The Ukraine war thread
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 12:29 last edited by George K
-
Doesn't this qualify as genocide?
No, at least by itself I do not believe it does. If proven in court, it is however a war crime against humanity along the lines of ethnic cleansing.
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 14:04 last edited by@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
If proven in court, it is however a war crime against humanity along the lines of ethnic cleansing.
THat's what I was getting at, albeit with a poor choice of word.
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 17:10 last edited by Renauda
Speaking to journalists after a summit with regional leaders in Kazakhstan's capital Astana, the Russian leader said that the recent strikes had destroyed 22 out of the 29 targets in Ukraine set by the military and that "they are getting" the remaining seven..
I take it then in Putin’s mind those apartment buildings, children’s playgrounds and the Faculty of Philology building in Kyiv’s Shevchenko University in addition to other civilian infrastructure were planned military targets.
Good grouping, Vlad.
Full article:
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 20:34 last edited by
The EU responds to Putin's nuclear saber-rattling.
On September 21, as he announced his mobilization of reservists to the battlefield, Putin alluded to his nuclear stockpile and said Russia would “use all the means at our disposal” if the country’s “territorial integrity” were threatened. “This is not a bluff,” he said.
Referring to this on Thursday, Borrell said: “Putin is saying that he’s not bluffing. Well, he can not afford bluffing.”
Ukraine’s supporters — NATO, the EU and the US — “are not bluffing either,” Borrell said.
“And any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer. Not a nuclear answer, but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian army will be annihilated,” was his prediction.
As an EU figure, Borrell does not control any military force.
But in his role he represents member states including France, a nuclear power, and 21 of NATO’s 30 members, and has been involved in other aspects of the Western response to the invasion.
-
The EU responds to Putin's nuclear saber-rattling.
On September 21, as he announced his mobilization of reservists to the battlefield, Putin alluded to his nuclear stockpile and said Russia would “use all the means at our disposal” if the country’s “territorial integrity” were threatened. “This is not a bluff,” he said.
Referring to this on Thursday, Borrell said: “Putin is saying that he’s not bluffing. Well, he can not afford bluffing.”
Ukraine’s supporters — NATO, the EU and the US — “are not bluffing either,” Borrell said.
“And any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer. Not a nuclear answer, but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian army will be annihilated,” was his prediction.
As an EU figure, Borrell does not control any military force.
But in his role he represents member states including France, a nuclear power, and 21 of NATO’s 30 members, and has been involved in other aspects of the Western response to the invasion.
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 21:34 last edited by RenaudaThat is what I was referring to on Thursday in another post (#1066 above) NATO will respond to any Russian use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Late last week or earlier this past week, Petreaus said the same during a BBC interview on TV.
Note that Putin has turned down the squelch on some his rhetoric the past 48 hours since the EU statement was made.
-
That is what I was referring to on Thursday in another post (#1066 above) NATO will respond to any Russian use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Late last week or earlier this past week, Petreaus said the same during a BBC interview on TV.
Note that Putin has turned down the squelch on some his rhetoric the past 48 hours since the EU statement was made.
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 21:40 last edited by@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
Petreaus said the same during a BBC interview on TV
Yeah, I remember Petreaus' comment. He was pretty definite in that.
-
@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:
Petreaus said the same during a BBC interview on TV
Yeah, I remember Petreaus' comment. He was pretty definite in that.
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 21:46 last edited by RenaudaNow I read that Musk is backtracking from what he said a day or two ago…..
Curious as to what might have changed his mind?
The embedded minute and a half clip with John Bolton is worth watching too.
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 22:06 last edited by Mik
It is indeed. Took me a bit to find it.
Putin seems to have ratcheted down the nuke talk as well.
-
It is indeed. Took me a bit to find it.
Putin seems to have ratcheted down the nuke talk as well.
-
wrote on 15 Oct 2022, 23:44 last edited by
I can't find the post at the moment, but there was a comment on the casualties that the Russian army is sustaining - it can't keep it up.
This tweet sort of amplifies that point.
In Gawande's book, "Better," he talks about how transformative the US approach to combat injuries became. Rather than attempting to treat at the site, get 'em out to a tertiary center. IOW, with a bowel injury, don't try to fix it in the field. Instead, clean it up, bring up a temporary colostomy and get the solder to a location where definitive care can be provided.
A comment in this tread says that the 50% mortality is US Civil War level.
Horrible? Sure.
Surprising? Probably not.
-
wrote on 16 Oct 2022, 00:46 last edited by Renauda
It would seem that in spite of all Russian military doctrine to the contrary - and there is a lot to the contrary since 1945 - Russian generals are still willing to take unsustainably high human casualties in combat. Could be that steamrollering the enemy with massed artillery, armour and infantry is the only thing they understand as they see equipment and material of greater value than personnel.
Quite the opposite of British and American battlefield thinking since before WWII.
-
wrote on 16 Oct 2022, 12:16 last edited by
-
wrote on 16 Oct 2022, 15:39 last edited by
-
wrote on 16 Oct 2022, 16:02 last edited by Renauda
I wouldn’t rule out anything and a more malevolent replacement to Putin is a perfectly plausible outcome. Still, Putin himself is closely surrounded by a personal praetorian guard that, to the best of anyone’s knowledge on the outside, remains fiercely loyal to the president. To get at Putin you have go through the FSO:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Protective_Service_(Russia)
-
wrote on 16 Oct 2022, 16:18 last edited by
The fact that he's still in power after this disaster is telling of how well entrenched he is.
-
The fact that he's still in power after this disaster is telling of how well entrenched he is.
wrote on 16 Oct 2022, 16:53 last edited by RenaudaAnother factor is how the majority of Russians perceive the reality. While I do not intend to draw a comparison with Stalin, many if not the majority of Russians during the Terror, believed in their hearts that if Stalin knew what was happening in country he would put an immediate end to it and hold the perpetrators accountable. The people were convinced Stalin was being being deceived by the very people he had entrusted to govern the nation. Hence many would write letters and petitions directly to Stalin telling him of the crimes and warning him of how he was being deceived and manipulated.
Fast forward to present and you can see how the likes of Kadyrov and big name media personalities in Russia are laying blame on the military leaders and state bureaucrats but not Putin himself for the unfolding military debacle. Likewise, Ukrainian success is also linked to foreign interference that is determined to breakup the Russian Federation and subjugate the Russian people.
Contrary to all appearances, as a nation Russians are a passive people who are content with being left alone in their respective communities despite having little or no sense of community as it is understood in the West. In the people’s mind Putin still represents stability in a world of chaos. Until that perception changes my bet is that he will remain exactly where he is now, in the Kremlin and at the helm.
-
