Ukraine War Watch Thread

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[andmar74]

Is the USA's threat of "horrific consequences" any of these? I wonder...

Yes but how will Russia respond to this?

I now think tactical nukes is a real possibility, Putin is soon without other options if he wants to win the war.

[caltrek]

Can I ask what conclusion you are referring to?

You

(Caltrek)

are right.
I find a bit simplistic that the end of capitalism -if ever- equates mankind happiness and 5.000 years of civilization tends to prove it.


"I think that initially Pentagon planners"
No, we have the Pentagon Papers. "Initially" is the Atlantic Charter in the 40's.

This discussion belongs in another thread as we are straying from the central topic of this thread.

"lost"
We were talking about the war, political/economic consequences 20 years later...

I am not sure of what point you are trying to make her

"No, there may still be a war."
We are talking about WW3 or shelling along a 1.000 km front, guerrillas in occupied territories is nothing to worry about (here, for us, not that much to worry about).

Well, I wasn't talking about "here, for us..." I was writing about the Russian occupation forces. Actions taken by said occupation forces are something for us to worry about. First, as to its negative consequences for the people of the Ukraine. Second, as to possible future actions regarding the possible threat to other allies in the region. Third, as to its disruption of the peace and order which the world might otherwise be able to enjoy.

"...and of course the U.S. must never be allowed to use that excuse."
You are missing the irony... both walk like a duck.
Also, in "fighting" Wahhabism.

I was not missing "the" irony. I was employing irony. I was also making comments about false equivalency, as well as comparing and contrasting statements made by you with statements made by another poster.

"Self-censored as in being"
Submissive to the power without the need for coercion.

...because they regard that "power" as "legitimate"?

I suspect you mean "because they fear that power." I would suggest the level of fear is far greater in a totalitarian society than it is in a functioning democracy. There are, of course, gradations in between, such as "imperfect democracy" "a tyranny" etc.

Again, the A.I.M. may disagree about "extrajudicial killings" and I wouldn't be surprise to find more examples. In NI yes, but in US never?, in Spain, France, Germany... If I consider the history of honesty of the FBI, I am more than skeptic about it.

Not sure what "NI" refers to.

At any rate, I think A.I.M. would agree that racism played a very definite role in whatever "extrajudicial killings" to which you are referring. Such killings may also be another example of our living in an imperfect democracy.

I am not sure it is relevant, but I might also point out that a now departed grandmother of mine was of Indian descent. So further comments of yours on this score may very well be a matter of preaching to the choir.

As for the FBI, I can understand your skepticism given a history which included COINTELPRO operations which, according to Wikipedia, ended in 1971.

"What about at the middle-class"
I think you are missing something about "peasants", maybe your lack of vision? My point: are you a member of any Board of Directors? The day-to-day life of the people I met was not different to mine.

Ok, duly noted.

"Rumsfeld is a retired"
That doesn't mean a new policy, I haven't been able to read any announcement on that; an important one, I would say.
Governments, I am talking about westerns democracies, tend to keep what they fought from the opposition because it favours its interests.

With all due respect, your first sentence here comes across as babbling. I am also not sure what your second sentence has to do with nuclear doctrine. As I have said before, I am not here to make your arguments for you

[caltrek]

"the situation may go nuclear, but still be contained"
I'm afraid not, we start wars... the containment -Vietnam- doesn't happen, it's always escalation, "winning".

So, why didn't the war in Vietnam end in World War III?

I can think of a variety of ways of answering that, but again, I am not here to make your arguments for you.

"My point was in response to a person who focused of the theme of "two imperialist"

Yes, I know, but you cannot obviate the implications of your own words. The wishes of the catholics in NI are legitimate according to the British
Government?, the UN is going to decide on that?, the Atlantic Charter and a French colonial war... I am afraid I have to go back to hypocrisy about who is going to legitimize what according to its own interests.

Oh, so NI refers to Northern Ireland?

The UN may very well play a role in "deciding" what is legitimate and what goes beyond guidelines established in its charter and other such guidelines that take on the form of international law and the establishment of international norms. Just as the Vatican can play a role in determining what is "legitimate" dissent carried on by Catholics, and what violates church doctrine as interpreted by the Pope and his supporters.

I also mentioned that legitimacy is primarily a matter of the obtaining the consent of the governed. By "consent" I mean by other that strictly coercive means. Even within a military structure legitimacy is important.

Were orders given lawful?

Should they be obeyed or disobeyed because of changed circumstances, reasons of conscience, conflicting loyalties, etc.?

[caltrek]

"Russia has reached legal definition of ‘terrorist state’ under US law" The Guardian. UK.

Under the law of a state that was providing Osama Bin Laden with weapons and money.

What?

At the very least and as they say in Wikipedia "citation needed."

[caltrek]

https://tass.com/world/1515617

It's rather interesting that I can't find any mentions of the Putin Administration's threats of nuclear holocaust on Russian news agencies and websites...

From Putin's recent address to his nation in which he also announced the mobilization to enlarge the Russian military with conscripts:

"Otherwise, we can finish the war, but we will not have peace, and we will have another war," he said.

In a rare address to the nation earlier this week, Mr Putin said his country had "various weapons of destruction" and would "use all the means available to us", adding: "I'm not bluffing."

Technically, Putin is coaching his arguments in the rhetoric of self-defense. As pointed out in earlier posts, his announced annexation of Ukrainian occupied territory into Russia can thus be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve the defense of his recent, dare I say "illegitimate" use of force.

I might add that the author of that bible that you initially cited in regards to "Manufacturing Consent" has also:

In fact...repeatedly praised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for being “an honorable person” who has shown “great courage” and “great integrity.” Even those of Zelensky’s requests that could have truly catastrophic consequences for the world, like his call for Western powers to establish a No-Fly Zone, are, Chomsky said, understandable from the Ukrainian perspective.

In other interviews Chomsky has also said that Zelensky was right to reject Russia’s immediate demands and that the Ukrainian president’s public response to Putin back in March was “judicious and appropriate.” None of this means that Chomsky and his critics don’t have real and deep disagreements about American policy toward the war in Ukraine. It’s just that the source of that disagreement lies elsewhere.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/noam-chom ... in-ukraine

Chomsky also:

said that while he isn't opposed to sending arms to Ukraine, so long as it's done under genuine concern for Ukrainians, it must be done in "a way which will not escalate the Russian attack and can lead, of course, to the destruction of Ukraine.'"

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/henry-kissinge ... ar-1709733

[caltrek]

It's rather interesting that I can't find any mentions of the Putin Administration's threats...

You have a point there, we just take it from western media, their version... like that story about WMD. Still, I think it's more about politics,
sending a message, negotiating than about "consent".

"Putin has made veiled references... to nuclear/chemical weapons if threatened."
Wouldn't any other country?

Here, context is important. Putin's references are in the context of defending recent territorial gains by Russia wherein said gains are in the process of being incorporated into Russia. This process involves use of sham referendums the legitimacy of which have not been recognized by the Ukrainian government as well as not recognized by much on the rest of the international community. So, no, this is not the sort of action that "any country" would engage in.

[Xyls]

Russia is suffering a huge catastrophe in Lyman while this annexation party is going on loooooool....

[Yuli Ban]

[ººº]

I hope that's only for retaliatory purposes.

[andmar74]

It's going from bad to worse.
What is an "irregular presence" ?

[Yuli Ban]

[andmar74]

If Russia drops just one nuke in Ukraine, people all over the world will panic and empty the stores. I'm going to buy water and canned food tomorrow, haven't done that before, but now we have extreme tension.

[caltrek]

Nuclear Experts on Chances of Russia Using Atomic Weapons in Ukraine
by Tyler Rogoway
September 30, 2022

Introduction:

(The Drive) The specter of nuclear war has loomed larger over the conflict in Ukraine in recent days. Russia's recent announcement of a partial mobilization was paired with direct nuclear threats from President Vladimir Putin and Deputy Chairman of the country's Security Council Dmitry Medvedev. Now combined with continued losses on the battlefield and the sudden illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories in the country's east and south, there appears to be a change in messaging and level of concern from the U.S. government and its NATO allies.

The possibility of Russia releasing the nuclear genie from its bottle after nearly 80 years is clearly being taken more seriously as is the potential for rapid escalation that could come as a result. And the stakes could not be any higher. A nuclear exchange is mankind's problem, not just one of nations, and even a very limited use of a tactical nuclear weapon would change the course of human history. We wrote a recent primer on this rapidly developing issue that you can read here for full background.

So, what are the chances that Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
To bring clarity to this extremely challenging and pressing question, The War Zone reached out to the smartest people we know that live and breathe the nuclear weapons issue on a daily basis for their unfiltered opinion.

Read more here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ ... n-ukraine

[andmar74]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart ... n-ukraine/

Here’s What Would Happen If Putin Ordered A Nuclear Strike In Ukraine

[raklian]

Just leaving this here.



Referring to the speech linked here: https://www.reuters.com/world/extracts- ... 022-09-30/

[wjfox]

If Russia drops just one nuke in Ukraine, people all over the world will panic and empty the stores. I'm going to buy water and canned food tomorrow, haven't done that before, but now we have extreme tension.

A nuclear strike is almost unthinkable, but if it happened I would immediately leave London to be with my family in East Anglia.

[raklian]

If Russia drops just one nuke in Ukraine, people all over the world will panic and empty the stores. I'm going to buy water and canned food tomorrow, haven't done that before, but now we have extreme tension.

A nuclear strike is almost unthinkable, but if it happened I would immediately leave London to be with my family in East Anglia.

You'll only have one or two hours at most to do it in the worst case.

Or better, try to predict a strike will happen so you can get ahead of the horrible traffic jam when the real panic happens.

[caltrek]

^^^More on Putin's speech:

Putin Declares ‘Four New Regions of Russia’ as Moscow Annexes Parts of Ukraine
by Sam Meridith and Holly Ellyatt
September, 2022

Introduction:

(CNBC) Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday declared four new regions of the country shortly after holding sham referendums in parts of occupied Ukraine.

“There are four new regions of Russia,” Putin said in a televised ceremony from the Kremlin in Moscow, according to a translation.

“The results are known, well known,” Putin said, referring to the series of votes that Ukraine and Western governments say breached international law. He claimed the results were due to the will of millions of people, saying they had the right to self-determination.

The territory being seized more than seven months into the Kremlin’s war consists of two pro-Russian “republics” in Luhansk and Donetsk in the east, and in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in the south. It is thought to make up roughly 18% of Ukraine’s land, although the precise details of the boundaries were not immediately clear.

Unsurprisingly, the votes, seen as illegitimate by Ukraine and its allies, saw a majority of people vote to join Russia.

Read more here (including responses from other government leaders and spokespersons): https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/30/putin- ... aine.html