The designated (off-topic) Ukraine war thread

[greyhounds]

This ban is sad news.

On April 19 Henry Posner of Railroad Development Corporation will be giving a webinar titled "Ukraine's Railway War" at the Northwestern University Sandhouse Gang.  We won't be able to talk about what he says.

Posner's RDC is operating refugee trains and previously owned and operated the railway in Estonia. He's probably got some interesting insights.

I have seen nothing here adverse to the Russian people.   

[BaltACD]

Steven Otte

I have received complaints about the inappropriateness of this thread and the unfairness of certain posts to the Russian people, most of whom are unaware of and bear no culpability for their leader's actions in Ukraine. Since 7 weeks seems long enough for everyone to have shared their opinions on a subject that is off-topic anyway, this thread will be closed tomorrow morning. No further discussion of the war in Ukraine will be allowed on the Forums from that point forward.

The only complaint I have with the thread is your intent to end the discussion of the biggest topic that affects the WORLD at this time.

The Ukraine and what is hapening there far transcends anything else that is happening in the world today and its effects on all of us who inhabit the world, and that includes you Mr. Otte.  Closing this thread is akin to the censorship Putin is applying to news that is able to reach the Russian population.

[Backshop]

If you look at the post counts in all the other threads, you'll see that the forum is only hanging on by the thinnest of threads.  This topic is the only thing keeping the forum viable.

[Euclid]

Steven Otte

I have received complaints about the inappropriateness of this thread and the unfairness of certain posts to the Russian people, most of whom are unaware of and bear no culpability for their leader's actions in Ukraine. Since 7 weeks seems long enough for everyone to have shared their opinions on a subject that is off-topic anyway, this thread will be closed tomorrow morning. No further discussion of the war in Ukraine will be allowed on the Forums from that point forward.

 

I have read every post in this thread as it developed and have not seen any post that was unfair to the Russian people.  Indeed, I expect that Russian people may welcome the attention that this thread brings to their plight.

 

What exactly do the complainers consider inappropriate?

 

The thread is not violating the rule against being off topic because it was officially exempted from that rule.  The discussion has also stayed within the bounds of all of the other forum rules. 

 

The topic discussion has not reached any natural conclusion because the subject is continuously developing as a current event.  I have never seen a thread here that was ended by the moderators on the arbitrary basis that the subject matter has been entirely discussed.  No thread has ever had a time limit placed on it under the theory that there is a natural limit to what can be said about the topic.  Some people revive threads that have not had a post in 20 years, and they post new thoughts about the topic that may lead to dozens of new posts by others who never even saw the thread earlier.

 

This thread, although granted special permission, was not granted with a unique provision that the permission was only temporary.  It would have only been fair to inform members of that unique condition before the thread was started.

 

As always, the simplest remedy for this issue would be for those who don’t want to read or participate in a thread to simply not do so, rather than to force their will on the rest of us who welcome the discussion.      

[Steven Otte]

I have received complaints about the inappropriateness of this thread and the unfairness of certain posts to the Russian people, most of whom are unaware of and bear no culpability for their leader's actions in Ukraine. Since 7 weeks seems long enough for everyone to have shared their opinions on a subject that is off-topic anyway, this thread will be closed tomorrow morning. No further discussion of the war in Ukraine will be allowed on the Forums from that point forward.

[Convicted One]

BaltACD

Why does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council? 

I would imagine that "loophole" is there not by accident. 

[CMStPnP]

BaltACD

Why does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council?  Unprovoked aggression against a UN member country should remove any rights to a UN Security Council veto.

Well it should trigger a forced abstension from the vote in any regard because your voting on your own self interest for a veto via the collective interest of the UN Council but it doesn't force an abstension either.   

The U.N. is kind of screwed up and the various loopholes and short commings I believe betray in part what originally was envisioned by some of the WWII Vets that pushed for it's creation.    Though there are parts to the UN that do work well like the peacekeeping forces, disaster relief, etc.   So not a complete disaster either. 

[CMStPnP]

Euclid

Is that the way this would work? 

The answer is no and that should be covered via Google as the press covered that scenario I believe a couple of weeks back.    It nullifies the use of article 5 if you attack someone or enter a war as a combatant via your own choice.   Which is also covered by Backshop stating it is a DEFENSIVE alliance.    Otherwise he could not state that.

[charlie hebdo]

BaltACD

Why does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council?  Unprovoked aggression against a UN member country should remove any rights to a UN Security Council veto.

 

Unfortunately, that's the way the UN charter was set up.  

[BaltACD]

Why does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council?  Unprovoked aggression against a UN member country should remove any rights to a UN Security Council veto.

[Euclid]

Backshop

Where have you been the last 21 years?  It would be no different than the US, UK and others when they went into Iraq or Libya. Afghanistan was a NATO mission but Iraq and Libya weren't.

Here is what I am getting at: Consider the current situation in which NATO is staying out of the Ukraine/Russia war because Ukraine is not in NATO.  Now say one of those NATO countries decides it wants to enter the war on the side of Ukraine to help them fight Russia.  I assume that that one NATO country is free to do that while remaining in NATO as part of the NATO collective defense.

Now let’s say that Putin retaliates by attacking that one NATO country that went in to Ukraine to help them fight against Russia.  In that case, does Putin attacking that one NATO country then trigger the collective NATO defense that would require all other NATO countries to collectively attack Russian troops until the Russians stopped attacking that one country that joined Ukraine in fighting against Russia?

If that is the case, it means that all of NATO chose to stay out of the war except for one NATO country that chose to enter that war.  So that would mean that choice of the one NATO country to fight against Russia had the effect of dragging all of the other NATO countries into that fight against their will.

Is that the way this would work? 

[Backshop]

Euclid

So I am surprised that NATO countries are free to reserve the right to freelance collectively outside of NATO and make their own rules.  This should be especially concerning to NATO countries that might want to refrain from the action outside of NATO, yet will run the risk of being attacked by the adversary in retaliation for those who do act outside of NATO. 

Where have you been the last 21 years?  It would be no different than the US, UK and others when they went into Iraq or Libya. Afghanistan was a NATO mission but Iraq and Libya weren't.

[kgbw49]

On a somewhat sobering note, schools in my area are starting to receive enrollment requests for orphans from Ukraine.

[Euclid]

Backshop

 

 

Euclid

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/all-options-table-if-russia-uses-chemical-weapons-ukraine-uk-minister-2022-04-12/

 

From the link:

 

"There are some things that are beyond the pale, and the use of chemical weapons will get a response and all options are on the table for what that response could be," Heappey told Sky News, adding that British defence intelligence so far had been unable to verify the reports.

 

Asked on LBC Radio whether he could rule out this including deploying British or NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, Heappey said: "No, all options are on the table."

 

 

 

 

You never rule anything out.  That leaves all courses of action open.  If you say that you won't do something, and then changed circumstances force you into it, the backlash can have serious consequences. If the UK ruled out troops, Russia would think "we can do whatever we want because the second strongest military in NATO says that they won't interfere". That's just like Russia saying "we will use nukes to ensure our survival against aggression" without saying what they consider that line.  If they drew the line, NATO would know exactly what they could do.  Russia probably wouldn't use nukes over a no fly zone, but we don't know that, so we can't impose one.

 

 

I don’t interpret this to mean that any NATO country will take action against Russia if they use chemical weapons.  It only means they have not ruled it out.  But when you say you never rule anything out, it seems to me that the NATO charter does rule out an Article 5 action in which NATO would enter Ukraine on their behalf to help drive Putin out of Ukraine.

 

And yet, it is not clear that NATO countries would rule out collectively going outside of their charter to drive Putin out of Ukraine if his crimes rise to some higher level than NATO countries refuse to tolerate.  Indeed they do not rule that out.  

 

So I am surprised that NATO countries are free to reserve the right to freelance collectively outside of NATO and make their own rules.  This should be especially concerning to NATO countries that might want to refrain from the action outside of NATO, yet will run the risk of being attacked by the adversary in retaliation for those who do act outside of NATO. 

[CMStPnP]

Backshop

You never rule anything out.  That leaves all courses of action open.  If you say that you won't do something, and then changed circumstances force you into it, the backlash can have serious consequences. If the UK ruled out troops, Russia would think "we can do whatever we want because the second strongest military in NATO says that they won't interfere". That's just like Russia saying "we will use nukes to ensure our survival against aggression" without saying what they consider that line.  If they drew the line, NATO would know exactly what they could do.  Russia probably wouldn't use nukes over a no fly zone, but we don't know that, so we can't impose one.

Not an official NATO position either, you have to be careful with interpretations in this forum.     Clearly stated in title of article "UK says" not "NATO says".     As you said above, he is speaking for the UK.   

Potentially the UK vote IF they have not voted on that or considered it fully yet.  

[Convicted One]

I feel the following is a pretty good read, especially in the way it provides scope to what Putin's motives are likely to be. Which just being honest, I have felt western media's attempts to mystify what his true objective(s) are, to be mostly smoke and mirrors designed to deny validity to opposed points of view.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/09/understanding-vladimir-putin-the-man-who-fooled-the-world?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Pay particular attention to the suggestion of how NATO's involvement in  nearby conflicts ostensibly "in the name of human rights" might be subect to multiple interpretations depending upon point of view.

[Backshop]

Euclid

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/all-options-table-if-russia-uses-chemical-weapons-ukraine-uk-minister-2022-04-12/

 

From the link:

 

"There are some things that are beyond the pale, and the use of chemical weapons will get a response and all options are on the table for what that response could be," Heappey told Sky News, adding that British defence intelligence so far had been unable to verify the reports.

 

Asked on LBC Radio whether he could rule out this including deploying British or NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, Heappey said: "No, all options are on the table."

 

You never rule anything out.  That leaves all courses of action open.  If you say that you won't do something, and then changed circumstances force you into it, the backlash can have serious consequences. If the UK ruled out troops, Russia would think "we can do whatever we want because the second strongest military in NATO says that they won't interfere". That's just like Russia saying "we will use nukes to ensure our survival against aggression" without saying what they consider that line.  If they drew the line, NATO would know exactly what they could do.  Russia probably wouldn't use nukes over a no fly zone, but we don't know that, so we can't impose one.

[BaltACD]

charlie hebdo

 

BaltACD

Putin has started WW 3.  As long as he or the cabal that supports him are in control of Russia, they will attempt to reconstruct the USSR in the most brutal way possible, the way Stalin ruled it with death and destruction both inside and outside 'mother Russia'. 

So accepting your assumptions for now, what should we do about Putin & Co.?

Back Ukarine with everything they need or want - including NO FLY protection.

Hitler could have been stopped in Czechoslovakia, Putin needs to be stopped at Ukraine and in reality forced out of Crimea.  Putin needs to be forced back to Russia with prejudice.

There has to be a price paid for invading a soverign neighboring country without a reason beyond simple territorial expansion.

[Euclid]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/all-options-table-if-russia-uses-chemical-weapons-ukraine-uk-minister-2022-04-12/

 

From the link:

 

"There are some things that are beyond the pale, and the use of chemical weapons will get a response and all options are on the table for what that response could be," Heappey told Sky News, adding that British defence intelligence so far had been unable to verify the reports.

 

Asked on LBC Radio whether he could rule out this including deploying British or NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, Heappey said: "No, all options are on the table."

[charlie hebdo]

BaltACD

Putin has started WW 3.  As long as he or the cabal that supports him are in control of Russia, they will attempt to reconstruct the USSR in the most brutal way possible, the way Stalin ruled it with death and destruction both inside and outside 'mother Russia'.

 

So accepting your assumptions for now, what should we do about Putin & Co.?

[BaltACD]

Putin has started WW 3.  As long as he or the cabal that supports him are in control of Russia, they will attempt to reconstruct the USSR in the most brutal way possible, the way Stalin ruled it with death and destruction both inside and outside 'mother Russia'.

[charlie hebdo]

From NYT:  NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, underscored the urgency of the preparation effort on Wednesday, telling reporters for the first time that even if the Russians employ weapons of mass destruction only inside Ukraine, they may have “dire consequences” for people in NATO nations. He appeared to be discussing the fear that chemical or radioactive clouds could drift over the border. One issue under examination is whether such collateral damage would be considered an “attack” on NATO under its charter, which might require a joint military response.

[Backshop]

I think Sweden and Finland are a shoo-in if they ask for membership.  Moldova and Georgia, not so much.  I'd think that any member who voted against Sweden and Finland should have their own membership scrutinized.

[CMStPnP]

Backshop

NATO doesn't have to do anything since a NATO country wasn't attacked.  Like everyone keeps telling you, NATO is a DEFENSIVE organization. NATO will probably up their arms supply, including more sophisticated weapons.

Agree and the comments so far indicate that no vote has been taken on how they will respond to Chemical attack.   One British guy implied it meant NATO entering the war and his comments were walked back via another country's minister that stated no single country makes a decision like that.     Can Russias war fighting behavior get so terrible that it prompts NATO to enter the war?   

I think Russia is attempting deliberately to find that out because it feels the more horrible behavior it can get away with the more it gets newer NATO members to ask about the alliance and how much the alliance will risk for them as a member of the alliance....which is the question in most military alliances.    So I think that is the answer to why there is no bottom level right now to how far the Russians will sink on the scale of wartime behavior.    I think they are testing now to see if they can cause internal dissention in the alliance over course of action.

NATO has had internal discussions on pre-emptive attack but so far none of the scenarios they raised in those discussions has happened and the scenarios they used were pretty strict to avoid accidently sliding into a war.

[Backshop]

Euclid

Now there is talk of Russia suspected of having used chemical weapons in Ukraine.  Some are suggesting that NATO must react to this.  What does NATO doctrine actually call for if it is proven that Russia has used chemical weapons in the Ukraine war?  If no specific action is called for, what can NATO decide to do?

 

NATO doesn't have to do anything since a NATO country wasn't attacked.  Like everyone keeps telling you, NATO is a DEFENSIVE organization. NATO will probably up their arms supply, including more sophisticated weapons.

[Euclid]

Now there is talk of Russia suspected of having used chemical weapons in Ukraine.  Some are suggesting that NATO must react to this.  What does NATO doctrine actually call for if it is proven that Russia has used chemical weapons in the Ukraine war?  If no specific action is called for, what can NATO decide to do?

[BEAUSABRE]

Russian Railways just bwcame the first company to default on its debt as it missed an interest payment on $268 million of bonds

Russian Railways becomes first company to officially default in the country, as Western sanctions jam the financial system (msn.com)

Looks like they're joining Czarist bonds in the less than junk bond category. 

 

[Backshop]

NorthBrit

Russia has warned both Sweden and Finland not to join NATO.   Since Russia's attack on Ukraine both countries are looking at their own safety against Russian aggression.   Joining NATO would be one way. 

The old Russian sledgehammer approach.  They do something to threaten another country and when that country does something to help their defense, Russia threatens them even more.  If Russia can't get air superiority over Ukraine, they'll be annihilated by the Swedish and Finnish air forces.  Their 300 Leopard 2 tanks are much better than anything the Russians have, also.

Here's another opinion that some may have a problem with. I'm of Ukrainian descent and even I know that Ukraine was pretty corrupt.  Not that that is a reason to invade, but there was that "two birds of a feather" feeling.  That's part of why Ukraine isn't already in the EU.  On the other hand, Sweden and Finland are "western" democracies who already cooperate with NATO.  Even without a formal memberships, I think that if they are attacked, many NATO countries, either as a coalition or individually, would join in fully to defend them.

[CMStPnP]

tree68

but I would opine that there are a lot of frustrated former Soviets behind him

Ah you don't have to opine.....it's history...

The WWII plot included a coup in Berlin along with sweeping arrests in addition to the assination plot on Hitler.    If it was all about Hitler the assination would have been enough if it succeeded.    But there were other folks vying for power if something happened to him so they needed the coup to take control fully and put their agenda in place to be sure.  

Fairly standard for an autocracy.

[BaltACD]

NorthBrit

Now that Russia has destroyed parts of North Ukraine their attention is to be the Donbas Region where a  large percentage of people are 'Russian'.

I believe once they have captured Dombas Russia will seek peace with Ukraine.

Meanwhile Russia has been attacking Moldovan shipping.   The area in Moldova called Transnistra already has Russian soldiers stationed there.   There are 'proposals in Transnistra for joining the Russian Federation'.   The Moldovan Government has repeatedly asked Russia to withdraw their troops.  It has to be remembered that Moldova is a neutral country.

Russia has warned both Sweden and Finland not to join NATO.   Since Russia's attack on Ukraine both countries are looking at their own safety against Russian aggression.   Joining NATO would be one way. 

David

Russia wants to flatten the Dombas Region - they don't care if it is inhabited by Russian or Ukrainian sympathiers - it is inhabited by civilians and they need to be eliminated.