The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[rsemmes]

Pretty much, yes.

As Feanor said: "A convenient excuse to disregard what you don't like or don't want to face up to." Hopefully, most of them, are facing reality now, not their reality.

'Donald Trump has said “I don’t need international law” and that his power is limited only by his “own morality”. In a new interview with the New York Times, Trump said the only constraint to his power as president of the US is “my own morality, my own mind”.'

‘I don’t need international law’: Trump says power constrained only by ‘my own morality’

President says morality ‘the only thing that can stop me’ in New York Times interview on limits to his authority

www.theguardian.com

That is a democratic elected leader in a western democracy (like a certain Austrian lance-corporal, for those fond of Teschen).

 

[swerve]

What Trump is saying is very scary.

 

[KipPotapych]

I will try to later post on the subject of “order” in the NATO thread where some of it was moved and I will tie it to Greenland.


Controversial versions/accounts of the damage caused by the Oreshnik strike yesterday have emerged. The NYT described it as follows:

The missile landed on a military site in western Ukraine and reportedly inflicted little damage, leaving a couple of unimpressive craters in the frozen earth. But its true target was farther afield, analysts and political officials said: Ukraine’s allies in Europe.

Via the archive: https://archive.ph/L0LWa

The mayor of Lviv, on the other hand, said that the damage that exists “is certainly horrible”. Ragozin has a video with English subtitles here:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2009724928057299138

I still tend to think that it was more related to the Paris agreement of “intent” as other means would probably cause more significant damage. it’s not like Lviv area had never been hit before.


Neat when people argue with some of the more recognized experts in the field though:




Edit: There is also rhis:

 

[rsemmes]

It seems that...
Russia attacking ships sailing from Ukrainian ports is a crime.
Russia attacks two civilian vessels near Ukrainian ports: Foreign national killed

Ukraine attacking ships sailing from Russian ports is not mentioned... for some reason.

 

[Beltrami2005]

It seems that...
Russia attacking ships sailing from Ukrainian ports is a crime.
Russia attacks two civilian vessels near Ukrainian ports: Foreign national killed

Ukraine attacking ships sailing from Russian ports is not mentioned... for some reason.

I guess its because Russia is the agressor and Ukraine the victim. There were similar instances in WW II where several Nazi ships were attacked and sunk. Cap Arcona, Gustloff ect.

 

[rsemmes]

I guess its because Russia is the agressor and Ukraine the victim. There were similar instances in WW II where several Nazi ships were attacked and sunk. Cap Arcona, Gustloff ect.

No, it's because it's propaganda. How to qualify the attack on neutral ships does not depends on whom is attacking them.
(Ships sunk in a war! Really? Or you mean ships evacuating civilians?)

 

[Beltrami2005]

No, it's because it's propaganda. How to qualify the attack on neutral ships does not depends on whom is attacking them.
(Ships sunk in a war! Really? Or you mean ships evacuating civilians?)

No, i mean what i said. The victim of an agressor has the right to fight against the agressor. Oil tankers in black sea for example fueled the russian war budget. By supressing oil tankers acess to the black sea, Russias budget takes a massive hit. Thats what happens in war. Its called a blockade. Just as Israel holds up the blockade of the coast infront the gaza strip, Ukraine holds up a blockade of ships trying to reach russian oil terminals in the black sea. Russia can end this very easily by stopping the war. Ships cant break through a blockade during war. Do you think the UK during WW I would have allowed "neutral ships" to reach Germany?

 

[rsemmes]

No, i mean what i said. The victim of an agressor has the right to fight against the agressor. Oil tankers in black sea for example fueled the russian war budget. By supressing oil tankers acess to the black sea, Russias budget takes a massive hit. Thats what happens in war. Its called a blockade. Just as Israel holds up the blockade of the coast infront the gaza strip, Ukraine holds up a blockade of ships trying to reach russian oil terminals in the black sea. Russia can end this very easily by stopping the war. Ships cant break through a blockade during war. Do you think the UK during WW I would have allowed "neutral ships" to reach Germany?

Neutral ships.
I will repeat it again because you seem unable (or unwilling) to see it. Ukraine and Russia are attacking neutral ships.
Attacking neutral ships has nothing to do with the "right to fight".
If you just wanted to point out that Russia is the "aggressor"... Thanks, you're late, it's has been repeated ad nauseam. We know, thanks.
Grain ships fuel Ukrainian war budget. See, the same action. BTW, you are repeating Ukrainian propaganda that has already been posted here.
About massive... No. It has already been argued. You would have to stop everything, not hit a couple or a dozen ships.
Again, Sinking ships in a war! Never heard of.
No, it is not a blockade. First, you have to, actually, declare a "blockade", but the main part is that you have to enforce that blockade; not hit a ship from time to time. Then, we have that little thing about been, officially, at war in order to declare a legal blockade. They are not, so it cannot be a blockade (meaning, you can call it: "Forever forbidden right of navigation through the Black Sea" too) they are just hitting neutral ships; what it is a crime, committed by... Well, more than a few nations.
Ukraine can end this war easily. Since Istanbul, actually.
"Ships cant break through a blockade during war." Sorry, what? From what fairy tale in a Disney version of History have you got that? (Try googling "Blockade-runners" to begin with.)
Neither allowing nor not allowing is going to turn an action into "not a crime". Nothing to do with what "I" think, but, at the same time, you are asking why should Germany allow neutral ships to reach UK. The same action.

If you want to swallow propaganda, its up to you, but you need a huge dose of double-think to swallow it. You could read this thread from the beginning, if you don't want to swallow an overwhelming amount of it.

 

[rsemmes]

'Richard Connolly, at the Royal United Services Institute thinktank, says: “The Kremlin has succeeded in selling the war, not as a battle with its near neighbour – its brothers and sisters in Ukraine – but as a war with the west.”
Well, NATO tanks, missiles and intelligence did help with that.
On the impact of sanctions so far, he adds: “We are not near the economy being a decisive factor in the Kremlin’s thinking about how to pursue the war.”
Russia’s debt-to-GDP ratio is just below 20%, while the annual spending deficit is about to hit 3.5% – modest by international standards, particularly when compared with the UK’s 11% deficit in the year Covid hit and a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 95%.
Inflation soared after the invasion but has since been tamed, falling towards 6%, only modestly higher than the central bank target of 4%.'
...
'A tougher stance on trade may not trigger an economic collapse but Europe needs to work every angle to bring the war to an end.'
But, the Ukrainian angle.

Why Russia’s economy is unlikely to collapse even if oil prices fall | Phillip Inman

Hopes that tougher sanctions and lower oil prices could derail Putin’s war effort underestimate how far the Kremlin has rewired its economy

www.theguardian.com

Of course, an US invasion of Greenland may change things a bit more that an increase of Venezuelan oil in the market in an uncertain future.

 

[Beltrami2005]

Neutral ships.
I will repeat it again because you seem unable (or unwilling) to see it. Ukraine and Russia are attacking neutral ships.
Attacking neutral ships has nothing to do with the "right to fight".
If you just wanted to point out that Russia is the "aggressor"... Thanks, you're late, it's has been repeated ad nauseam. We know, thanks.
Grain ships fuel Ukrainian war budget. See, the same action. BTW, you are repeating Ukrainian propaganda that has already been posted here.
About massive... No. It has already been argued. You would have to stop everything, not hit a couple or a dozen ships.
Again, Sinking ships in a war! Never heard of.
No, it is not a blockade. First, you have to, actually, declare a "blockade", but the main part is that you have to enforce that blockade; not hit a ship from time to time. Then, we have that little thing about been, officially, at war in order to declare a legal blockade. They are not, so it cannot be a blockade (meaning, you can call it: "Forever forbidden right of navigation through the Black Sea" too) they are just hitting neutral ships; what it is a crime, committed by... Well, more than a few nations.
Ukraine can end this war easily. Since Istanbul, actually.
"Ships cant break through a blockade during war." Sorry, what? From what fairy tale in a Disney version of History have you got that? (Try googling "Blockade-runners" to begin with.)
Neither allowing nor not allowing is going to turn an action into "not a crime". Nothing to do with what "I" think, but, at the same time, you are asking why should Germany allow neutral ships to reach UK. The same action.

If you want to swallow propaganda, its up to you, but you need a huge dose of double-think to swallow it. You could read this thread from the beginning, if you don't want to swallow an overwhelming amount of it.

I dont swallow propaganda. There is one main factor that needs to be achieved: russias oil income crumble. Evry oil tanker going towards russia is a potential target. War is war. I fully support those tankers taken out, EU agrees with it too and im pleased that its done when they are empty and that way damage to nature is minimalized. Nobody forces "neutral" tankers to have Russian oil terminals as destination. They are free to load oil in Norway.

It is in Europes best interest to have Russia weakend. Those attacks achieve exactly that. So full thumps up from me and im happy for those sucessful strikes.

P.s. Since the entire terminal meanwhile got blown up and tankers avoid going there -> mission accomplished

I want Russia to lose. Whatever helps ->

 

[rsemmes]

I dont swallow propaganda. There is one main factor that needs to be achieved: russias oil income crumble. Evry oil tanker going towards russia is a potential target. War is war. I fully support those tankers taken out, EU agrees with it too and im pleased that its done when they are empty and that way damage to nature is minimalized. Nobody forces "neutral" tankers to have Russian oil terminals as destination. They are free to load oil in Norway.

It is in Europes best interest to have Russia weakend. Those attacks achieve exactly that. So full thumps up from me and im happy for those sucessful strikes.

P.s. Since the entire terminal meanwhile got blown up and tankers avoid going there -> mission accomplished

I want Russia to lose. Whatever helps ->

Just like Trump.

 

[Beltrami2005]

Just like Trump.

No, Trump lacks the strategic understanding.

Russia already is far weaker than Europe and it is a hostile power. So of course its in our best interest to keep Russia as weak as possible. Thats how putins "multi polar world" works, he just doesnt like to be on the recieving end.

You dont need to attack evry tanker. Just look a few tankers were attacked and their numbers drop to zero. No shipping company wants to risk getting their ship sunk.

And when you look at russias oil exports:

The numbers move in a very positive direction.

 

[rsemmes]

No, Trump lacks the strategic understanding.

With that, I do agree.

"Whatever helps" Just like Trump, that it is illegal it is not relevant to you.
That "mission accomplished" is more like G. W. Bush; and false too, of course. "The entire terminal got blown up", check your propaganda sources, even better, verify what you are posting, before posting.
"The numbers move in a very positive direction." Maybe in you fairy tale, not in the real world; read theguardian just posted and verify with other sources.

 

[Vanquish]

With that, I do agree.

"Whatever helps" Just like Trump, that it is illegal it is not relevant to you.
That "mission accomplished" is more like G. W. Bush; and false too, of course. "The entire terminal got blown up", check your propaganda sources, even better, verify what you are posting, before posting.
"The numbers move in a very positive direction." Maybe in you fairy tale, not in the real world; read theguardian just posted and verify with other sources.

Seems you're arguing that what's illegal isn't relative to Beltrami2005 yet you argue everyday that what Russia does is not illegal, it's just war and the west needs to get over it.

 

[Beltrami2005]

With that, I do agree.

"Whatever helps" Just like Trump, that it is illegal it is not relevant to you.
That "mission accomplished" is more like G. W. Bush; and false too, of course. "The entire terminal got blown up", check your propaganda sources, even better, verify what you are posting, before posting.
"The numbers move in a very positive direction." Maybe in you fairy tale, not in the real world; read theguardian just posted and verify with other sources.

With all due respect, i want Russia crumble and seeing its 3 day special mission turning into 4 year WW I trench warfare while its oil sector collapses, is exactly what i want to see. I dont need to read a guardian article. Seeing all those confiscated russian superyachts in our marinas is prove enough. Remember, each super yacht is money stolen by russian oligarchs from the russian system. And we took it.

Just as we see the russian oil sector now crumble as well.

Targeting those tankers is an important way to slice more and more off from the russian oil export market.

And yes the russian black sea oil terminal in Tuapse is closed...for repairs

Looks like something extensive.

I also wonder what you complain about when evrything is under controle and fine? I see no reason why this strategy should stop. It is delusional to think this doesnt damage russia. And its quite cheap as well.

 

[rsemmes]

Seems you're arguing that what's illegal isn't relative to Beltrami2005 yet you argue everyday that what Russia does is not illegal, it's just war and the west needs to get over it.

Could point out where exactly I say that: "what Russia does is not illegal"?
Maybe I point out that the west has been committing illegal actions all the time? Not to mention US most recent activities.

 

[rsemmes]

Hopefully, we are able to see the difference between " the entire terminal got blown up" and "everything is fine".
What's the date of that picture, what is the source?
Is closed or was closed, working at what %?
What % of actual Russian oil exports?

Oh! Now... It's just about what you want. Please, don't let reality spoil your dreams.

 

[Beltrami2005]

Could point out where exactly I say that: "what Russia does is not illegal"?
Maybe I point out that the west has been committing illegal actions all the time? Not to mention US most recent activities.

Where exactly do you see any illegal action? Please elaborate. It becomes illegal when we lose. Before that its risk management.

Look this tanker here for example, got neutralized by a single drone, another one followed. That alone escalated the risk to the point that shipping companies avoid russia.

As for the terminal, its still closed by today. The image is from November.

As for now, all terminals at Novorossiysk are closed.

I checked, this is all tankers in the black sea at the moment. Looks good for me:



So oil transport through black sea is down by 100% as for today.

And thats why attacking those tankers was so important. Shipholders are easily scared away by such things.

 

[KipPotapych]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2010291160372433368

The guy - the journalist form the CNN - says the experts they talked to say that it is basically an old piece of scrap. They then show some random Ukrainian dude talking nonsense but has a hat that literally says “Expert”on it in Ukrainian/Russian. Could it get more funny than that? Yes, it can. The actual experts after reviewing the video suggested that at least part of what is shown (and the biggest thing you see) may be the components from Iskander or Korean equivalent. But, could it get even more funny? Of course it can, because the audience (read lemmings) made the conclusion that the Oreshnik is based on North Korean supplied parts from KN-23 missile.

What else is new though? I an sure it will get even funnier in hours/days to come.

 

[Vanquish]

Could point out where exactly I say that: "what Russia does is not illegal"?
Maybe I point out that the west has been committing illegal actions all the time? Not to mention US most recent activities.

As is your want, you point out in pretty much all your posts that the west is performing illegal actions daily. It's like you believe you're on some sort of higher horse that you get to point out the hypocrisy of anyone supporting western views. I find you're much like the fence sitters who claim to be neutral and free of bias and yet every post shows otherwise. I've not hidden the fact that I support Ukraine nor do I try to obfuscate my intent.