Ukraine War Watch Thread

[ibm9000]

Not that Russia is any better.

Exactly my point, thanks.

[caltrek]

An open admission to violating the geneva convention and treating civilians as combatants.

Nope. Article 4:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories...

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces...

So, the way I read it is that support workers can be treated as prisoners of war. So, as long as their rights as such are then respected there would be no violation.

Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-me ... soners-war

There is a very big difference between taking a civilian labor unit hostage and actively shelling/firing upon it... The Geneva convention does not at all imply that it is okay to fire upon civilians engaged in non-combat labor.

Right. So, it very much depends upon the context. Are said "civilians" being treated as prisoners of war because they have been captured during a military operation? Did they suffer from an attack because they were imbedded in a military unit actively carrying out combat? Were they themselves carrying out military operations? Were they attacked despite being unarmed, separated from military units, and not engaging in combat operations?

So, there was no "open admission" as the context was not specifically made clear.

[wjfox]

[erowind]

.

[ibm9000]

In some rare cases war is justified, wars of liberation as in the American civil war.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, the ACW was not a war of liberation.

You and your friends imposing your moral principles by the force of arms is justified?, how many friends do you need for that? Caltrek and his friends can start a war, a justified war according to them.

If you are talking about the American War of Independence... Every county and every village in this planet has the right to secession; and the right to start a war for that?, a justified war?

If you mean Emancipation...
The ACW was about the States' Rights. The political issue of slavery (passing that bucket around for many years instead of solving the issue) came later, during the war; and it had a lot to do with Lincoln, personally, and his friends. Yes, the States' Rights issue was due to the slavery issue. Every country (even with a slavery past) would had been justified to go around invading countries where slavery was legal?
The EU has the article 50, I cannot remember reading anything like that about the American Constitution nor the opposite, any formal (under the threat of war) prohibition of leaving the Union. In case of the inexistence of article 50, the EU would had been justified to invade UK to preserve the Union?
I have never been able to read any legal argument to preserve the Union by the force of arms, it was never presented, it was illegal (IMO, it was an invasion, a war of aggression) even if Secession was alegal.

There is no liberation in imperial war...

It is a dangerous position to start justifying wars, History is full of that. There is no distinction in war, they are all wars (but there are "likes", the wars that we justify).

And now, coming back to Ukraine...

[funkervogt]

The ACW was about the States' Rights. The political issue of slavery (passing that bucket around for many years instead of solving the issue) came later, during the war; and it had a lot to do with Lincoln, personally, and his friends. Yes, the States' Rights issue was due to the slavery issue.

This is an important fact that few Americans know. Slavery and the right of states to leave the USA were two different legal issues. When the Southern states started voting to secede from the country, there was nothing in the Constitution or federal law that prohibited them from doing so. There's an alternate timeline where the South seceded because it disagreed with tariff and trade policies being created in Washington, DC, and not because of slavery, and as such, we look back upon any resulting war with moral ambiguity. Americans' impressions of the Civil War are more morally charged than they should be because slavery and the right of state succession are not separated from each other. Most people simply think that the War was meant to end slavery.

In case of the inexistence of article 50, the EU would had been justified to invade UK to preserve the Union?

The authors of the Treaty on European Union obviously learned from the mistake that the authors of the U.S. Constitution made, since the former included Article 50, which lets countries leave the E.U. for any reason. It's a good provision to have, and I actually think the U.S. Constitution should be changed to let states peacefully leave our country, though there would be a high bar to doing so.

I have never been able to read any legal argument to preserve the Union by the force of arms, it was never presented, it was illegal (IMO, it was an invasion, a war of aggression) even if Secession was alegal.

You should question that assumption. After the Southern states seceded, they demanded that ownership of U.S. military bases built on their territory be transferred to them. When Lincoln refused, the southern military forces attacked them and the federal personnel inside of them. The acts of aggression justified the North's retaliation, though we can debate whether it gave them the legal or moral right to conquer all the territory of the South.

[ibm9000]

You should question that assumption...

Only that my assumption is (only) about "the Union by the force of arms", not about US property in the CSA.

[caltrek]

In some rare cases war is justified, wars of liberation as in the American civil war.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, the ACW was not a war of liberation.

You and your friends imposing your moral principles by the force of arms is justified?, how many friends do you need for that? Caltrek and his friends can start a war, a justified war according to them.
...

I beg your pardon. At no time do I remember stating that starting a war was justified. My only point was that perhaps fighting a war of defense against an invader was justified. In such cases, the war has been "started" by said aggressor. Maybe that doesn't make a difference to you. Maybe you feel like one should just immediately surrender every time some bully of a nation threatens hostility. Even when genocide seems to be in the cards. Maybe that makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

As to the American Civil War, that belongs in another thread. We actually dd have a thread on that in the old forum. Much of what has been said here is a condensed rehash of that old thread. So, failing having this placed in another thread, I will make no further comment on that topic. At least for now.

[caltrek]

Except the article quoted the workers saying they were being shelled and this is taken as a reliable article no?

From the article:

The migrant worker from Kyrgyzstan, who did not want his last name published, says he is aware of the risks involved and has discussed the topic with Kyrgyz migrants working in Ukraine’s war zones.

“They told me sometimes they came under shelling and that people get killed,” Urmat told RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service.

So they come under shelling while working in a war zone. No discussion about other circumstances, such as were they close to Russian troops or working in conjunction with Russian personnel.

So, that was the point I was trying to make. That there was no “confession” on the part of Ukrainian officials. In othe cases, Ukrainian officials seem to take great pride in conforming to the Geneva convention, which makes the argument of there being a “confession” even less plausible.

As for your other points, that is all well and good, and I am tempted to let them stand as is. However, since you have brought them up, let me address them now.

Pro NATO supporters are so eager to jump on the Russian military at the slightest hint of wrongdoing but will defend the Ukrainian military to the last breath over the same actions. The same speculation you're engaging in (maybe the enemy put the civilians in the line of fire deliberately, etc) people are called out over when used in defense of the Russian military. What is established is that civilians are being fired on by the Ukrainian military and visibly here that isn't enough to warrant condemnation, which shows bias.

Admitedly speculation. Still, it is quite clear that civilian buildings in Ukraine are being struck by artillery and or rocket fire from the Russians. Conversely, it is my recollection that has been explained in places like the The Drive that weapons supplied to Ukraine have allowed for a more precise targeting of military objectives. Further, that efforts have been made by the Ukraine to confine such targeting to military assets. Civilian casualties have thus been a matter of “collateral damage.”

Yes, I hate that euphemism as much as you.

And the Ukranian military has been firing on civilians who aren't even adjacent to the Russian military since before 2022. The shelling of Donbass and Luhansk has been pronounced for years.

So, maybe these are instances where they have been close to the military? Further, that is the context in which the Ukrainian indicated that they would be treated the same as Russian military personnel, or words to that effect. Something which, at least when applied to prisoners of war, is quite in keeping with the Geneva convention

Either war is hell, and we acknowledge that hell equally,

Agreed

which I have consistently done in this thread, or we are nationalists.

It occurs to me that perhaps two can become inextricable if the nation to which one identifies, in one’s mind at least, is more democratic and whose government is more respective of freedom of speech, etc. Democracy, as defined by others and not by yourself, can become a part of that culture. As can relative freedom of speech, etc. Not perfect in that regard, just relatively speaking.

The reason I don't condemn Russia constantly here as I have stated before is because it's unconstructive outside of a room of Russian nationalists. An the reason I don't condemn Russia uniquely is that despite all the propaganda surrounding this war, Russia as a state, has committed no worse crimes than any other imperial state.

What has the Ukraine ever done to earn it the label of being an “imperial state”?

Just who invaded who?

Sorry, but the preponderance of evidence I have seen indicates that Russia has a far worse record in that regard. Now, I have never been to the Ukraine and never spoken in person to anybody who has been to the Ukraine since the war has started. So, yes, I am relying on media sources to reach that conclusion. So, yes, there is a need to be careful in that regard and keep an open mind to other evidence presented. Provisionally, we will just have to agree to disagree. I reserve the right to change my mind on this point upon review of further evidence that may be presented.

This is a situation of WWI not of WWII, though, that is impossible to see for many on either side of the conflict. (In some rare cases war is justified, wars of liberation as in the American civil war. There is no liberation in imperial war, no better society on the other side, only death.)

Again, as I have argued before, leaving the Ukrainians and what they feel about their government and their relative freedom out of the equation. See above re: the U.S. Civil War.

To answer your question on oligarchy from a while ago by the way. I don't remember if I wrote a proper response or not.

My recollection is that you did once earlier.

In a few sentences, no, there are very few countries on this planet that aren't oligarchies, the YPJ in Rojava, the Zapitas in Chiapas, the Mondragon coops in Basque. Most nations today are on some spectrum between outright autocracy and hybrid regime. Some have elements of social democracy or democratic mechanisms but none are full direct or otherwise bottom-up organized democracies. "Representative" democracy is a lie that's been sold to us by monarchists before and capitalists now. Democracy does not exist in any nation where money buys politicians and policy and any country where the primary mode of life involves submitting to petty dictators in the form of company bosses shows rather clearly the power relations of its political system. And most all politicians are certainly bought in both Russia, the United States, Ukraine and all of the EU.

Still. There is a difference between being coerced into behavior by force of arms, and being persuaded by a well-funded advertising campaign. Particularly when there are definite possibilities that exist to peacefully organize for the purpose of counter-messaging. To deny that such differences exists is to put forward a false equivalency.

Edit. As I wrote earlier: It is not foolish to point out which empire shot first. It is rather to point out evidence that one side is pursuing a course of genocidal nihilism, while the other is acting in self-defense. That they may also be acting in defense of a system you hate does not alter the fact that they are defending something that they hold to be valuable. One should not shrug such motivations off as being misguided or naive. Before one can exercise the choice to form a co-op or commune, one must have the freedom of choice. Such a freedom does not always mean that the persons exercising that choice will pursue only goals for themselves that you would choose for yourself. Don't leave out the right to self-determination on the part of Ukrainians from the equation.

I do share your admiration for the Mandragon co-op.

[ibm9000]

I beg your pardon...

Missing the point...
I was arguing against his (erowind) point in your (you and him) conversation, that's why I used your name.

is a condensed rehash...

That is an assumption, correct?

Russia could claim that the invasion is due to an unfair share of Soviet property... (another claim, why not).
It (the ACW) is still History, still war... still (not) learning from the past (or learning that it works).
I don't want to limit myself to 10' of History, it may provided not enough context to the seventh graders.

UK, National Security Bill. "Immunity if the actions of officials are deemed necessary for the proper exercise of the Intelligence or the Armed Forces"; like killing a journalist in Moscow.
Do you think this has anything to do with war, politics, History?, not to mention moral principles...
I do.

[caltrek]

I beg your pardon...

Missing the point...
I was arguing against his (erowind) point in your (you and him) conversation, that's why I used your name.

With all due respect, you missed my point. You attributed to me a position which I was not taking. Please be more careful, even if you are not criticizing my position.

is a condensed rehash...

That is an assumption, correct?

Russia could claim that the invasion is due to an unfair share of Soviet property... (another claim, why not).
It (the ACW) is still History, still war... still (not) learning from the past (or learning that it works).
I don't want to limit myself to 10' of History, it may provided not enough context to the seventh graders.

UK, National Security Bill. "Immunity if the actions of officials are deemed necessary for the proper exercise of the Intelligence or the Armed Forces"; like killing a journalist in Moscow.
Do you think this has anything to do with war, politics, History?, not to mention moral principles...
I do.

Russia could claim all sorts of outlandish things. That does not mean we should give them any credence.

I was not objecting to a reference being made to the Civil War, I just don't want to see this thread derailed into that topic. Why are you so resistant to taking these side issues to another thread?

Still, Erowind's initial reference was appropriate as he contrasted that event with the present situation. That does not mean that we should now spend pages and pages discussing the American Civil War. In any event, I was simply explaining my own lack of further discussion on that point.

I am not familiar with the clause in the UK National Security Bill that you cite, or the manner in which it is implemented. So, I have no opinion on that matter at the present time.

[ibm9000]

You attributed to me a position...

No.

What position? I was talking to erowind, I was asking him about that "liberation" and I was giving him an example (and his friends/and your friends) about what can be understand by his position, using your name; as I could had used funkervogt or ibm, but it was your conversation.
Are you telling me what you understand or what I write?
No, I was not attributing you any position.

I have no opinion on that matter...

Not your opinion, but if "that matter" has anything to do (with...).

[caltrek]

You attributed to me a position...

No.

What position?

Caltrek and his friends can start a war, a justified war according to them.

That position. Please try to pay attention.

I was talking to erowind, I was asking him about that "liberation" and I was giving him an example (and his friends/and your friends) about what can be understand by his position, using your name; as I could had used funkervogt or ibm, but it was your conversation.
Are you telling me what you understand or what I write?

What you wrote.

No, I was not attributing you any position.

I am not interested in playing any further word games with you as to what constitutes a "position." For most everybody else, I think I have made my point.

[ibm9000]

Clearly not, because that is the only "position" that every single person in this planet can read in those words.

[funkervogt]

One year on, and we're still waiting.

Russia may have already started World War III, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday.

The outcome of Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has yet to be decided, but it's possible the decision has set off a path to a full-scale global war, Zelenskyy told “NBC Nightly News” anchor Lester Holt when asked whether he understood concerns from President Joe Biden about not escalating tensions with or provoking Moscow.

"Nobody knows whether it may have already started. And what is the possibility of this war if Ukraine will fall, in case Ukraine will? It's very hard to say," Zelenskyy said. "And we've seen this 80 years ago, when the Second World War had started ... nobody would be able to predict when the full-scale war would start."

He further emphasized that the outcome of this war puts the "whole civilization at stake."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/worl ... -rcna19967

[weatheriscool]

Poland plans to grant Ukraine's request for fighter jets

Source: AP

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland’s president said Thursday that his country plans to give Ukraine around a dozen MiG-29 fighter jets, which would make it the first NATO member to fulfill the Ukrainian government’s increasingly urgent requests for warplanes.

President Andrzej Duda said Poland would hand over four of the Soviet-made warplanes “within the next few days” and that the rest needed servicing and would be supplied later. The Polish word he used to describe their number can mean between 11 and 19. “They are in the last years of their functioning but they are in good working condition,” Duda said of the aircraft.

Duda did not say whether other countries would be making the same move, although Slovakia has said it would send its disused MiGs to Ukraine. On Wednesday, Polish government spokesman Piotr Mueller said some other countries with MiGs also had pledged them to Kyiv, but he did not name them.

While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pleaded for Western supporters to share fighter jets, NATO allies have expressed hesitancy. Before Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine had several dozen MiG-29s it inherited in the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it’s unclear how many of them remain in service after more than a year of fighting.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-pola ... 5bff8f3e01

[caltrek]

Prigozhin Says Jealous Kremlin Deliberately Stopped Wagner Taking Bakhmut
by Dan Ladden-Hall
March 16, 2023

Introduction:

(Daily Beast) Wagner Group founder Yevgeny Prigozhin has stepped up his angry attacks on the Russian Defense Ministry, accusing Kremlin officials of deliberately preventing his fighters from capturing Bakhmut out of sheer jealousy at his military successes.

The mercenary boss dubbed “Putin’s Chef” said authorities are choosing to deprive Wagner of ammunition, which has slowed progress in the blood-soaked effort to take Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine. “The objective is simple,” Prigozhin said. “PMC Wagner should not take Bakhmut.”

His comments, which were made during an interview (see You Tube video below) with several Russian media outlets on Wednesday, are the latest development in an escalating war of words between Prigozhin and the official armed forces of Russia.

Read more here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/prigozhi ... ?ref=home

[weatheriscool]

ICC judges issue arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine
Source: Reuters

AMSTERDAM, March 17 (Reuters) - The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant on Friday against Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of being responsible for war crimes committed in Ukraine. Moscow has repeatedly denied accusations that its forces have committed atrocities during its one-year invasion of its neighbour.

The ICC issued the warrant for Putin's arrest on suspicion of unlawful deportation of children and unlawful transfer of people from the territory of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.

Earlier this week Reuters reported that the court was expected to issue warrants, the first in its investigation into the Ukraine conflict.

Separately the court issued warrants for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Russia's Commissioner for Children’s Rights, on the same charges.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ic ... 023-03-17/

[weatheriscool]

Slovakia to send 13 MiG jets to Ukraine
Source: The Telegraph

Slovakia will donate all 13 of its MiG-29 warplanes to Ukraine, becoming the second Nato member after Poland to pledge the fighter jets despite the Kremlin warning they would be "destroyed".

"We're giving these MiGs to Ukraine so that it can protect civilians against the many bombs that fall on their houses and which are the reason why people are dying in Ukraine," Slovak Prime Minister Eduard Heger told journalists on Friday.

He said Bratislava would also deliver a Kub air defence system to Ukraine.

It comes just a day after Poland said it would send four Soviet-made MiG-29 jets to Ukraine "in the coming days".

Read more: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ews-putin/

[ibm9000]

ICC judges issue arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine

Putin too.
Pinochet almost.
Any war crimes in any other "criminal and illegal invasion"?

I don't know about Justice, but it doesn't look like fair-play.

In the spring of 1961 (W. W.) Rostow had characterized “the sending of men and arms across international boundaries and the direction of guerrilla war from outside a sovereign nation” as a new form of aggression, calling for unilateral retaliation against the “ultimate source of aggression” in the absence of international action. (Apparently the major lesson Rostow had learned from the Bay of Pigs operation was that Castro, or Khrushchev, had had the right to bomb Florida and Washington.)

D. Ellsberg.