Russia invades Ukraine

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by Itse

So if the murderous dictator of a neighbouring country uses you as an excuse to invade your country, that means you have to move to that neighbouring country?

How does that make sense to you?

I never said it was fair, just necessary.

[dissentowner]

For the past few months I have made a friend who made the move from Ukraine to London Ontario. He joined the pool league I play in, he speaks no English so we have to use Google Translate to talk. He is an incredible man who is super kind. His family was killed in a Russian airstrike and I feel so terrible for him, just hanging out a lot with him and introducing him to everyone and trying to help the transition to life in Canada. He has an amazing sense of humour for someone who has experienced what he has. I hope Putin gets ousted and Russia gets the hell out of Ukraine already.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

So if the murderous dictator of a neighbouring country uses you as an excuse to invade your country, that means you have to move to that neighbouring country?

How does that make sense to you?

75% of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk voted for separation knowing that it would instigate involvement by Russia. These aren't innocent people in my opinion and the blood of their Ukrainian countrymen is on their hands as well. If they want to live in Russia and be Russian citizens, the country next door is for that exact purpose.

As mentioned, after WW2 the Potsdam agreement forced the re-settlement of Germans living in Eastern and Central Europe. Fourteen million were sent to Germany, many of whom were only allowed to bring one suit case of personal belongings with them. It wasn't fair, but the allies (especially Russia and the USSR) decided that the humane re-settlement of Germans to within Germany's boundaries was necessary to avoid a possible repeat of another German leader one day wanting to invade and annex territory to unite all Germans. You get one madman lunatic doing it once, and that is enough. Italians were treated the same in Albania and Yugoslavia after they were occupied and liberated. Greece and Turkey did the same thing after their war and both sides re-settled their people within their own borders to try and avoid future conflicts.

The 75% or so of Russians that signed the death warrants of what will probably be millions of Ukrainians should not be guaranteed benefits from the state that they tried to destroy. Maybe Ukraine is willing to reconcile with them, and that is their business. If they do though, I think their future security will always be in question. I think they would be well within their rights to force people who accepted Russian citizenship, to at least renounce one or the other, and deport those that prefer to keep Russian citizenship.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Gemnoble

I never said it was fair, just necessary.

Just because something was done before doesn't mean it was necessary then or that it's necessary now.

The whole idea is kind of obviously pointless. A nationalistic madman will always find an excuse. Russia has been happily attacking and/or occupying it's neighbours quite regardless of ethnicity for centuries, because it's bigger than it's neighbours and that's all the excuse great powers ever need.

If you drive ethnic Russians from those lands, the injustice of that act will be all the excuse anyone would need next time the idea of invading Ukraine comes up.

Additionally, the idea of forced mass deportation of ethnic Russians is great stuff for gathering international support.

This isn't a real solution to anything, it's just xenophobia.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

75% of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk voted for separation knowing that it would instigate involvement by Russia. These aren't innocent people in my opinion and the blood of their Ukrainian countrymen is on their hands as well. If they want to live in Russia and be Russian citizens, the country next door is for that exact purpose.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Are you talking about the sham referendums held in 2014 that no one legitimate took the result of seriously?

And I've never seen a reliable breakdown of vote by ethnicity. Are you forgetting that about 60% of the people in those regions are Ukrainian and even among them, there was virtually no support for the status quo back then? Almost everyone in those regions wanted more autonomy in 2014; not necessarily separation, but definitely devolution of a lot of Ukrainian government powers to the regions.

As mentioned, after WW2 the Potsdam agreement forced the re-settlement of Germans living in Eastern and Central Europe. Fourteen million were sent to Germany, many of whom were only allowed to bring one suit case of personal belongings with them. It wasn't fair, but the allies (especially Russia and the USSR) decided that the humane re-settlement of Germans to within Germany's boundaries was necessary to avoid a possible repeat of another German leader one day wanting to invade and annex territory to unite all Germans. You get one madman lunatic doing it once, and that is enough. Italians were treated the same in Albania and Yugoslavia after they were occupied and liberated. Greece and Turkey did the same thing after their war and both sides re-settled their people within their own borders to try and avoid future conflicts.

Yeah, really humane; only 500K-1M Germans were killed in the process.

And that situation was obviously a totally different context. Germany's borders were being shrunk significantly, so most of those people would have become stateless if they didn't move to within Germany's new borders. And you know, the Holocaust. Not the best comparison to ethnic cleansing of people who may or may not have voted to separate from Ukraine.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

75% of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk voted for separation knowing that it would instigate involvement by Russia. These aren't innocent people in my opinion and the blood of their Ukrainian countrymen is on their hands as well. If they want to live in Russia and be Russian citizens, the country next door is for that exact purpose.

As mentioned, after WW2 the Potsdam agreement forced the re-settlement of Germans living in Eastern and Central Europe. Fourteen million were sent to Germany, many of whom were only allowed to bring one suit case of personal belongings with them. It wasn't fair, but the allies (especially Russia and the USSR) decided that the humane re-settlement of Germans to within Germany's boundaries was necessary to avoid a possible repeat of another German leader one day wanting to invade and annex territory to unite all Germans. You get one madman lunatic doing it once, and that is enough. Italians were treated the same in Albania and Yugoslavia after they were occupied and liberated. Greece and Turkey did the same thing after their war and both sides re-settled their people within their own borders to try and avoid future conflicts.

The 75% or so of Russians that signed the death warrants of what will probably be millions of Ukrainians should not be guaranteed benefits from the state that they tried to destroy. Maybe Ukraine is willing to reconcile with them, and that is their business. If they do though, I think their future security will always be in question. I think they would be well within their rights to force people who accepted Russian citizenship, to at least renounce one or the other, and deport those that prefer to keep Russian citizenship.

There are a bunch of things I disagree with you on.

For one, ethnicity isn't a black and white thing like nationality is. In any place where people have been settled for a long time it flows and changes like a river. It crosses national boundaries and is all mixed up. That's normal, and it's not something you can just pick out by which side of a border someone's ancestors were born on or what language they speak. We already have one real live example of that in this thread with Huntingwhale's FIL.

For another, casting a vote for separation or independence does not make people responsible for the deaths and suffering in the war. They didn't kill anyone with their votes. They were not voting to murder people. They are not murderers, rapists, or terrorists for casting votes. Just as not every person who voted for Trump is someone who stormed the Capitol and not every person who voted for Obama is someone who flew drones into weddings, there's a limit to what's reasonable in attributing responsibility for people who cast votes for one thing when that's followed by something else.

Also, those who took Russian citizenship in a situation of being under Russian occupation during a war aren't necessarily people who ever wanted to leave Ukraine, lose their Ukrainian citizenship, or even people who identify as Russian. They're under occupation during a war. People make choices to survive. Treating them as traitors and kicking them out of the country because of filing some paperwork that probably helped to keep them safe under occupation is ridiculous. Besides, the ones who took Russian citizenship and who really want to be part of Russia can just move there on their own.

On the whole, it looks to me like a mixed up idea bound to cause needless harm to people who have done nothing wrong, who have themselves also been victims of war, and who are Ukrainian citizens.

[curves2000]

Excellent interview by former Washington Capitals beat reporter, Isabelle Khurshudyan who a few years ago made the switch to political reporting for the Washington Post.

She interviewed Ukraine's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forced, Valery Zaluzhny and discusses the counteroffensive.

Some very strong feelings towards Ukraine not getting the type of weapons and equipment in the volume it needs to make meaningful gains on the battlefield. Points to a lack of air superiority for Ukraine as a serious issue, one that NATO and Russian military tactics would never allow for the consequences on the ground.

I really really hope NATO, the US and the west have thought this through as much as possible in regards to this. If this doesn't go the way it's suppose to for Ukraine and the west, what will this mean for Europe, the west/China relations, the 2024 US Election with Trump etc.

Doesn't appear to be behind a paywall. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...mpaign=wp_main

Godspeed to the Ukrainian defenders.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Excellent interview by former Washington Capitals beat reporter, Isabelle Khurshudyan who a few years ago made the switch to political reporting for the Washington Post.

She interviewed Ukraine's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forced, Valery Zaluzhny and discusses the counteroffensive.

Some very strong feelings towards Ukraine not getting the type of weapons and equipment in the volume it needs to make meaningful gains on the battlefield. Points to a lack of air superiority for Ukraine as a serious issue, one that NATO and Russian military tactics would never allow for the consequences on the ground.

I really really hope NATO, the US and the west have thought this through as much as possible in regards to this. If this doesn't go the way it's suppose to for Ukraine and the west, what will this mean for Europe, the west/China relations, the 2024 US Election with Trump etc.

Doesn't appear to be behind a paywall. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...mpaign=wp_main

Godspeed to the Ukrainian defenders.

The materiel support for Ukraine gives me such complicated feelings.

On one hand it's been absolutely remarkable, a rare sign of unity and support from the west to a non-western country, in some ways even unprecedented.

On the other hand, it's kind of been a frustrating bag of half-measures.

[CliffFletcher]

Countries keep limited stockpiles of munitions in peacetime, and Ukraine is burning through shells, stinger missiles, etc. faster than Western countries can produce them. Even before the recent offensive, Ukraine was firing as many artillery shells in a few days as the U.S. produces in a month. Factories are being retooled to increase production, but the new targeted maximum output won’t be reached for 12-18 months.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Countries keep limited stockpiles of munitions in peacetime, and Ukraine is burning through shells, stinger missiles, etc. faster than Western countries can produce them. Even before the recent offensive, Ukraine was firing as many artillery shells in a few days as the U.S. produces in a month. Factories are being retooled to increase production, but the new targeted maximum output won’t be reached for 12-18 months.

The bigger issue though isn't that the west can't supply what they need, the issue is that they dither for months. Take the F16s. They finally now decide that yes Ukraine can have them, but not until after the counteroffensive. Why? The decisions are too slow

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The bigger issue though isn't that the west can't supply what they need, the issue is that they dither for months. Take the F16s. They finally now decide that yes Ukraine can have them, but not until after the counteroffensive. Why? The decisions are too slow

I read a comment on reddit now that I can't find, but offered an interesting point of view.

For every hour of F16 flight time, there are 12-15 hours of maintenance that goes into the jet. They have to build the logistics infrastructure in Ukraine or the jets become useless.

The other part is that Russia/USSR have very capable air defense. Since WWII, America's war doctrine has been to dominate the skies in a conflict. Russia knows they can't go toe to toe with NATO in the air, so they built mass batteries of air defenses. There is a very good chance that NATO loses a ton of F16s if they deploy them now. The reddit user argued that the better use of Western funds is to supply long range HIMARs en masse to really put a dent in the enemy fortifications.

Surely the combined industrial and financial might of NATO nations outpace the military production output of Russia and we can overpower them with the volume of shells and rockets we can produce.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I read a comment on reddit now that I can't find, but offered an interesting point of view.



For every hour of F16 flight time, there are 12-15 hours of maintenance that goes into the jet. They have to build the logistics infrastructure in Ukraine or the jets become useless.



The other part is that Russia/USSR have very capable air defense. Since WWII, America's war doctrine has been to dominate the skies in a conflict. Russia knows they can't go toe to toe with NATO in the air, so they built mass batteries of air defenses. There is a very good chance that NATO loses a ton of F16s if they deploy them now. The reddit user argued that the better use of Western funds is to supply long range HIMARs en masse to really put a dent in the enemy fortifications.



Surely the combined industrial and financial might of NATO nations outpace the military production output of Russia and we can overpower them with the volume of shells and rockets we can produce.

That's all fine and good. But the ask for them was over 6 months ago. They decided today.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The bigger issue though isn't that the west can't supply what they need, the issue is that they dither for months. Take the F16s. They finally now decide that yes Ukraine can have them, but not until after the counteroffensive. Why? The decisions are too slow

Countries don’t just have dozen and dozens of jets lying around. Western European countries have been underfunding their militaries for decades and are operating with a threadbare force pool. The Netherlands air force has 24 F-16s. Denmark has 30. Their military brass are understandably reluctant to hand over half their airforce if they can barely sustain the minimum necessary to meet their commitments as it is. Even hawkish Poland says it doesn’t have enough F-16s to supply Ukraine with any. Then there are legal barriers - Germany had to actually change its constitution to allow it to sell weapons to a country at war.

Europe isn’t sitting on their hands. They’re engaged in the biggest military buildup the continent has seen since the Cold War. The problem is that Western Europe had been at peace for a long time, and modern warfare consumes armaments at an astonishing rate.

[Street Pharmacist]

A) Ukraine is fighting a war to keep Russia off Europe's borders. Germany has more to fear from a Russian incision through Ukraine than the Netherlands trying to sneak into steal a Black First cake. This isn't benevolence and it's hardware has a legitimate purpose in Ukraine.

B) NATO has as many F16s today as it did 6 months ago. There's no need to dither. Do or don't. Stop "doing" 6 months after it's needed

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Countries don’t just have dozen and dozens of jets lying around. Western European countries have been underfunding their militaries for decades and are operating with a threadbare force pool. The Netherlands air force has 24 F-16s. Denmark has 30. Their military brass are understandably reluctant to hand over half their airforce if they can barely sustain the minimum necessary to meet their commitments as it is. Even hawkish Poland says it doesn’t have enough F-16s to supply Ukraine with any. Then there are legal barriers - Germany had to actually change its constitution to allow it to sell weapons to a country at war.

Europe isn’t sitting on their hands. They’re engaged in the biggest military buildup the continent has seen since the Cold War. The problem is that Western Europe had been at peace for a long time, and modern warfare consumes armaments at an astonishing rate.

You should go to the bone yard in Tucson Arizona. I think they have over 300 type 1000 F-16 aircraft just sitting there. Type 1000 being they are mothballed but in working order for future use.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Leondros

You should go to the bone yard in Tucson Arizona. I think they have over 300 type 1000 F-16 aircraft just sitting there. Type 1000 being they are mothballed but in working order for future use.

I went on a tour there and I believe the guide said that those planes are used strictly for parts sales to allied nations. They aren't exactly in working order.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

A) Ukraine is fighting a war to keep Russia off Europe's borders. Germany has more to fear from a Russian incision through Ukraine than the Netherlands trying to sneak into steal a Black First cake. This isn't benevolence and it's hardware has a legitimate purpose in Ukraine.

B) NATO has as many F16s today as it did 6 months ago. There's no need to dither. Do or don't. Stop "doing" 6 months after it's needed

That's not true. Ukraine isn't altruistically sacrificing themselves and their country to protect Europe. They are fighting a war to save their own country and people from Russia's invasion.

I don't think Germany has anything to fear from Russia. Germany is in NATO. Russia can't fight NATO.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I went on a tour there and I believe the guide said that those planes are used strictly for parts sales to allied nations. They aren't exactly in working order.

Type 1000's must have all parts intact and get a look over every 5 years for maintenance. You likely are thinking on the AMARG reclamation side.

[Muta]

Oh man I've wanted to go to that bone yard in Arizona so bad. The pictures of all the decommissioned aircraft make it look like an absolute playground to explore.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Muta

Oh man I've wanted to go to that bone yard in Arizona so bad. The pictures of all the decommissioned aircraft make it look like an absolute playground to explore.

Its quite the spectacle. Just acres and acres of planes in varying condition and eras. The celebrity section has some really cool models.