Russia-Ukraine War

[EGO_Aut]

.....

Don't start wars - I think is another good one. Many children would have been alive today.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if Putin's Z soldiers stayed in Russia's borders.

On the question of blame, I think it's not right to only blame Putin. The blame goes to all Russians that loudly or silently support him

I total agree, but i would not blame all Russians, like i did not blame all germans in ww2. In these regimes you could loose everything you have, and love, if you say something wrong. And it is not said, that something better will follow.

[Observe]

According to Biden, sending cluster bombs, is a "transition period" due to Ukraine running out of artillery rounds and "we're low on it". Two question come to mind: Is letting our enemies know that our stock is low a good idea and does this mean we will recall unused cluster munitions once we ramp-up our production of 155mm artillery? I'm guessing probably not to both questions.

[fiksal]

.....

Don't start wars - I think is another good one. Many children would have been alive today.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if Putin's Z soldiers stayed in Russia's borders.

On the question of blame, I think it's not right to only blame Putin. The blame goes to all Russians that loudly or silently support him

I total agree, but i would not blame all Russians, like i did not blame all germans in ww2. In these regimes you could loose everything you have, and love, if you say something wrong. And it is not said, that something better will follow.

This is news to me that you agree. This is a good line of thinking, to continue on.

My view is indeed quite harsh, but we are not mindless drones, we make choices. And yes, there are some stakes involved in this.

[Tamina]

I would say, never use banned stuff on your soil. Not nukes, uran ammo, or old mines or cluster ammo.

I am not in favour of the decision but I just want to say that neither Russia, Ukraine nor the US have banned cluster bombs or declared them as illegal.

[Falcrack]

.....

Don't start wars - I think is another good one. Many children would have been alive today.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if Putin's Z soldiers stayed in Russia's borders.

On the question of blame, I think it's not right to only blame Putin. The blame goes to all Russians that loudly or silently support him

I total agree, but i would not blame all Russians, like i did not blame all germans in ww2. In these regimes you could loose everything you have, and love, if you say something wrong. And it is not said, that something better will follow.

Better to die doing what is right than to die a coward who failed to stand up for what is right.

[EGO_Aut]

About a year ago, the Russians allegedly removed microchips from washing machines because they no longer had any for the defense industry. Economically they were at the end, militarily they had to fall back on ancient equipment.
Allegedly.
And now the Western Allies are said to have run out of conventional ammunition. I do not believe it. There are still large stocks of the banned cluster bombs, which can only be got rid of in this case with justification.
The civilian population will suffer, regardless of which nation the victims later belong to. If the territories can be recaptured, they will be Ukrainians, otherwise Russians. But in any case innocent.

[Falcrack]

Concern trolling regarding the sending of cluster munitions to Ukraine has reached maximum level. Seriously, it is just another weapon in the long line of weapons being used in the war that are designed to kill. So Russia can use cluster munitions directly against civilians in Ukrainian cities like Kharkiv, but when we offer them to Ukraine to use against Russians in fortifications in Ukrainian fields there is endless hand wringing? Weapons which both Russia and Ukraine have already used? You know that unexploded cluster munitions will represent just a small fraction of the total amount of unexploded ordinance that Ukraine will need to deal with after the war?

If there is a shortage of available conventional artillery to send right now for the counteroffensive, and a huge stock of DPICM which the US will never use and was in process of dismantling anyways, I say send every last DPICM there is and let Ukraine decide if the risk of using them is not outweighed by the benefit of winning the war sooner.

Neither the US, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, or Romania are signatories to the cluster munitions ban, so no countries through which these weapons will pass need worry about breaking any treaty obligations.

[Observe]

I see Senator Lindsey Graham is getting a lot of flak from fellow Republicans for his proposal urging the admission of Ukraine into NATO. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. There is no explicit rule that says NATO cannot accept new members if they are already at war. Perhaps Lindsey Graham should switch political parties and become a Democrat, which used to be the party of peace, but weirdly has now become the party of war.

[Falcrack]

Perhaps Lindsey Graham should switch political parties and become a Democrat, which used to be the party of peace, but has now become the party of war.

There is a time for war, and a time for peace. Before war starts is a time to advocate for peace. But if an aggressor ignores calls for peace and starts a war, kills your people and conquers large sections of your land, then it is a time for war until the aggressor is defeated.

[Observe]

There is a time for war, and a time for peace. Before war starts is a time to advocate for peace. But if an aggressor ignores calls for peace and starts a war, kills your people and conquers large sections of your land, then it is a time for war until the aggressor is defeated.

What you say is clearly true. Once war starts, the question becomes what does it take to end it? This is were disagreements abound. Some say that further military aid to Ukraine should have strings attached requiring active peace negotiations. Others say there can be no peace as long as land that Ukraine claims is occupied by the invader. Still others, say we all should completely stay out of long-standing Ukraine/Russia disagreements going back to the 17th century. National 'ownership' of Crimea and the Donbas region have been in dispute way before this current situation.

Opinions are all over the map. Mine, is that we shouldn't get involved with internal regional disputes. It would be an entirely different matter, if Russia decided to expand into areas for which they have no outstanding historic claim. Bottom line: Let Russia and Ukraine fight all they want, but don't suck the rest of the world into it, by trying to convince people that "we are all next".

[Tamina]

Which outstanding historic claim does Russia exactly have? Can you elaborate?

[Observe]

Which outstanding historic claim does Russia exactly have? Can you elaborate?

I'm not a historian, but it isn't hard to research the history of the area.

My understanding, is that Russia took the Crimean Peninsula from the Crimean Tatars in the 1700's. The Russian empire included Crimea until 1917, when the Soviet Union likewise claimed it. In 1954, the Soviet government transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Obviously, the matter of which imaginary country owns Crimea remains unsettled, but Crimea remains home to a large Russian population. As for the Donbas, that area was in a separatist dispute before the current open warfare. My point is, this is a dispute between Russia and Ukraine, to be resolved by them and no others.

@Fiskal knows much more than I do about the history of this area, and can no doubt point out the various glaring errors in my understanding.

[burger1]

Looks like Turkey has approved Swedens Nato application so just Hungary left to approve it.

[Falcrack]

Opinions are all over the map. Mine, is that we shouldn't get involved with internal regional disputes. It would be an entirely different matter, if Russia decided to expand into areas for which they have no outstanding historic claim. Bottom line: Let Russia and Ukraine fight all they want, but don't suck the rest of the world into it, by trying to convince people that "we are all next".

As to where to draw the lines regarding territorial disputes, the line should be at the current internationally recognized borders. Historical borders are and should be meaningless. Once a dispute over borders has been resolved by treaty or other legal agreement between two nations, that should put an end to the issue.

In the case of Ukraine and Russia, the borders agreed to by both Russia and Ukraine in 1991 are very clear. Since 2014, Ukraine also has not officially ceded Crimea or the Donbass to Russia, so those lands still legally belong to Ukraine, unless and until Ukraine ceded them to Russia in some agreement.

So there is no real ambiguity as to who is the aggressor and who is at fault for this war. Russia's own agreements with Ukraine on this issue are clear. Historical disputes and questions over who owned what land hundreds of years ago are absolutely meaningless and irrelevant.

Because of the clear violation of legally established borders, it is imperative that we assist Ukraine to resist this invasion as much as is in our power. Because if this precedent is allowed to stand, then any bullcrap excuse about historical borders can be used to justify a stronger nation such as Russia to take by force lands that it regards as historically theirs, even though current internationally recognized borders may say otherwise.

[Observe]

As to where to draw the lines regarding territorial disputes, the line should be at the current internationally recognized borders. Historical borders are and should be meaningless. Once a dispute over borders has been resolved by treaty or other legal agreement between two nations, that should put an end to the issue.

I agree, but that doesn't make the past go away, or for old buried hatchets to remain so. You are right about who is the aggressor in this case. I don't know of anyone who disputes that. However, that doesn't mean everyone else in the world should join the fray in my opinion.

[Alan Phipps]

I think the general situation is pretty much as follows:

1a. No nation/force not already fully allied to Russia wants to take any active part in its conflict with Ukraine.
1b. No nation not already fully allied or sympathetic to Russia wants Ukraine to lose (probably).
1c. No nation supporting Ukraine wants active and direct conflict with Russia.

2a. Ukraine and Russia are both expending munitions and assets at war rates.
2b. Russia's logistics, procurement and manufacturing are put on a war footing and approaching war production rates.
2c. Ukraine now has little in the way of viable war production capability and relies mainly on external support.
2d. Nations supporting Ukraine with war production are not on a war footing and are not at war production rates.

It is because of 2a and 2d that nations supporting Ukraine with war production are running low on stocks once they safeguard their own strategic stockpiles.

[Falcrack]

As to where to draw the lines regarding territorial disputes, the line should be at the current internationally recognized borders. Historical borders are and should be meaningless. Once a dispute over borders has been resolved by treaty or other legal agreement between two nations, that should put an end to the issue.

I agree, but that doesn't make the past go away, or for old buried hatchets to remain so. You are right about who is the aggressor in this case. I don't know of anyone who disputes that. However, that doesn't mean everyone else in the world should join the fray in my opinion.

Those who are not willing to stand up for those fighting for their freedoms and rights in other lands do not deserve those same rights and freedoms themselves, and should not go crying when their turn comes and nobody is standing up for them.

[fiksal]

Which outstanding historic claim does Russia exactly have? Can you elaborate?

I'm not a historian, but it isn't hard to research the history of the area.

My understanding, is that Russia took the Crimean Peninsula from the Crimean Tatars in the 1700's. The Russian empire included Crimea until 1917, when the Soviet Union likewise claimed it. In 1954, the Soviet government transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Obviously, the matter of which imaginary country owns Crimea remains unsettled, but Crimea remains home to a large Russian population. As for the Donbas, that area was in a separatist dispute before the current open warfare. My point is, this is a dispute between Russia and Ukraine, to be resolved by them and no others.

@Fiskal knows much more than I do about the history of this area, and can no doubt point out the various glaring errors in my understanding.

That's a rabbit hole.

Kremlin only picks bits of history that fits its ideology for the so-called claim over the area. It conveniently ignores everything else. That's because the current claim over Ukraine, is more than just land, it's both past borders of the Russian empire + ethnic superiority and ethnic inferiority of the neighboring peoples.

Russian Empire borders were different, USSR borders were different, and Crimea changed hands, and it's not Russian by much of its history. (had to check with wiki, we are talking about 1700s of years that it wasnt Russian, so majority)

Putin's Russia points out that Ukraine is not a real country. I too can play this game, Russia is not a real country either. Moscow must become the subject of Kievan Rus, which capital is in Kyiv. There's a good chunk of territory at least that belongs to modern Mongolia, a southern chunk including city of Vladivostok, which is Chinese, for some 1200 of years of its history.

It's less silly to talk about people who live there now. Russians are majority in Crimea, so it doesnt look like a hard sell to them to switch allegiances. Why in the world they sat there and exchanged relative autonomy for dictatorship is beyond me, maybe some more folks would tell their stories later. (I can guess why though). Minority of Crimeans were not of course consulted, and they would pay for it later, still do probably. Scratch that, majority of Crimeans were not consulted either - as if any vote other than in favor was possible - that fight was lost when no action was taken.

I have a feeling there's a chance it can switch hands easily from Russia to Ukraine without a fight just as well. To be seen how this will play out. I only wish them independence if they want it.

Donbass is a project of terror and bandits. I recall interviews with those first commanders that took arms - they resisted a revolution - that's all. And their revolt was to ... be maybe independent? Almost understandable reason. Almost. It had nothing to do with any historical claim. Well that idea is long gone and forgotten with all the old commanders, all replaced by Russian soldiers and thugs since. A tiny North Korea, the Russian style.

I know people from Donbass, we dont discuss this at all with them. I dont ask. They dont tell. Is it because I am Russian and they dont want to find out what I think? Neither of us live there, in Donbass/Russia now, so that's that.

So I can only judge of what happens there based on Russian TV. And the pre-war life there was already insane, by the hands of Russian military and its thugs. Russia gladly will make it worse. Because that life, that goal, was presented proudly by the Russian TV.

And .... I think I went over a rabbit hole.

[fiksal]

on the question of neutrality

I think the line has to be drawn somewhere:
mass killings
child abductions
torture

or perhaps taking all that was said before and during the war serious:
one side specifically said they are fighting the west, NATO, with the goal of eventual destruction.

if the line is to avoid nuclear war, does that line include all countries?
can a NATO or EU country be sacrificed to avoid war? There are a few on a list.

[notaterran]

By the looks of it this war is only going to get more brutal. Cluster munitions for Ukraine? Let Russian soldiers have a taste of their own medicine. I'm just wondering if those F-16s will 1) arrive in time and 2) make much of a difference.