Ukraine War Watch Thread

[weatheriscool]

Long lines of traffic seen at some of Russia's land borders
Source: CNN

Social media video from Russia's land borders with several countries shows long lines of traffic trying to leave the country on the day after President Vladimir Putin announced a "partial mobilization."

There were queues at border crossings into Kazakhstan, Georgia and Mongolia. One video showed dozens of vehicles lining up at the Zemo Larsi/Verkhny Lars checkpoint on the Georgia-Russia border overnight Wednesday. That line appears to have grown longer Thursday. One video showed a long queue stretching into the mountains behind the crossing, with a man commenting that it was five to six kilometers long.

Another posted Thursday showed long lines at the Khaykhta crossing into Mongolia.

One man spoke over video recorded at the Troitsk crossing into Kazakhstan, where dozens of cars were lined up Thursday morning. "This is Troitsk, queues of trucks and passenger vehicles ... you can't see the start or the end of this queue ... everyone, everyone is fleeing Russia, all sorts."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ru ... ae078f4ca2

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[caltrek]

What Putin’s Latest Threats Mean for the Risk of Nuclear War
by Jen Kirby
September 22, 2022

Introduction:

(Vox) “In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a speech Wednesday. “This is not a bluff.”

When a nuclear-armed state says it’s willing to use “all weapon systems available to us,” it is impossible not to take the threat seriously. For everyone involved in the war in Ukraine — Russia, Ukraine, and the West — Putin, at least rhetorically, raised the stakes of the conflict he started.

But for Russia watchers and nuclear experts, Putin’s warning about protecting Russia’s “territorial integrity” also added a new degree of unpredictability. Russian-backed officials in four Ukrainian regions partially occupied by Russian troops will soon hold referenda on formally joining Russia. Western countries backing Ukraine have already said they won’t recognize these sham votes. The Russian army also does not have full control over any of these territories — Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — but Moscow will almost certainly use these referenda as a pretext for formally annexing the territories. If that happens, as it’s expected to, some experts fear that Moscow will interpret any Ukrainian efforts to retake these lands as bringing the fight directly against Russia.

And so the question now is: what does Putin, exactly, consider a threat to Russia’s territorial integrity? And would he actually move to use nuclear weapons to defend it?

Only Putin, of course, knows the answers. But Vox reached out to Andrey Baklitskiy, senior researcher in weapons of mass destruction at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, to get a better sense of Russia’s military doctrine, where its nuclear arsenal fits in, and how Putin’s threats of territorial integrity may have broadened the circumstances of nuclear use.

Read more here: https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/22/23 ... at-expert

[Outlook]

Mobilization in Russia won't end up helping them that much, however partial it may be. Contemporary warfare is more a matter of equipment than manpower, and it's still a big question as to whether Russia's defense industry can compete against western support, and whether China and India are willing to make the risk to offer advanced parts during a time of economic fragility. Mobilization will probably be more of a logistical burden to Russia, and will aggravate domestic instability.

Either way Russia is still destroying itself all because of nationalism and patriotism and I'm here for it. When Russians join the invasion force and get their legs torn apart for the nation, they'll see just how quickly "the nation" comes to save them. What a dumb war and waste of life.

[ibm9000]

It's pretty clear that Russia is trying to mobilize these numbers

First of all, making a law and using it for something else, even without secret clauses, has happened before. Anybody has been reading anything
about the NI Protocol?, the UK "version".


- supplying these 1 million
As you have already decided that they are going to be one million, maybe you should let the Stavka know. (Yes, I noticed the previous[ "it seems like").

- they are going to fail
So, you already know, good. Is Russia making everything possible to facilitate Ukrainian supplies?

- starving/freezing to death over the winter
I think that already happened, around Moscow, in 41/42. About "stories", yes, a lot of them, and twitters and youtube videos... (and tiktoks too, probably).

- this may ultimately decide
Or we could wait for 10 years, I read countries do that.

- Russia loses nearly 100,000
Or 300.000, just pick a number, it happened before, right?

- Ukraine will just have to
That has always been a dangerous policy, apart from all the wishful-thinking-conditions you need to get there.


I haven't been able to read anything else about that "source", the Kremlin hasn't denied it (yet?), do we have any new information? I think our
Russian friend is not the only one telling Fairy Tales.

[erowind]

.

[wjfox]

Can we all at least agree that Ukraine isn't worth nuclear war? That it would be better to reach a diplomatic solution and deescalate than continue to push a government that clearly doesn't have regard for the lives of its own people or that of others even farther? On those grounds alone shouldn't we oppose greater escalation on the behalf of our countries? The Biden Administration has made it clear at this point that the American strategy is to pressure for Russian regime change.

Say that all the propaganda and points made by people here are correct. Putin isn't willing to backdown and will escalate because he's a sociopath and the Russian government will back him in this decision. Shouldn't we be trying to avoid pushing him that far?

What makes you think:

(a) Putin is even interested in diplomacy
(b) Putin will be satisfied with a small sliver of Ukraine, and will stop at that, given everything that's happened since 2014 (and further back)

?

[funkervogt]

It's wishful thinking to assume 300,000 more men won't help Russia on the battlefield, however ill-trained and ill-equipped they will be.

Wars have different ups and downs for all sides, and Ukraine's successful counteroffensive shouldn't be taken to mean Russia is destined to lose. A theme in Russian history is bouncing back from major disasters, however painful and costly it may be to do so.

[Xyls]

Can we all at least agree that Ukraine isn't worth nuclear war? That it would be better to reach a diplomatic solution and deescalate than continue to push a government that clearly doesn't have regard for the lives of its own people or that of others even farther? On those grounds alone shouldn't we oppose greater escalation on the behalf of our countries? The Biden Administration has made it clear at this point that the American strategy is to pressure for Russian regime change.

Say that all the propaganda and points made by people here are correct. Putin isn't willing to backdown and will escalate because he's a sociopath and the Russian government will back him in this decision. Shouldn't we be trying to avoid pushing him that far?

No. This is appeasement and that does not work. If Putin wants to f*ck around, then let him find out. Putin is the person who is scared not us...

[erowind]

.

[ibm9000]

No. This is appeasement...

- No. This is appeasement
Yes, this is too simplistic. The Peace of Compiègne, Danzing, all the existing Treaties and interests, the declaration of war by the British Empire on the USSR after it invaded Poland...

- does not work
You are probably right, I don't think anybody is going to start WW3 the next time US is invading anything.

- f*ck around
But let US do what it wants.

- Putin is
Bragadoccio? Putin has a country and nukes. I am quite happy Biden already said that he is not going to start WW3 for Ukraine.
I am not quite sure if it's madness or stupidity not to be scared about WW3.

Sorry, I mean your bragadoccio, Putin is doing politics, coercive diplomacy.

[weatheriscool]

Blinken, Lavrov come face-to-face at U.N. Security Council showdown
Source: Politico

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, face-to-face with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov on Thursday at the United Nations, railed against Russia over its alleged war crimes and atrocities committed in Ukraine.

“That President [Vladimir] Putin picked this week as most of the world gathers at the United Nations to add fuel to the fire that he started shows his utter contempt for the U.N. charter, for the General Assembly and for this council,” Blinken said in remarks at a U.N. Security Council meeting. “The international order that we gathered here to uphold is being shredded before our eyes.”

The meeting comes just one day after Putin mobilized 300,000 reservists to aid in Russia’s war against Ukraine and threatened to use nuclear weapons. Biden blasted Putin for the escalation, saying in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday that Russia’s attempts to “erase” Ukraine from the map “should make your blood run cold.”

The 15-member security council gathered on Thursday to discuss Russia’s war on Ukraine, alleged war crimes and “sham” referendums to be held in Ukrainian territories seized by Russia — marking one of the highest-profile confrontations between Russian officials and their critics since the Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine. Lavrov’s attendance came as a surprise to some officials, as he had in July walked out of a meeting of the Group of 20 foreign ministers in Indonesia following criticism over Russia’s war.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/2 ... l-00058295

[caltrek]

...

... because NATO isn't a defensive organization. But y'know, Libya was planning to invade Italy so what do I know¿

Blinken, Lavrov come face-to-face at U.N. Security Council showdown
Source: Politico

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, face-to-face with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov on Thursday at the United Nations, railed against Russia over its alleged war crimes and atrocities committed in Ukraine.

“That President [Vladimir] Putin picked this week as most of the world gathers at the United Nations to add fuel to the fire that he started shows his utter contempt for the U.N. charter, for the General Assembly and for this council,” Blinken said in remarks at a U.N. Security Council meeting. “The international order that we gathered here to uphold is being shredded before our eyes.”

The meeting comes just one day after Putin mobilized 300,000 reservists to aid in Russia’s war against Ukraine and threatened to use nuclear weapons. Biden blasted Putin for the escalation, saying in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday that Russia’s attempts to “erase” Ukraine from the map “should make your blood run cold.”

The 15-member security council gathered on Thursday to discuss Russia’s war on Ukraine, alleged war crimes and “sham” referendums to be held in Ukrainian territories seized by Russia — marking one of the highest-profile confrontations between Russian officials and their critics since the Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine. Lavrov’s attendance came as a surprise to some officials, as he had in July walked out of a meeting of the Group of 20 foreign ministers in Indonesia following criticism over Russia’s war.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/2 ... l-00058295

I had to do a little research regarding NATO and Libya. Whether actions taken by NATO in regards to Libya were "defensive" or not is debatable. Still, Weatheriscool's post helps to highlight a major difference between the present situation and NATO actions taken against Libya.

Let me explain with a brief timeline regarding NATO actions against Libya:

Protests erupted in Benghazi, Libya. February 15, 2011 A.D.

The revolts spread to Bayda, Tobruk, Ajdabya, Al Marj in the East and Zintan, Zawiya in the West, calling for the end of the Gaddafi Regime. By February 17, 2011 A.D.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi

The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his inner circle and restricting their travel, and referred the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation. February 26, 2011 A.D.

The Arab League "called on the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in a bid to protect civilians from air attack." The Arab League's request was announced by Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, who stated that all member states present at the meeting agreed with the proposal. March 12, 2011 A.D

A multi-state NATO-led coalition begins a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favor and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity' ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters." March 19, 2011

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_mili ... _in_Libya

Gaddafi was captured and killed attempting to escape from Sirte. October 20, 2011 A.D.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_o ... r_Gaddafi

So, the actions of NATO were by way of an enforcement of international agreement as constituted by a U.N. Security resolution. They were defensive in the sense of protective of civilians from attack. While those civilians did not reside in a NATO country, NATO was acting as a police agency enforcing a U.N. resolution based on an intent to defend said populace.

Contrast that with Blinken's remarks, which I think more or less accurately reflect the situation.

[Cyber_Rebel]

You should all be ashamed, to be willing to throw away your own lives and the lives of everyone you've ever cared about over this.

Russia might actually be fine with a few territories alongside a comprehensive peace agreement and a politically neutral Ukraine. And even if it weren't I don't care. Ukraine and Moldova aren't worth atomizing the planet for.

Ero, I don't think anyone on this forum or in the rest of the civilized world just decided to wake up one day, and say how lovely it would be to live in the Fallout universe. It's also very difficult for us to toss away our own lives when we're not the ones making the decisions. Vladimir Putin is not Russia, that's true, but he represents Russia as its current head of state, and, whether you agree with it or not, the actual values of the Russian people. Even if it's not all of them.

Russia might actually be fine with a few territories alongside a comprehensive peace agreement and a politically neutral Ukraine. And even if it weren't I don't care. Ukraine and Moldova aren't worth atomizing the planet for.

They've ahown repeatedly that these terms just won't do, and why should they even be on the table to begin with? Russia violated its treaties with Ukraine, not the other way around. Moldova... what exactly did they do? What comes after that? Finland? People have the right to defend their autonomy, with or without the mechanizims of the "state" that holds true.

Perhaps Russia should just pull out, go home, and rethink its own values which require the threat of nuclear war to begin with.

[erowind]

.

[ibm9000]

Russia has been backing down for 30 years...

The Warsaw Pact disappeared and the NATO expanded East, did I get that right?

[wjfox]

[Xyls]

[Xyls]

This is pretty much my thought. Any nuclear strike on Ukraine no matter how small will likely result in a full conventional NATO intervention into Ukraine, with a no-fly zone. If not an outright transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine to use as they wish against Russia. With civil strife starting within Russia as well it will likely also result in NATO stirring up a civil war in Russia's south.