Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[Astronuc]

Kremlin lashes out at Poland for siding with Ukraine​

https://news.yahoo.com/kremlin-lashes-out-at-poland-for-siding-with-ukraine-134545060.html

Poland’s surprisingly spirited defense of Ukraine would prove “expensive and pointless,” Medvedev predicted, ominously adding that he was confident that Warsaw would “make the right choice” and embrace Russia again.

Medvedev binged on the Koolaid.

 

[BillTre]

According to this document, the U.S. made security agreements with Ukraine. Does the United States have the legal justification to intervene in Ukraine based on this even though Russia has trashed the treaty?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons

A.) All that document says is:

The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine.

It says nothing about intervening on Ukraine's behalf in a dispute with someone else.
This is often being misunderstood. It would be good to read it before posting it as a poor rationalization for something.

B.) the US has all the legal justification do whatever it wants with respect to intervening in Ukraine.
Treaty permission is not required.

 

[phinds]

B.) the US has all the legal justification do whatever it wants with respect to intervening in Ukraine.
Treaty permission is not required.

Legality is irrelvant. What is RELEVANT is whether or not it will start WWIII and the consensus seems to be that it would.

 

[bob012345]

A.) All that document says is:

It says nothing about intervening on Ukraine's behalf in a dispute with someone else.
This is often being misunderstood. It would be good to read it before posting it as a poor rationalization for something.

B.) the US has all the legal justification do whatever it wants with respect to intervening in Ukraine.
Treaty permission is not required.

This is what stood out to me when I read the document;

To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence.

Are you saying this only means that from the U.S. perspective the U.S. promises not to threaten or use force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence?

BTW, I was not rationalizing going to war, I was asking a question.

 

[BillTre]

Are you saying this only means that from the U.S. perspective the U.S. promises not to threaten or use force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence?

Yes. the same goes for the Russians, which obviously is not worth much.

 

[Jarvis323]

How likely is it that that is intentionally done as a policy rather than happening through callous disregard?

They also bombed a theater filled with more than 1,000 sheltering civilians, especially children. Just prior to that, someone released a video plea from the location for humanitarian aid, because they were running out of food.

It is believed that Russia took notice to the theater based on the video, and were eager to bomb it because they knew it housed so many civilians and many children. After the bombing, Russian soldiers were heard aware of what they had done and celebrating.

I think that anywhere which hurts the most is where they want to hit the most.

 

[russ_watters]

How likely is it that that is intentionally done as a policy rather than happening through callous disregard?

With nowadays weapons? 100% intentionally.

True but tricky. What's tricky is identifying the target and proving whether it's [known] military or civilian. Using human shields is a war crime. Soldiers dressing as civilians is a war crime. Russia is claiming that Ukrainian forces are mixing with civilians, thus making the otherwise civilian targets legitimate military targets. Proving Putin is knowingly attacking purely civilian targets would be difficult.

[edit] Note: the case of the theater just above may be the most egregious and easiest to prove case of a purposely bombed, clearly civilian target.

 

[russ_watters]

Legality is irrelvant. What is RELEVANT is whether or not it will start WWIII and the consensus seems to be that it would.

Agree with the first part but not the second. The second part is a tautology (war between the West and Russia is the typical definition of WWIII) and isn't what matters. What matters is whether that war would become nuclear*. And I don't think there's a consensus about that. Some people seem to think it would be inevitable, others that it would be possible to likely and still others (me) believe it would almost certainly not happen. Of course, still others would say that "almost certainly not" is still too high a risk.

*Russia's showing in this war has been an epic failure. Iraq put up a better fight in both Gulf Wars. I feel like we (the US/NATO) could likely end this war in a matter of hours if we chose to, with air power alone. If it stayed conventional.

Some recent regional wars fought by the US/west:
Kosovo air war: 10 weeks, 27,000 sorties (air only)
First Iraq War: 6 weeks, 100,000 sorties
Second Iraq War: 4 weeks, 41,000 sorties

 

[russ_watters]

Apropos:

Russia's security policy dictates that the country would only use nuclear weapons if its very existence were threatened, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN in an interview on Tuesday.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-if-its-existence-were-threatened-2022-03-22/

While I've said several times I assumed that was the criteria, that's a very odd thing for Russia to announce. They're basically telling us we can drive them out of Ukraine without fear of a nuclear escalation.

 

[valenumr]

Apropos:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-if-its-existence-were-threatened-2022-03-22/

While I've said several times I assumed that was the criteria, that's a very odd thing for Russia to announce. They're basically telling us we can drive them out of Ukraine without fear of a nuclear escalation.

That's an odd walk back given most of their recent rhetoric, but it does align with their announced doctrine.

On the other hand, Putin's idea of Russia and it's survival seem to blur the lines.

 

[artis]

How likely is it that that is intentionally done as a policy rather than happening through callous disregard?

It's intentional for sure. Make no mistake, ordinary unguided bombs are not that precise but also not that imprecise. The bombs don't have a tolerance factor of +-10miles. In a big city you don't exactly have a hospital on every street corner. So to hit a hospital when the nearest military target is say 5 miles is not a mistake.
Nor is it a mistake that in a high rise apartment suburb most buildings get bombed. Those apartment suburbs where huge for USSR built cities. In the picture below is one of the highrise apartment suburbs in Kharkiv, Ukraine, if 10 out of 10 bombs land in such an area can you really say it's a coincidence ?

 

[artis]

One question that I wonder about is this, the Ukrainian forces surely have some capability to lob a conventional weapon into Russia but they don't. My though is they restrain because they do not want to give any justification to Putin for his actions and because they are fighting a defensive war on the moral high ground.

I'm afraid they don't have any such capability. They only have close range weapons, from manpads to RPG's to some surface to air tools. Russian troops are already within their territory, the only real way they could send a bomb within Russian territory is either by a ballistic missile or through a bomber or fighter jet, but Russia has concentrated large SAM power near the border so realistically they would be shot down.

And I fail to see any need for them to provoke an even bigger attack or give Kremlin credibility, so far I'd say their already given an A+ performance holding back and weakening the already low conscript morale within the Russian army.

 

[artis]

True but tricky. What's tricky is identifying the target and proving whether it's [known] military or civilian. Using human shields is a war crime. Soldiers dressing as civilians is a war crime. Russia is claiming that Ukrainian forces are mixing with civilians, thus making the otherwise civilian targets legitimate military targets. Proving Putin is knowingly attacking purely civilian targets would be difficult.

[edit] Note: the case of the theater just above may be the most egregious and easiest to prove case of a purposely bombed, clearly civilian target.

Not to excuse Russian war crimes but I think there is some truth to that. Certainly Ukrainians aren't the first ones who came up with the tactic to hide behind civilian "facades" when fighting. Taliban etc are doing it all the time.
Given they are on the defense and Russia on the attack and most positions are held within urban surrounding, sure enough fighters hide behind buildings.

One local expert, which I could link here but would be of little use due to language, said basically this. That urban warfare is very hard and if one wants to "ride out" fighters in large numbers with high morale from such a setting one basically either has two choices, either

A) Go by foot door to door until you kill the last enemy soldier, or
B) Bomb the holy crap out of most infrastructure including buildings and starve the ones hiding to death.Oh and variant A is also complicated because it's not just Ukrainian soldiers that attack Russian troops, it is basically every granny and kid with a glass jar of pickles waiting for the right moment to sabotage.
You can't really win when everybody hates you so you basically have to resort to variant B.
Mariupol seems to be experiencing variant B

 

[artis]

What is interesting I just read that it's not just Putin recruiting foreign mercenaries from Syria, Kazakhstan, Chechnya etc, people from the same countries also voluntarily join Ukrainian side. So much so that you can now hear a fighter launching RPG's onto enemy exclaiming "Allahu akbar!" Even in a CNN newsclip.
Some Latvians have also joined the fight.

Meanwhile seems US has had some Russian weapons systems put away in storage for training etc. They plan giving them to Ukraine.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-defense-systems-are-headed-to-ukraine-report

 

[BillTre]

Right click and "copy video address" and "insert link".

Here is a PolitiFact article that analyzes why this video is so good.
The video is very slick in a Hollywood way, but it also has a bunch of hooks well aimed at his audience.

 

[BillTre]

Here is a New Yorker interview with Andrei Soldatov, an investigative journalist and an expert on the Russian state’s intelligence apparatus.
(You get some number of free articles.)
He discusses who has power, who is talking to who, where his contacts are now, what Putin's mad about, etc.
Interesting article.

 

[wrobel]

I think there is some truth to that. Certainly Ukrainians aren't the first ones who came up with the tactic to hide behind civilian "facades" when fighting.

such charges should be proved by independent investigations

 

[geordief]

Apropos:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-if-its-existence-were-threatened-2022-03-22/

While I've said several times I assumed that was the criteria, that's a very odd thing for Russia to announce. They're basically telling us we can drive them out of Ukraine without fear of a nuclear escalation.

Yes ,I thought it odd that their criterion was anything out of the normal or unreasonable.

Perhaps it is even getting to the stage where they would welcome an excuse to be forced to leave ( just don"t be mean to us when we are gone.)

Ridiculous I know but bar the nuclear threat no less ridiculous than launching this war in the first place

 

[Astronuc]

Apropos: Russia's security policy dictates that the country would only use nuclear weapons if its very existence were threatened, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN in an interview on Tuesday.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-if-its-existence-were-threatened-2022-03-22/

While I've said several times I assumed that was the criteria, that's a very odd thing for Russia to announce. They're basically telling us we can drive them out of Ukraine without fear of a nuclear escalation.

Unless the criterion for "perceived threat" was intervention by other nations in Ukraine, as in a no-fly zone and attacking Russian forces in Ukraine up to the borders. If NATO does not intervene directly due to threat of an escalation to nuclear weapons, then Putin would successfully demonstrate the deterrence of possessing nuclear weapons. The question remains as to whether Putin would deploy tactical nuclear weapons within Ukraine, and if so, how would NATO respond.

As for civilians, I don't believe it is a war crime for civilians to be armed and to defend their own homes and nation, regardless of what Russia claims. It would be a different matter if civilians or combatants were out of uniform in another nation.

 

[fresh_42]

True but tricky. What's tricky is identifying the target and proving whether it's [known] military or civilian. Using human shields is a war crime. Soldiers dressing as civilians is a war crime. Russia is claiming that Ukrainian forces are mixing with civilians, thus making the otherwise civilian targets legitimate military targets.

Not to excuse Russian war crimes but I think there is some truth to that. Certainly Ukrainians aren't the first ones who came up with the tactic to hide behind civilian "facades" when fighting. Taliban etc are doing it all the time.

This is speculation. Putin has been proven to lie all the time, the Ukrainians not (up to now). Putin has used a similar strategy in Aleppo already. Hence it looks as if such an excuse is more likely Russian propaganda than having a factual basis. Of course, this is speculation, too, but it has at least some evidence.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a New Yorker interview with Andrei Soldatov, an investigative journalist and an expert on the Russian state’s intelligence apparatus.

Good article.

Hint of things to come:

Well, we know about the director of the S.V.R., Sergey Naryshkin, being humiliated, because it was done publicly, and this meeting was broadcast. We know about the F.S.B. purges because I’ve been investigating this particular unit of the F.S.B. starting in 2002, when actually I learned that there was such a thing inside of the F.S.B., which is supposed to be purely a domestic agency. But it’s obtained new powers, and they were given authority to conduct operations abroad, specifically in the former Soviet Union, meaning in Ukraine.

Not only Ukraine, but the Baltic states, Georgia, and others, and perhaps the former Warsaw pact nations. Putin will not stop with Ukraine, especially with current and more severe sanctions in place.

 

[Rive]

It's just twitter-level news so far, but some significant Russian forces might got surrounded west of Kyiv. Bucha, Irpin and Hostomel area were mentioned.

 

[Astronuc]

Reuters reports that Anatoly Chubais, Putin's first boss under Yeltsin, quits and leaves Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...e-stalled-besieged-mariupol-burns-2022-03-23/ (registration or subscription may be required).

Chubais was one of the principal architects of the economic reforms under Yeltsin in the 1990s. Chubais went on to run some big state business under Putin and held some political positions, and lately served as a special envoy to some international organizations.

Meanwhile, Reuters reported on Medvedev's statement warning US about a "nuclear dystopia" as Putin's regime claims the US is pushing forward with a conspiracy to destroy Russia. And apparently, the US and NATO are supposed to let Russia take Ukraine, or destroy it, and mind their own business.
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-ally-says-united-states-is-trying-destroy-russia-2022-03-23/

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-03-23/putin-ally-says-the-united-states-is-trying-to-destroy-russia

Dmitry Medvedev, who was president from 2008 to 2012 and is now deputy secretary of Russia's Security Council, said the United States had conspired to destroy Russia as part of an "primitive game" since the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union.
"It means Russia must be humiliated, limited, shattered, divided and destroyed," Medvedev, 56, said in a 550-word statement.
The views of Medvedev, once considered to be one of the least hawkish members of Putin's circle, gives an insight into the thinking within the Kremlin as Moscow faces in the biggest confrontation with the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Putin says the operation was necessary because the United States was using Ukraine to threaten Russia and Moscow had to defend against the "genocide" of Russian speakers by Ukraine. Ukraine says Putin's claims of genocide are nonsense.

Of course, Putin's claims are nonsense. One cannot reason with a delusional mind.

 

[Office_Shredder]

As for civilians, I don't believe it is a war crime for civilians to be armed and to defend their own homes and nation, regardless of what Russia claims. It would be a different matter if civilians or combatants were out of uniform in another nation.

I think this is wrong, anyone participating in direct combat is supposed to wear something indicating they are a combatant, so the other side is able to distinguish civilian targets from military targets.

 

[woopydalan]

Reuters reports that Anatoly Chubais, Putin's first boss under Yeltsin, quits and leaves Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...e-stalled-besieged-mariupol-burns-2022-03-23/ (registration or subscription may be required).

Chubais was one of the principal architects of the economic reforms under Yeltsin in the 1990s. Chubais went on to run some big state business under Putin and held some political positions, and lately served as a special envoy to some international organizations.

Meanwhile, Reuters reported on Medvedev's statement warning US about a "nuclear dystopia" as Putin's regime claims the US is pushing forward with a conspiracy to destroy Russia. And apparently, the US and NATO are supposed to let Russia take Ukraine, or destroy it, and mind their own business.
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-ally-says-united-states-is-trying-destroy-russia-2022-03-23/

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-03-23/putin-ally-says-the-united-states-is-trying-to-destroy-russia

Of course, Putin's claims are nonsense. One cannot reason with a delusional mind.

Not sure it's delusional. They're just going to say whatever they need to say. I doubt he really believes what he is saying. But they definitely want Ukraine under their control.

 

[geordief]

I think this is wrong, anyone participating in direct combat is supposed to wear something indicating they are a combatant, so the other side is able to distinguish civilian targets from military targets.

So a civilian is not allowed to resist an invasion without joining the official army of his or her country?

And what about undercover operations to commit economic sabotage.Do they have to advertise their affiliation ."hello I am your neighborhood spy"

 

[artis]

So a civilian is not allowed to resist an invasion without joining the official army of his or her country?

And what about undercover operations to commit economic sabotage.Do they have to advertise their affiliation ."hello I am your neighborhood spy"

In a perfect world you would have two armies with clearly identifiable insignias and markers having a "pro" fight just between the actual fighters while a granny would still water her flowers in the background.
I think the closest we have ever come to this is the ancient battles where two armies walked up to each other and faced off in a field, sort of like in American football.

Almost no modern conflict has been like this for various reasons.
Why would a civilian not be allowed to resist an invasion? In fact in Ukraine this is happening. Everybody with two arms and some will is resisting but not all of them wear uniforms or are identifiable.

This is speculation. Putin has been proven to lie all the time, the Ukrainians not (up to now). Putin has used a similar strategy in Aleppo already. Hence it looks as if such an excuse is more likely Russian propaganda than having a factual basis. Of course, this is speculation, too, but it has at least some evidence.

I don't think it's speculation. I am not arguing about the level of civilian targeting which is so high that indicates that it is done on purpose. But I am saying that if you have a fight in urban area and in Ukraine this is the case in almost every major city then how can you not have civilian casualties?
Every video of urban warfare from Ukraine so far that I've seen is where fighters are in some sort of building and then they move and take positions on streets and elsewhere.

I just don't think that even if Putin personally ordered every Russian soldier to only aim at Ukrainian fighters there would be no civilian casualties. In the same time I agree that the number of those casualties and specific buildings targeted also suggest much of it is done on purpose.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't think it's speculation.

This is a contradiction in itself. Either you have evidence or you are speculating. Do you have evidence?

 

[bob012345]

I think this is wrong, anyone participating in direct combat is supposed to wear something indicating they are a combatant, so the other side is able to distinguish civilian targets from military targets.

So, if the invaders storm my village and I grab my gun and start shooting, I am a war criminal if I don't change my clothes first?

 

[wrobel]

People in Russia are scared and suppressed indeed. And what I see on utube: journalists of RadioLiberty are conducting a survey on the streets of Moscow. They stop a passerby and ask him with a microphone and a video camera. Surprise, surprise: 100% respondents happily support the so called "special military operation" in Ukraine and Putin and etc. What is the sh$t? Why do not these fair journalists report how many people just denied to speak when saw the label "RadioLiberty" and the video camera? Who benefits from such a picture?

 

[phinds]

Who benefits from such a picture?

Putin of course. How could you even ask?

 

[wrobel]

Putin of course. How could you even ask?

well I suppose that RadioLiberty does not work for him.

 

[PeroK]

Not sure it's delusional. They're just going to say whatever they need to say. I doubt he really believes what he is saying. But they definitely want Ukraine under their control.

Everyone starts to believe their own propaganda, sooner or later.

 

[wrobel]

Everyone starts to believe their own propaganda

oh yes, the first rule of drug dealer: never use your own dope

 

[russ_watters]

So a civilian is not allowed to resist an invasion without joining the official army of his or her country?

They are, they just have to be readily identifiable as combatants.

And what about undercover operations to commit economic sabotage.Do they have to advertise their affiliation ."hello I am your neighborhood spy"

No, but they understand that while operating as spies they are not fully protected by the Geneva Conventions.

Guys, I didn't bring this issue up to bash the Ukraine with it. Nobody blames the Ukrainian civilians for taking up arms to defend their country, and people don't get put on trial for fighting without a uniform. The context was about whether Putin could be successfully tried for war crimes for attacking civilians. The point is that if the Ukrainian people muddy the waters regarding who is a combatant and who isn't, it gets harder to prove Putin is purposely targeting civilians. In addition to putting civilians in harms way.

This is speculation. Putin has been proven to lie all the time, the Ukrainians not (up to now). Putin has used a similar strategy in Aleppo already. Hence it looks as if such an excuse is more likely Russian propaganda than having a factual basis. Of course, this is speculation, too, but it has at least some evidence.

My point is that if we want to fantasize about Putin hanging from a gallows at the Hague, we'll need to do better than just speculating that he's purposely targeting civilians. It needs to be proven.