[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Braggfan]

Eh? Passing the law now wouldn't involve a referendum, it's simply a way of making it impossible to give Russia land. So if a peace agreement did involve giving them land, it can later be pointed out that it wasn't lawful, so Ukraine hasn't agreed to it.

I get what you're saying, but the invasion is already unlawful under international law so it probably wouldn't give the Ukraine much that they don't already have.

 

[Insel affe]

We certainly don't all know that. And when you say Russia, I assume you mean Putin? Because the people of Russia don't want what's happening to their country.

You are being pedantic, you know I mean not just Putin, but there are millions in Russia who believe he is right and would given the chance of power continue what he is doing, possibly some worse.
To think all Russians are brainwashed by Putin and his regime and the sole reason they are behind the war is naïve and dangerous.

We have to hope the Russian people can break free of this cycle they are in of oligarchs and former soviet union idealist.

 

[vegster]

hmmm, big talk from someone who's political career melted away after minor obstacles. should really be showing more leadership in his homeland than having a whine at the west.

I think Kasparov has seen what happened to Navalny and Nemtsov and the unfortunate civilian protesters in Russia....you have to be incredibly brave to stand against Putin.

 

[beorhthelm]

I wouldn’t call anything related to providing a political alternative to Putin as “minor obstacles”.

accepted, but he's criticising the west for taking the easy options, when doing so himself living in New York.

 

[Triggaaar]

I get what you're saying, but the invasion is already unlawful under international law so it probably wouldn't give the Ukraine much that they don't already have.

I have no idea if my thought has any merit at all. The invasion is of course unlawful, but if/when a peace agreement is reached, if Ukraine agree to say that Crimea (and potentially some other regions) are part of Russia, how easy is it for Ukraine to then go back on that some time later? I'm just wondering whether it could make it easier for Ukraine to keep a claim to its lands, even if it hands them over in a forced peace deal.

 

[Triggaaar]

You are being pedantic, you know I mean not just Putin, but there are millions in Russia who believe he is right and would given the chance of power continue what he is doing, possibly some worse.
To think all Russians are brainwashed by Putin and his regime and the sole reason they are behind the war is naïve and dangerous.

When you said 'Russia will get what it wants', no, I honestly didn't know exactly what you meant. I'm sure that the majority of Russians would not support what he's doing if they knew the truth (the fact that there was peace in Ukraine, and Russia are flattening cities in order to kill civilians), so I disagree with you.

 

[Braggfan]

I have no idea if my thought has any merit at all. The invasion is of course unlawful, but if/when a peace agreement is reached, if Ukraine agree to say that Crimea (and potentially some other regions) are part of Russia, how easy is it for Ukraine to then go back on that some time later? I'm just wondering whether it could make it easier for Ukraine to keep a claim to its lands, even if it hands them over in a forced peace deal.

I like the logic of your idea. I think anything that makes it harder for them, particularly in the eyes of the interantional community is definitely a good thing.

Especially as I think if Ukraine concedes any land its going to be incredibly difficult to reclaim it down the line. But I wonder if Putin starts dropping chemical weapons and risking the lives of hundres of thousands or even millions, if there will come a point where conceding the land becomes an option, with the hope of reclaiming in the years to come when Putin eventually goes. International support will always favour Ukraine for years to come, as everyone will know they made any consessions under duress and the threat to civilian life.

 

[beorhthelm]

I have no idea if my thought has any merit at all. The invasion is of course unlawful, but if/when a peace agreement is reached, if Ukraine agree to say that Crimea (and potentially some other regions) are part of Russia, how easy is it for Ukraine to then go back on that some time later? I'm just wondering whether it could make it easier for Ukraine to keep a claim to its lands, even if it hands them over in a forced peace deal.

history of Europe is agreed treaties that get broken, areas invaded years later. once agreed, the territories are fixed, though there'll always be some group wanting to right the wrongs of the previous leaders.

 

[Eric the meek]

'We are on brink of surviving war' - Zelensky tells Italian MPs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60830013 - at 10:56.

Extraordinary. Absolutely extraordinary.

A few days ago, I read an article in which western analysts were surprised at the lack of progress by the Russians.
We've discussed possible reasons - poor planning, over-estimating their own abilities, fear of telling the truth so mistakes are not admitted and lessons not learned, poorly maintained equipment, poor logistics etc etc.

But, huge credit to Ukraine. No doubt it was helped by western intelligence and weaponry, but to resist the 'mighty' Russia? Wow.

If - IF - Zelensky is correct, it will change the world.
Dozens of nations will no longer be afraid of Russia.

 

[Insel affe]

When you said 'Russia will get what it wants', no, I honestly didn't know exactly what you meant. I'm sure that the majority of Russians would not support what he's doing if they knew the truth (the fact that there was peace in Ukraine, and Russia are flattening cities in order to kill civilians), so I disagree with you.

When you say Russia are flattening cites, do mean all Russians ?

 

[Triggaaar]

history of Europe is agreed treaties that get broken, areas invaded years later. once agreed, the territories are fixed, though there'll always be some group wanting to right the wrongs of the previous leaders.

Have you got some examples of countries invading a peaceful country and then forcing them to accept land taken, which then remains with the aggressor in the eyes of the international community (I assume there are some good examples, I just don't know them)?

 

[Triggaaar]

'We are on brink of surviving war' - Zelensky tells Italian MPs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60830013 - at 10:56.

Extraordinary. Absolutely extraordinary.
...

But, huge credit to Ukraine. No doubt it was helped by western intelligence and weaponry, but to resist the 'mighty' Russia? Wow.

If - IF - Zelensky is correct, it will change the world.
Dozens of nations will no longer be afraid of Russia.

Slow down there fella. I think he's just trying to be upbeat.

From your link: "He told Italian MPs his country was on the brink of surviving its war with Russia and warned Moscow wanted to break through to the rest of Europe, Reuters news agency reports." That doesn't make sense. He's saying that Ukraine is close to surviving the war (so winning it) and that also Russia wants to break through to the rest of Europe. There's no logic there, Russia isn't going to lose against Russia and then immediately attack the rest of Europe.

I haven't seen any intelligence to suggest Russia has to stop killing soon.

 

[Baldseagull]

I have no idea if my thought has any merit at all. The invasion is of course unlawful, but if/when a peace agreement is reached, if Ukraine agree to say that Crimea (and potentially some other regions) are part of Russia, how easy is it for Ukraine to then go back on that some time later? I'm just wondering whether it could make it easier for Ukraine to keep a claim to its lands, even if it hands them over in a forced peace deal.

Even if it allowed for international agreement that Russia was illegally occupying Ukraine, or whatever part of it it may end up occupying, the UN, the international court of justice and even the Israeli Supreme Court all agree that Israel is illegally occupying and settling the West Bank. They have been there since 1967.

 

[beorhthelm]

Have you got some examples of countries invading a peaceful country and then forcing them to accept land taken, which then remains with the aggressor in the eyes of the international community (I assume there are some good examples, I just don't know them)?

well the obvious, topical one would be the Soviet Union. invaded and absorbed baltic countries, Ukraine, Belarus, the 'stans in the east and others. widely recognised for what 70 years? before that you have the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Prussian empire, etc. all drawing and redrawing lines on the map every decade or so.

 

[Eric the meek]

Slow down there fella. I think he's just trying to be upbeat.

From your link: "He told Italian MPs his country was on the brink of surviving its war with Russia and warned Moscow wanted to break through to the rest of Europe, Reuters news agency reports." That doesn't make sense. He's saying that Ukraine is close to surviving the war (so winning it) and that also Russia wants to break through to the rest of Europe. There's no logic there, Russia isn't going to lose against Russia and then immediately attack the rest of Europe.

I haven't seen any intelligence to suggest Russia has to stop killing soon.

Of course he's trying to be upbeat.

But consider the following:

The Russian advance has stalled. Countless articles confirm this.
The factory making tanks has had to stop making them as it cannot get the components it needs from the west. So, the long term capacity of Russia to replenish its battle tanks is in doubt.
Ukrainian intelligence says the Russians have at most three days worth of food and ammunition left.

This won't necessarily stop them killing soon, but they will see that they cannot continue as they have done. Their current strategy is not sustainable.
We are already seeing a change of strategy - killing at a distance, with longer range missiles. This is a direct result of Ukrainian resistance, the inability of Russia to achieve its short term objectives, and poor logistics to keep the front lines supplied.

Zelensky said Ukraine was on the brink of surviving the war. He didn't say Ukraine was on the brink of winning it.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The main concern is that Russia will start using Chemical weapons, killing so many civilians that Ukrainian cities are forced to surrender. Only then with Putin want to negotiate peace, on his terms. His terms will include handing parts of Ukraine to Russia. I wonder whether Ukraine could pass a law now that makes it impossible for them to cede any land to another country without a referendum - one that would have to be verified by the UN (which in turn could only be done once Russian troops had withdrawn)?

If they did pass law law requiring a referendum, that law could simply be revoked (in the event that a different Ukrainian administration happened to feel differently on the matter). It would be basically worthless

 

[Triggaaar]

well the obvious, topical one would be the Soviet Union. invaded and absorbed baltic countries, Ukraine, Belarus, the 'stans in the east and others. widely recognised for what 70 years? before that you have the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Prussian empire, etc. all drawing and redrawing lines on the map every decade or so.

I'd like to think the world is less accepting of empires now.

 

[Triggaaar]

Zelensky said Ukraine was on the brink of surviving the war. He didn't say Ukraine was on the brink of winning it.

What do you think 'surviving the war' means? If Putin starts killing many thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, and cities are forced to surrender, presumably you wouldn't count that as surviving the war? And despite Russia's war not going to plan so far, what evidence do we have that cities won't be forced to surrender?

 

[Triggaaar]

If they did pass law law requiring a referendum, that law could simply be revoked (in the event that a different Ukrainian administration happened to feel differently on the matter). It would be basically worthless

I suspect you're right. So what exactly is the point of a country's constitution? Why, for example, do US presidents (with support of congress etc) not change the law to allow themselves to sit for more than 2 terms? (I realise this is what Putin has done, but we don't recognise Russia as a democracy).

 

[Eric the meek]

What do you think 'surviving the war' means? If Putin starts killing many thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, and cities are forced to surrender, presumably you wouldn't count that as surviving the war? And despite Russia's war not going to plan so far, what evidence do we have that cities won't be forced to surrender?

My interpretation of 'surviving the war' (which may not be the same as the one that matters - Zelensky's), is that Ukraine continues to exist as an independent nation, without a puppet government installed by Moscow. What is your interpretation of it?

The evidence that we have that cities will not be forced to surrender, is that they haven't surrendered so far, despite the onslaught. Unfortunately, I don't have the power to see into the future, so what has happened until now is all I have to go on. Much like all of us.