Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[Branko]

<...>

Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization. <...>

Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.


paxmao, when you describe the concept of "legal annexation", what relevant international legal documents did you follow so that I could also get acquainted with them?

In the course of your comment, I had a few questions. If you don't mind, please answer them. I have put my questions in brackets in your quote.

Legal annexation could potentially be if, after a long period of peace (How many months or years exactly?), a referendum with all guarantees (What are these guarantees and who provides them?), time to put forward arguments against and in favour (Who chooses such time?) and abundant international observers (How many observers should be there and who should appoint them?) is held among the inhabitants of a region a a majority decides that they want to join a different state.

According to the definition of "annexations" which I found, they are illegal.

Code:

<...>F.  Evaluation
38  Under present international law, annexations are illegal since they are incompatible with the most fundamental rule
on the prohibition of any threat or use of force. As such, they do not result in a lawful title to territory. All States are
under a legal obligation not to recognize annexations and their consequences as lawful. They may, however, give some
de facto recognition to unlawful annexations in order to accommodate adequately the needs of the inhabitants of the
annexed territory. There are good reasons to consider the prohibition of annexations and the obligation not to recognize
them and their consequences as lawful as rules of customary international law with the rank of ius cogens.

Links:
http://www.anamnesis.info/node/624
https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1376

It is much better understood if one thinks of a referendum of independence of which there are a few cases.

Regarding referendums, there is an interesting post with some historical data confirming that the countries of the so-called collective West (led by the US and UK) are ready to recognize or not recognize the results of referendums, only when they get benefits from it.


Source in Russian

* Updated quote from Encyclopedia of Public International Law on Annexation

Not all separatists are treated equally

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1581759661769826304

[1714541518]

1714541518

[1714541518]

1714541518

[1714541518]

1714541518

[suchmoon]

Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.

There is no reason for Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons as part of a special operation in Ukraine, all speculation about this is groundless. The possibilities of conventional weapons are far from being exhausted. However, the situation is developing in such a way that the military defeat of Ukraine seems to be an unacceptable scenario for the development of events for the United States and NATO. And for Russia, a military defeat of Russia is unacceptable. Under such conditions, the probability of an attempt to cut the tightening Gordian knot with a strategic nuclear strike is higher than zero. I think Russia's numerous threats about possible strikes on decision-making centers are not "the last Chinese warning" and are not directed at Kyiv at all, but at Washington and London. I see one of the most realistic scenarios for such a strike in the combat use of Poseidon nuclear drones. One Poseidon of half power is enough to wash away London and all of England with a radioactive tsunami. Four full-power Poseidons (two from the Atlantic and two from the Pacific) are enough to wash away Washington, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco and create a deserted coastal zone 500 km deep on both coasts of the United States. After that, apparently, a mutual exchange of missile strikes between Russia and the United States and a test of the combat capability of their missile defense systems will begin. The chances of Russia in the post-apocalypse world, in my opinion, are higher than the chances of the United States, primarily for geographical reasons (vulnerability to strikes from the ocean), and secondly for technical reasons (the United States has no effective countermeasures against Poseidon, plus Russia has a hypersonic weapons and the overall advantage of delivery vehicles, plus, in my opinion, the missile defense system in Russia is more effective than the missile defense system in the United States). But the main beneficiary of such a scenario would likely be China (if the conflict in Taiwan does not erupt before the conflict in Ukraine enters a critical phase).

Thank you both for the Channel 1 broadcast but out here in the real world Putin's demands and threats aren't very impressive. They're designed to impress you in the soviet russian imperial propaganda bubble and it seems to be working so far. Get ready to accept the great victory of defending Voronezh against the evil nazis.

[be.open]

Thank you both for the Channel 1 broadcast but out here in the real world Putin's demands and threats aren't very impressive. They're designed to impress you in the soviet russian imperial propaganda bubble and it seems to be working so far. Get ready to accept the great victory of defending Voronezh against the evil nazis.

It is only thanks to Russia's asymmetric dominant superiority in nuclear weapons that the US and NATO are doing their best to avoid being drawn directly into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The real world is a strange thing, six months ago it was difficult to assume that Iran has an asymmetric dominant superiority in the development of kamikaze drones. And now NATO is feverishly looking for an effective antidote to flying lawnmowers.

[LTU_btc]

It is only thanks to Russia's asymmetric dominant superiority in nuclear weapons that the US and NATO are doing their best to avoid being drawn directly into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The real world is a strange thing, six months ago it was difficult to assume that Iran has an asymmetric dominant superiority in the development of kamikaze drones. And now NATO is feverishly looking for an effective antidote to flying lawnmowers.

You're saying that NATO don't have antidote for these Iran drones, but in reality, things is a bit different. Ukraine simply have lack of modern air defense systems, but even with stuff that they have, they don't let high % of these lawnmowers to reach point of destination. Though, expensive missiles are being used to shoot down these $20k worth drones.
Russia destroying civilian and critical infrastructure of Ukraine, but how much it helps Russia to achieve something in front? Rhetorical question.
And it's same like they don't use word ''war when they talk about what's happening in Ukraine, they're afraid or ashamed to admit that they're using drones from Iran.

Thank you both for the Channel 1 broadcast but out here in the real world Putin's demands and threats aren't very impressive.

When I read this post I really felt like watching Russian propaganda TV or reading drunk Medvedev telegram posts about Judgement Day . These things works in Russia, but outside it it's just makes smiles.

[Kavelj22]

Putin today announced about martial law in occupied regions of Ukraine - Donbas, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/19/putin-declares-martial-law-in-annexed-regions-of-ukraine
But how you can declare martial law there when it's aready been declared by Ukraine on 24th February?
And does it means that Russians will be allowed to call it war, or it's still "special military operation"?

After Putin succeeded in annexing Ukrainian regions and holding a referendum in them, there are reports in the pro-Ukrainian media saying that the Ukrainian army succeeded in retaking large parts of these regions. This was accompanied by silence from the Russian side to comment on the matter.
Is it possible that the news is true or is it only for media consumption as the two parties are accustomed to doing?

The recent events showed a shift in the course of the war, and it seems that what Russia called the military operation to protect minorities in Ukraine, became one of its most important goals to bring down the political regime in Ukraine.

Actually, none of annexed regions isn't fully controlled by Russia. Like Zaporizhia Oblast, they don't have control of capital of region - Zaporizhia city. Even Luhansk oblast isn't fully controlled by them, few villages is controlled by Ukraine.
And Russia aren't silent about Ukraine's counteroffensive. Offcourse, they won't tell what's really happening, they are using excuses like regrouping of troops.
You can follow realtime information in front on maps like https://www.deepstatemap.live/ or https://liveuamap.com/
They also announced about evacuation from Kherson to left bank of Dniepr river:
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-updates-moscow-begins-evacuation-from-kherson/a-63484112
No panic, keep calm, like they like to say.

Russia may have announced the annexation of these areas after the success of its military invasion, but there is no evidence to the contrary, at least with regard to what the Ukrainian forces, which announced their recapture of limited areas of those that Russia announced that it had annexed, mean the opposite.

By the same logic, it cannot be said that the Ukrainian forces have recaptured those provinces, especially since Russia had announced a referendum in those regions to find out the opinion of the residents. I know that this may have been done in a fictitious form, but it actually happened, which means Russia's seizure of the vital centers in those provinces.

[suchmoon]

Russia may have announced the annexation of these areas after the success of its military invasion, but there is no evidence to the contrary, at least with regard to what the Ukrainian forces, which announced their recapture of limited areas of those that Russia announced that it had annexed, mean the opposite.

By the same logic, it cannot be said that the Ukrainian forces have recaptured those provinces, especially since Russia had announced a referendum in those regions to find out the opinion of the residents. I know that this may have been done in a fictitious form, but it actually happened, which means Russia's seizure of the vital centers in those provinces.

What "vital centers"? Just look at the map and see the regions LTU_btc is talking about. Running a "referendum" and announcing an annexation doesn't make the territories belong to Russia. It's a stupid ploy so that they can now say "Russian territory" is under attack. It doesn't make the military activities any more successful. Russians are hastily leaving Kherson, which was the only major city they captured this year other than the nearly-destroyed Mariupol.

[TwitchySeal]

Not all separatists are treated equally

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1581759661769826304

Basques in general support Ukraine.  And Putin hasn't started a war in Spain.  He'll need to finish what he started in Ukraine and still have a military first.

Like Ukraine, Spain would be a great country for Putin to invade if he wanted NATO to continue expanding quickly.

[be.open]

It is only thanks to Russia's asymmetric dominant superiority in nuclear weapons that the US and NATO are doing their best to avoid being drawn directly into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The real world is a strange thing, six months ago it was difficult to assume that Iran has an asymmetric dominant superiority in the development of kamikaze drones. And now NATO is feverishly looking for an effective antidote to flying lawnmowers.

You're saying that NATO don't have antidote for these Iran drones, but in reality, things is a bit different. Ukraine simply have lack of modern air defense systems, but even with stuff that they have, they don't let high % of these lawnmowers to reach point of destination. Though, expensive missiles are being used to shoot down these $20k worth drones.
Russia destroying civilian and critical infrastructure of Ukraine, but how much it helps Russia to achieve something in front? Rhetorical question.
And it's same like they don't use word ''war when they talk about what's happening in Ukraine, they're afraid or ashamed to admit that they're using drones from Iran.

In fact of the matter. Due to the low cost, you can launch fifty kamikaze drones at one target and it will be almost guaranteed to be hit, even if it is protected by the best air defense system. In this case, you spent only a million dollars, and your opponent shot all the ammunition and still could not protect the target. This is a serious problem for Ukraine and NATO, for which there is currently no solution (especially in the event of a night attack). Generally speaking, this is a problem for Russia too, because the mass production of such drones in garage conditions can be quickly deployed by almost any country in the world. By the way, this is why Iran denies its involvement in the supply of Shahid-136 drones to Russia, these drones are made in Russia and are called Geran-2. And in terms of the set of components, they are even more Chinese than Iranian.

When I read this post I really felt like watching Russian propaganda TV or reading drunk Medvedev telegram posts about Judgement Day . These things works in Russia, but outside it it's just makes smiles.

Glad you're having fun.

[TwitchySeal]

these drones are made in Russia

Source?

And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.

[BADecker]

these drones are made in Russia

Source?

And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.

There are other people who think this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136

https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/vX4kaC/Shahed-136Geran-2

If you are really interested in this, use the Yandex.com search engine and whatever good translation site you can find.

[TwitchySeal]

these drones are made in Russia

Source?

And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.

There are other people who think this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136

https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/vX4kaC/Shahed-136Geran-2

If you are really interested in this, use the Yandex.com search engine and whatever good translation site you can find.

I'm not seeing anywhere in your links any claim that they were made in Russia.

Looks like a few weeks ago Russia admitted they suck at making drones, while Iran has been putting tons of resources into developing drones for over a decade with very good results: https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-accepts-drones-inferiority-says-most-uavs-dont-meet/

[Kavelj22]

Russia may have announced the annexation of these areas after the success of its military invasion, but there is no evidence to the contrary, at least with regard to what the Ukrainian forces, which announced their recapture of limited areas of those that Russia announced that it had annexed, mean the opposite.

By the same logic, it cannot be said that the Ukrainian forces have recaptured those provinces, especially since Russia had announced a referendum in those regions to find out the opinion of the residents. I know that this may have been done in a fictitious form, but it actually happened, which means Russia's seizure of the vital centers in those provinces.

What "vital centers"? Just look at the map and see the regions LTU_btc is talking about. Running a "referendum" and announcing an annexation doesn't make the territories belong to Russia. It's a stupid ploy so that they can now say "Russian territory" is under attack. It doesn't make the military activities any more successful. Russians are hastily leaving Kherson, which was the only major city they captured this year other than the nearly-destroyed Mariupol.

I am trying to read the events based on the information published by the media, which cannot be completely trusted, since it will always belong to one of the parties to the conflict.
Unfortunately, Ukraine does not have an air defense system, and its forces on the ground lack sufficient support and experience. This makes it hard to believe that the Ukrainian army is making any progress on the battlefield.
I agree with you that holding the referendum is a fictitious thing to give an illusory legitimacy to colonialism, but this proves that the armies have actually controlled the aspects of life in those regions.

[BADecker]

these drones are made in Russia

Source?

And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.

There are other people who think this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Shahed_136

https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/vX4kaC/Shahed-136Geran-2

If you are really interested in this, use the Yandex.com search engine and whatever good translation site you can find.

I'm not seeing anywhere in your links any claim that they were made in Russia.

Looks like a few weeks ago Russia admitted they suck at making drones, while Iran has been putting tons of resources into developing drones for over a decade with very good results: https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-accepts-drones-inferiority-says-most-uavs-dont-meet/

But both sites show you that there are people who link the Shahed-136 to the Geran-2. It's a start.

[suchmoon]

I am trying to read the events based on the information published by the media, which cannot be completely trusted, since it will always belong to one of the parties to the conflict.

There is no big disagreement between the sides as to what territory is under their control. You can overlay the map from e.g. Deep State (pro-Ukrainian) over the maps from pro-Russian sources (e.g. Rybar) and it will be very similar.

Unfortunately, Ukraine does not have an air defense system,

False.

and its forces on the ground lack sufficient support and experience.

False, albeit subjective and relative so perhaps some aspects of it can be twisted into "lacking".

Ukrainian forces are generally better trained, have superior reconnaissance, and are better supplied with certain types of modern weapons, although their starting position wasn't too good and Russian forces have huge amounts of soviet equipment and ammunition, not to mentioned their meat grinder strategy. Again, this is all largely confirmed even by pro-Russian sources, if you just look past the official RF MOD "we shot down 300 airplanes of 50 they had" bullshit.

I think you're making the assumption that Ukrainians can't successfully fight back based on false information.

[BADecker]

Fortunately, Ukraine does not have an effective air defense system.

Putin has the Ukraine beat, hands down. He's just Biden biding his time until China is ready to start a war with the US. Then things will be really easy taking down both the US and Ukraine... all without nukes.

[paxmao]

Following you argument, who in their right would try to stop NATO on a battlefield. When you get to war like this is because you have already failed in using soft power.
 

Its impossible to win using soft power when other side own world money printing machine
...

Again, and just for the shake of following your logic - not agreeing with it - it is impossible to win in a battlefield when the opposing party controls the money printing machine, has a larger, better trained and better equipped army and is not sending their own to die, but rather arming another country.

Perhaps one could conclude that Adolf Putin's RF is throwing a very expensive and deadly tantrum.

Fortunately, Ukraine does not have an effective air defense system.

...

More than half of the incoming attacks are being shot down. Those numbers are likely to increase once Germany sends their systems and the US sends the AMRAAM based systems (kind of cheap, effective and with a virtually unlimited supply of spares).

The reason Adolf Putin has to throw expensive and many time inaccurate missiles is precisely because the airspace dominance has been denied by the effectiveness of the Ukrainian defence and, to be fair, by corruption, incompetence and lack of real resources from the RF since day 1.

[be.open]

these drones are made in Russia

Source?

And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.

Well, at least Geran-2 is more accurate than Shahid-136, because it uses the GLONASS satellite system for guidance, and not a commercial GPS.

[paxmao]

<...>

Russia has issued a grim warning to the rest of the world: World War III is all but guaranteed if Ukraine’s Western allies continue to meddle in their ongoing conflict. Specifically, a top Kremlin official threatened worldwide destruction should NATO approve Ukraine’s request to join the organization. <...>

Of course, the threat of a nuclear conflict should not be underestimated, but I do not think that there are suicide bombers in the Kremlin or the Pentagon who are ready to destroy themselves and the whole world in a fiery hell. And even if there are such rabid psychopaths in the highest positions, they are more likely to be neutralized by people from their environment who want to live. However, while European leaders are now methodically killing the economies of their states and escalating the conflict more and more at the instigation of the USA, the confidence that a global war between East and West can be avoided is fading before our eyes.


paxmao, when you describe the concept of "legal annexation", what relevant international legal documents did you follow so that I could also get acquainted with them?

In the course of your comment, I had a few questions. If you don't mind, please answer them. I have put my questions in brackets in your quote.

Legal annexation could potentially be if, after a long period of peace (How many months or years exactly?), a referendum with all guarantees (What are these guarantees and who provides them?), time to put forward arguments against and in favour (Who chooses such time?) and abundant international observers (How many observers should be there and who should appoint them?) is held among the inhabitants of a region a a majority decides that they want to join a different state.

According to the definition of "annexations" which I found, they are illegal.

Code:

<...>F.  Evaluation
38  Under present international law, annexations are illegal since they are incompatible with the most fundamental rule
on the prohibition of any threat or use of force. As such, they do not result in a lawful title to territory. All States are
under a legal obligation not to recognize annexations and their consequences as lawful. They may, however, give some
de facto recognition to unlawful annexations in order to accommodate adequately the needs of the inhabitants of the
annexed territory. There are good reasons to consider the prohibition of annexations and the obligation not to recognize
them and their consequences as lawful as rules of customary international law with the rank of ius cogens.

Links:
http://www.anamnesis.info/node/624
https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1376

It is much better understood if one thinks of a referendum of independence of which there are a few cases.

Regarding referendums, there is an interesting post with some historical data confirming that the countries of the so-called collective West (led by the US and UK) are ready to recognize or not recognize the results of referendums, only when they get benefits from it.


Source in Russian

* Updated quote from Encyclopedia of Public International Law on Annexation

...

Pretty much all irrelevant to the case. Adolf Putin ordered a few fakeferedums to make annexations as something demanded by the population. It is impossible for a population to express a will a gunpoint. Trying to pass the the illegal (thanks) annexations as something demanded by the population, but is simply impossible to recognise in the middle of a war, mass graves, killing and soldiers forcing people to vote. For those who want to understand, it is fairly simple.

As for you legal quotes ... well, sure... all annexations are illegal. No problem is that is what you are trying to prove?? So that would include the recent ones by Adolf Putin, sure, thanks - illegal they are - pretty much my point.

It is very clear for whoever wants to understand - for a change is the status of a region you would allow people to express views, pros and cons openly and in peace and then let the majority decide. It does not matter if it is one month, or two months or a year, it is about a large majority of countries and institutions considering the polling and campaigning free and pacific (pacific enough sometimes).

Is it relative? Yes. Does anything fly as you suggest? No, it does not. There is a minimum. Times are changing so much (thanks Trump, Boris, Putin, Xi,...) that is easy to put everything into doubt and make facts appear as "maybes" and you are just trying to relativize and put forward some legal opinions as if that was an exact science - it is not. The citizens of a territory can chose to organise themselves however they please, and that could be joining an existing country or abandoning an existing one.

If you are here to argue about semantics just do not use "annexation", but rather voluntarily joining or voluntary union  - short of what happens when a country joins the EU (and that sometimes is without referendum).  Does secession or annexation always require a referendum... I would say that it would also be acceptable that a government elected with full democratic guarantees and a program of claiming secession clearly expressed would be valid.

Now, all the whattabout:

- Catalonia held a referendum that did not have any guarantee so it was not accepted by any country in EU, nor US, nor pretty much anyone. It was very clear that it did not have the basics. Apart, is well known that of the four regions of Catalonia, two (including the capital Bacelona!) are not in favour of secession.

- The referendum on independence of Scotland, agreed with the UK government, resulted on a no. It did have all guarantees.

- Referendums in the old USSR were probably not required by the existing law (the USSR law did allow secession as far as I know). If you want to argue that they were illegal you would need something more that just saying so and if you are trying to make them like a "west" doing you would also need some evidence. No wonder you are using a source in Russian  


BTW, please see here a list of countries that declared their independence from UK. Do you think the west did accept these just for benefit?.

[TwitchySeal]

these drones are made in Russia

Source?

And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.

Well, at least Geran-2 is more accurate than Shahid-136, because it uses the GLONASS satellite system for guidance, and not a commercial GPS.

I mean how do you know that the drones are being manufactured in Russia?  Where did you get this information?

[be.open]

these drones are made in Russia

Source?

And don't tell me it's just because they renamed them.

Well, at least Geran-2 is more accurate than Shahid-136, because it uses the GLONASS satellite system for guidance, and not a commercial GPS.

I mean how do you know that the drones are being manufactured in Russia?  Where did you get this information?

What makes you think that these drones are made in Iran and were simply renamed Geran-2? Do you have any proof of this other than allegations? Or the contact fuse of a kamikaze drone does not allow you to study the wreckage of even those drones that managed to shoot down? I pointed out to you above the difference between Geranium-2 and Shahid-136 (another navigation board). This is a significant difference that affects the accuracy of hitting the target.

In addition to Geran-2, Russia also has a kamikaze drone Geran-1 (very similar, but slightly more compact and with a rotary piston engine). The same class of drones also includes the loitering ammunition Lancet, which has recently also been often used in special operation. In general, this hysterical winding of snot on a fist about possible military assistance to Russia from Iran is quite funny. Considering that three dozen countries supply lethal weapons to Ukraine.

ps No Iranian Arms Delivery to Russia for Ukraine War