukraine as we speak. I don't have a big problem with this, it's how the US would respond if Canada was increasingly becoming a Soviet satellite.

I think it likely, but its remarkable how little hard evidence there is of it to date.

So far it seems more like he's losing Ukraine (except Crimea).

Unlikely. Not only does Ukraine depend on Russia economically (including but not limited to energy), and will for the foreseeable future, as the article above notes, the idea that Ukraine has been 'unified' towards a pro-West position because of Russia's actions is just pro-Maidan propaganda. So long as there's a significant Russophone east, Russia will maintain influence in Ukraine. Ukraine will never really be 'lost' to Russian hegemony, no matter what the West tries. Watch how popular Poroshenko and Yats' government is when they start to implement their IMF/EU mandated austerity policies.

I think we're reaching the end game now as it is. Peace talks will accelerate and everyone will walk away with something.

[Mange]

Meanwhile, in Donetsk the rebels are planning to hold their own celebrations while committing war crimes at the same time:

Pro-Russian rebels in the eastern city of Donetsk - the scene of the heaviest fighting - say they will hold their own parade and display captured soldiers.

BBC News

[K. A. Pital]

Meanwhile, in Donetsk the rebels are planning to hold their own celebrations while committing war crimes at the same time

Um... What war crime are they committing by holding a parade?

[Mange]

Meanwhile, in Donetsk the rebels are planning to hold their own celebrations while committing war crimes at the same time

Um... What war crime are they committing by holding a parade?

By parading captured Ukrainian soldiers (if they really are to do that).

ETA: Just heard that the civilian airport at Rostov-on-Don, close to Ukraine, is being evacuated.

[K. A. Pital]

By parading captured Ukrainian soldiers (if they really are to do that).

How is that a war crime?

[Siege]

It's based on an interpretation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

They didn't have our modern mass media in 1949 but the 'insults and public curiosity' part is sometimes interpreted as a prohibition of deliberately parading captured soldiers around as war trophies. For example Donald Rumsfeld (that paragon of lawfulness) argued this when Iraq showed captured American servicemen on TV during the last (or maybe now it's the previous?) Iraq war.

[Mange]

By parading captured Ukrainian soldiers (if they really are to do that).

How is that a war crime?

It's a violation of the Geneva convention which forbids the "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Geneva convention, part III, article 3 and 13.

[K. A. Pital]

By parading captured Ukrainian soldiers (if they really are to do that).

How is that a war crime?

It's a violation of the Geneva convention which forbids the "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Geneva convention, part III, article 3 and 13.

However, that isn't generally a part of any war crime trials or accusations that I know of. It is well-known that surrendered Nazis were paraded through the city streets (by the U.S. troops in Muenchen and the Russian troops in Moscow), later U.S. soldiers were led through the streets of Hanoi in the Vietnam war, etc. So as long as the prisoners weren't actually being degraded (the convoy guards disallowing excesses by the public), I think it is hardly a major crime.

[Vympel]

Video of the parade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_3Tq3u3c0

This is clearly a small-scale copy of the WW2 Moscow parade (aftermath of Operation Bagration), right down to the street cleaners cleaning the streets after the prisoners pass.

I just knew they wouldn't be able to resist the historical reference.

[Omega18]

However, that isn't generally a part of any war crime trials or accusations that I know of. It is well-known that surrendered Nazis were paraded through the city streets (by the U.S. troops in Muenchen and the Russian troops in Moscow), later U.S. soldiers were led through the streets of Hanoi in the Vietnam war, etc. So as long as the prisoners weren't actually being degraded (the convoy guards disallowing excesses by the public), I think it is hardly a major crime.

Even that summary of the event seems questionable given the details reported.

Crowds lined the streets chanting "fascists" as the dishevelled-looking prisoners walked by. Some people threw bottles at the captives, Reuters news agency reports.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28919683

I would note that two of the three incidents you cited were pre-signing of the Geneva Convention in 1949. Vietnam to be blunt Violated the Geneva Convetions in a variety of ways and basically ended up getting away with it. You can read more about the sort of issues with the specific treatment of prisoners being displayed in this way at this link.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ow_tv.html

You can make the argument its not in the category of the really severe war crimes, on the other other hand the rebels are being really blatant about their violation in this case.

[Mange]

However, that isn't generally a part of any war crime trials or accusations that I know of. It is well-known that surrendered Nazis were paraded through the city streets (by the U.S. troops in Muenchen and the Russian troops in Moscow), later U.S. soldiers were led through the streets of Hanoi in the Vietnam war, etc. So as long as the prisoners weren't actually being degraded (the convoy guards disallowing excesses by the public), I think it is hardly a major crime.

There haven't been that many war crime trials and you're quite correct that no-one has been convicted (the conventions were amended in '49). However, it's a violation of the conventions and in this instance people threw eggs and bottles and shouted "fascists" at the soldiers (some of whom were wounded).

ETA: I just read an article on the website of the Swedish public service television, and citing the Geneva conventions, it's not going to show any pictures of the march: SVT