Ukraine Conflict - "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare"

[Elerond]

13 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

There's no "failure" in Kherson. It's a harder fight there, and yet UA is making slow but steady progress.

My analysis is that the Kherson front was always the main front for the UA offensive. Then, when the Russians shifted forces from the Khar'kiv area to reinforce the south, the Ukrainians very quickly organized an opportunistic offensive in Khar'kiv. It's not just the significant quantities of relevant weaponry the US is giving Ukraine but also the high-quality, real-time intel the US is feeding them that is a game-changer.

By information that we have got from Ukraine, strategy on Kherson front has been different from Kharkiv front. In Kherson Ukraine has publicly told about offensive, they have focused on Russian supply lines, done only little to break defensive lines, where in Kharkiv they started with direct assault to Russian defensive positions and targeting Russian air defenses show that they could use drones and migs to support their assault.

So in Kherson they seem to focus on wearing out Russian defenses and in Kharkiv their plan seems have been to surprise Russian defenses with direct assault. In Kharkiv they seem to have succeeded to surprise Russia and forced them to retreat to better position to avoid their troops becoming encircled.

Amount of forces Ukraine has in their Kharkiv assault points that it was not just opportunistic offensive, but longer planned assault, as they used there for first time MiG's with new air to surface missiles from USA to take out Russian SAMs. Most of their heavy drones seems to also be in Kharkiv front. 

[Mamoulian War]

Speaking about “failed” Kherson offensive.

 

there are rumours, that among these settlements is also Snihurivka. One of the most fortified Russian fortresses in Kherson Oblast. We’ll see soon, if it is true or not.

[Mamoulian War]

And Belgorod right now

 

[pmp10]

2 hours ago, kanisatha said:

There's no "failure" in Kherson. It's a harder fight there, and yet UA is making slow but steady progress.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Two salients created when their breakthrough attempts were contained are well visible on the map even today.

Maybe they can eventually grind-out a win of sorts but this was clearly not the plan.
Especially given the costs.  

[xzar_monty]

@Mamoulian War: Yeah, but what is that thing burning in Belgorod?

[Malcador]

Electric infrastructure is a legit target, I had thought.

[xzar_monty]

9 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Electric infrastructure is a legit target, I had thought.

That's some very odd thinking. How can Russia have any legit targets as its entire operation lacks all legitimacy?

[Lexx]

They bomb hospitals and kindergarten, them bombing power plants and stuff isn't that much of a crazy idea.

[xzar_monty]

As soon as Russia encounters difficulties on the battlefield, it will take revenge on the civilian population. This has been apparent both in this war and in its previous wars. The Russian army is quite good at killing unarmed people with all kinds of weapons.

[Malcador]

10 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

That's some very odd thinking. How can Russia have any legit targets as its entire operation lacks all legitimacy?

Well, I suppose someone can go to a war crimes tribunal for attacking a Ukrainian BMP.   But we'd done this in '91 and I recall the US doing similar in '03 (not too sure), likewise in Serbia and general consensus was power can be used for military purposes (and of course there's a cheeky dodge the same way everyone does with white phosphorous).

 Had wondered why this wasn't done sooner, but then again in west, it's harder.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Malcador

[pmp10]

Not coincidentally the last working nuclear reactor was shut down today at Zaporizhzhia NPP.
I bet Russia planned to hit the energy grid during the winter anyway, but after offensive they needed a quick morale boost. 

[Mamoulian War]

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

As soon as Russia encounters difficulties on the battlefield, it will take revenge on the civilian population. This has been apparent both in this war and in its previous wars. The Russian army is quite good at killing unarmed people with all kinds of weapons.

If they would use half the effort, which they use for targeting civilians to actually target UA army, they would be celebrating in Kyiv for a few months already.
 

edit: coincidentally blackout in Belgorod as well. And electricity mostly restored in UA.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

Electric infrastructure is a legit target, I had thought.

Same as with everything; if our side does it it's a legit target, if the other side does it it's not.

Russia attacking an unmanned TV tower --> warcrime. NATO bombing Yugoslav media centre, killing 16, not.

Indeed, the first line 2nd paragraph from wikipedia on that bombing could probably stand to be quoted "The bombing was part of NATO's aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and severely damaged the Belgrade headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). Other radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked."

I may have added some mild emphasis to get the point accross.

And in terms of the tired and much debunked 'no legitimate targets as not legitimate war argument': I seem to have forgotten the resolution number that allowed NATO to attack Yugoslavia legally. Perhaps someone can supply it for me?

Edited September 11, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Sarex]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_during_Operation_Allied_Force

[Mamoulian War]

18 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Same as with everything; if our side does it it's a legit target, if the other side does it it's not.

Russia attacking an unmanned TV tower --> warcrime. NATO bombing Yugoslav media centre, killing 16, not.

Indeed, the first line 2nd paragraph from wikipedia on that bombing could probably stand to be quoted "The bombing was part of NATO's aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and severely damaged the Belgrade headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). Other radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked."

I may have added some mild emphasis to get the point accross.

And in terms of the tired and much debunked 'no legitimate targets as not legitimate war argument': I seem to have forgotten the resolution number that allowed NATO to attack Yugoslavia legally. Perhaps someone can supply it for me?

Please enlighten us, how the illegal NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, make the current Russian invasion of Ukraine a just cause? Or do you have by any chance access to similar resolution legalizing their attacks?

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Please enlighten us, how the illegal NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, make the current Russian invasion of Ukraine a just cause? Or do you have by any chance access to similar resolution legalizing their attacks?

Really strange to ask that.

Now, wonder if Ukraine can use this to justify getting ATACMS from the US.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Malcador

[bugarup]

9 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

(*) For me, this martyrdom stuff has probably been the most baffling aspect of the war. Russia is the wailing killer, the weeping rapist, the crying destroyer. "Why is everyone so mean to me, what have I done?" it asks while shelling hospitals, raping babies and murdering civilians.

It makes sense when you take russian messianistic complex into account. "We're there to show teh One Troo Way (that is Our Way), why those savages cannot comprehend that?!?!" Bull**** of "We russians are special" kind is very much state-supported narrative since, well, that shriveled infected ballsack lodged itself more or less firmly onto the throne, and it is also supported by church and other institutions. Why? Well, when you choose to pocket away all your country's income and give the people bupkis, you need something else to keep them in line, since it's logistically difficult and economically unsound to attach a KGB thug to everyone or jail them all. So telling them they are special and misunderstood and giving them an enemy to vent anger at (gays, NATO, Ukrainians) works.

[Elerond]

12 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Really strange to ask that.

Now, wonder if Ukraine can use this to justify getting ATACMS from the US.

Question is does US want to give Ukraine weapons that they can use to strike Russia. So far Biden has insisted that USA does not give such weapons to Ukraine.

[bugarup]

Whataboutism aside, I'm not seeing any unmanned TV tower attack called a "war crime" in any news feed? Just russia being russia and retaliating in its usual way, i.e. making life difficult for civilians by disrupting infrastructure? And there are casualties, by the way,

[Zoraptor]

20 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Please enlighten us, how the illegal NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, make the current Russian invasion of Ukraine a just cause? Or do you have by any chance access to similar resolution legalizing their attacks?

It doesn't.

(It's mainly used as a 'kill two birds example'. Not a legally sanctioned war, therefore if the 'no legitimate targets in illegitimate war' claim applied- which it doesn't per Internaional Law- it would apply there as well. And I happened to know that NATO had extensively targeted a load of Yugoslav civilian infrastructure, especially so when frustration levels rose so high with their lack of progress on the ground- and had some fairly, uh, interesting justifications given for it too, like 'accidentally' speeding up footage by a factor of 4 to justify blowing up a civilian train. So it also applies to the question of whether civilian infrastructure is legitimate. I could have used Iraq 2003 as well, but a war that NATO was formally involved in rather than a few of its members seemed more relevant)

[Malcador]

31 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Question is does US want to give Ukraine weapons that they can use to strike Russia. So far Biden has insisted that USA does not give such weapons to Ukraine.

Yep, have known that is the policy.  At least people who don't matter will be jumping up and down calling for it.  Guess whatever they did hit wasn't that great, Ukraine claims they shot down 9 out of 11 missiles.

[Mamoulian War]

Well, Zoraptor, judging by your logic, if I wanted to be an utter cynic, NATO bombing YU and attacking civilians, happened, because they “took an example” from Soviet Union killing civilians in Afghanistan, which took example of USA killing civilians in Vietnam… and so on, until we end up somewhere in Antics
 

And it will be always the same kind of whataboutism, you are bringing up all the time. Yes there were many atrocities in the past, committed by different people. But currently, it is Russia who deliberately kills civilians, not USA, nor Rome…

Just for a second try to compare Russian offensives in last few months with current Ukrainian offensive… Behind Russian actions, all you can see is completely destroyed towns and villages with thousands upon thousands killed civilians. Now look, and tell us what you see behind Ukrainian actions… Although, I am 100% sure that even in this case, you will be able to squeeze in there some kind of NATO/USA/Ukraine bad as well “trivia”…

Edited September 11, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Zoraptor]

22 minutes ago, bugarup said:

Whataboutism aside, I'm not seeing any unmanned TV tower attack called a "war crime" in any news feed? Just russia being russia and retaliating in its usual way, i.e. making life difficult for civilians by disrupting infrastructure? And there are casualties, by the way,

Yes, the casualty thing definitely needs a correction, five people died in the Kiev attack. It was most certainly labelled as a war crime though, as it was said to be deliberate targeting of civilians (which would be a war crime by definition; killing civilians in an attack on a legitimate target isn't though).

Otherwise you really need to look up what 'whataboutism is'. It certainly isn't- but is often used as- a carte blanche defence against people pointing out hypocrisy. eg:

But what about the US genociding its native population or Britain starving millions of Indians? --> whataboutism. Has no relevance to the situation, only introduced to, basically, troll.

Pointing out that NATO bombed electrical infrastructure as well is completely relevant to the question of whether doing so it's 'terrorism' or illegitimate though. Otherwise it's just "my football team never commits fouls or goes offside. Those dirty opposition lives players live offside, hack our ankles and dive like Greg Louganis though". You might be happy with that approach to International Law, I'm not.

2 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well, Zoraptor, judging by your logic, if I wanted to be an utter cynic, NATO bombing YU and attacking civilians, happened, because they “took an example” from Soviet Union killing civilians in Afghanistan, which took example of USA killing civilians in Vietnam… until we end up somewhere in Antics

Not really, there's nothing to do with taking examples from any prior conflict except to illustrate that civilian infrastructure with a military purpose is a legitimate target- for everyone.

Sure, could use the US killing 2 million North Vietnamese as an example, but it's also from 30 years prior to Yugoslavia. Always use the most relevant and recent example.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Yes, the casualty thing definitely needs a correction, five people died in the Kiev attack. It was most certainly labelled as a war crime though, as it was said to be deliberate targeting of civilians (which would be a war crime by definition; killing civilians in an attack on a legitimate target isn't though).

Doesn't that only apply in a war? Remember, according to Putin there is no war, just a special military operation. I.e. no official state of war exists, so the rules of war don't apply, only peace time rules.

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

Doesn't that only apply in a war?

No it doesn't.

To be facetious; how many wars can you think of that were legally Declared post WW2? Surely not none? So... the Geneva Conventions have not applied to anything since 1945? Guess International Law really is useless.

Not being facetious; the wording was deliberately changed to 'armed conflict' in 1949.

Both Ukraine and Russia are parties so the rules apply as if it were a declared war.