Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Storr]

"With both Ukraine and Russia haunted by fears of demographic decline, Russia’s policy of kidnapping Ukrainian children has an added poignancy. That crime has led the International Criminal Court to bring charges against President Vladimir Putin. It epitomises the lawlessness and brutality of Russia — the main reason why so many Ukrainians are utterly determined to break free from Moscow’s grip.

The safe harbour that Ukraine is aiming for is the EU. While Russian imperialism is built on violence and cultural suppression, the EU represents a different sort of empire — one that you have to apply to join and is based on law and the voluntary association of nations."

Edit to include my thoughts: Despite the hopeful tone of the article, it feels discouraging that the last country in Europe ravaged by war, Bosnia and Herzegovina, is still waiting for the "safe harbour" of EU membership 30 years after that war ended. The sad part is that Ukraine will likely have to wait as long to join the club.

https://twitter.com/gideonrachman/status/1642848537313435649?s=20

[Stranger in a strange land]

I don't understand why the US isn't training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 right now.

If it turns out down the road that the F-16 aren't needed, no harm is done.

Same here, especially since the US and other allies are retiring them as the F-35 enters service. Sure, these airframes are old and reaching the end of their service lives, but they only need to fly until the end of the war, after which they can be replaced.

[2952-0-0]

snip

I'm honestly surprised that the UOC wasn't just banned after the invasion. Sure, it would have been an "authoritarian" move, but no more so than banning pro-Russian parties as was done fairly early, and both seem to present serious security risks in wartime that fully justify a limitation on civil liberties.

The threshold for banning religious organizations must be much higher than for banning political parties, since freedom of religious belief includes the freedom to form organizations without government interference. Banning the UOC-MP would also lead to social division which could be exploited by Russian propaganda, and raise questions about the Ukrainian government's commitment to fundamental human rights during a time of war, to a much greater extent than banning pro-Russian political parties. Of course, individual clergy who commit crimes against the state should still be prosecuted as would any other Ukrainian citizen, but targeting the organization as a whole would raise many more questions than it would answer. Obviously, religious organizations that actually direct acts of violence should be held accountable before the law. There's no easy answer to this question, but whatever action is taken must respect the principle that, without religious freedom - including the freedom of adherents to form organizations outside government control, all the other fundamental human rights would be in question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

snip

I'm honestly surprised that the UOC wasn't just banned after the invasion. Sure, it would have been an "authoritarian" move, but no more so than banning pro-Russian parties as was done fairly early, and both seem to present serious security risks in wartime that fully justify a limitation on civil liberties.

The threshold for banning religious organizations must be much higher than for banning political parties, since freedom of religious belief includes the freedom to form organizations without government interference. Banning the UOC-MP would also lead to social division which could be exploited by Russian propaganda, and raise questions about the Ukrainian government's commitment to fundamental human rights during a time of war, to a much greater extent than banning pro-Russian political parties. Of course, individual clergy who commit crimes against the state should still be prosecuted as would any other Ukrainian citizen, but targeting the organization as a whole would raise many more questions than it would answer. Obviously, religious organizations that actually direct acts of violence should be held accountable before the law. There's no easy answer to this question, but whatever action is taken must respect the principle that, without religious freedom - including the freedom of adherents to form organizations outside government control, all the other fundamental human rights would be in question.

This idea that religious freedom holds a special place compared to other freedoms of expression/association is a deeply North American cultural artifact that doesn't really make sense in a European context (especially not a post-Soviet one where religious history is Fraught to say the least). What exactly makes a religious organization inherently more deserving of protection than a political party? I don't disagree that this is a touchy subject, but restrictions on civil liberties that are considered untouchable during peacetime can be called into question during wartime, and this seems to be a case where the national security concern is clear and unmistakable. I totally respect Zelenskyy's choice not to go after the UOC here, but I don't think we can dismiss all counterargument with the usual generic paeans about religious freedom that you hear in Congress all the time.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Feher_Junior/status/1642881377417691147

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1642508840594702336

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1642508840594702336

If I was feeling generous, I'd say Twitter did that because there is a lot of disinformation and controversy regarding the war and a low-effort solution is to suppress the spread of all information about it.

But the war is not unique in being controversial and a subject of disinformation campaigns (things to do with e.g. Trump probably cause bigger problems with ad sponsors these days), and I'm not feeling generous.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1643037065708204032
https://mobile.twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1643037499164327938
If this guy is right (and he seems to be a good source) then Ukraine is close to a million man army and they are adopting more NATO/Western style organization/doctrine

[Red Velvet]

Are we saying that Woodbury, Jaichind, and this global south guy are necessarily in camp 1?

Russian sanctions in practice only serve for the US and Europe (mostly Europe) to be humiliated by countries like Saudi Arabia and India lmao. You’re crazy if you think I’m annoyed by the western reaction to Russia, if anything I love the convergence it brings to non-western nations.

Saudi Arabia isn’t going against their self-interests and going to produce more oil based on whatever geopolitical decision you westerners decide it’s obligatory lmao. I get it’s hard concept for people who see themselves and their views as the center of the world that everyone must follow them.

Much more game for the Saudis to produce less, diminishing offer and consequently elevating the prices so that they can make more money per production, while also importing cheaper Russian oil at the same time and selling it to you westerners at a much more expensive price, justified by the reduction from production causing the global prices to go higher.

Russians get their way through the sanctions, Saudis and Indians get their easy money and Westerners can burn the money they seem to spare in order to feel morally superior to everyone while still virtually buying Russian products. Everyone happy, I guess.

[2952-0-0]

Russians get the way through the sanctions, Saudis and Indians get their easy money and Westerners can feel morally superior to everyone while still virtually buying Russian products and burning the money they have to spare. Everyone happy, I guess.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/03/15/russias-oil-revenue-sinks-as-sanctions-bite-iea-a80491

Russia's oil-export revenue sank by almost half in February compared to last year as Western powers tightened sanctions on the country, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday.

The country earned $11.6 billion from its oil exports last month after the European Union imposed a ban on Russian petroleum products alongside a price cap agreed with the Group of Seven and Australia, according to the IEA.

This was down from $14.3 billion in January and a 42% drop from $20 billion in February last year.

Russia, however, was still shipping "roughly the same" amount of oil to world markets, according to the IEA, which advises wealthy nations.

"This indicates that the G7 sanctions regime has been effective in not restricting global crude and product supplies, while simultaneously curtailing Russia's ability to generate export revenue," the IEA said.

Think of it this way: under the direction of the western powers, the Russians are providing the much poorer Indians with a source of free money, while ensuring global oil markets still receive their needed supplies. Everyone is happy, except the Russian finance minister.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Red Velvet weird Russia and the “global south” vs the West fantasy has been more of the most bizarre things to follow throughout the war on here as a lot of the countries he cites as “the global south” tend to be more sympathetic to Ukraine

[Red Velvet]

Russia doesn’t need to make all the money they did from before the war, they need the necessary to sustain themselves for the long-run. Obviously sanctions have an effect but it’s much more reduced than the weight people expected.

Saudi Arabia and OPEC countries (which includes Russia) cutting their production in order to elevate oil prices as a reaction has the goal of making more money in the expense of those who buy it, which include US and Europe who in average, consume much more resources than anywhere else in the planet.

Oil exporters get their money, but importers are f*****. Europe (minus Norway) will be way more affected by this than the US, but everyone will see the consequences of another rise in global inflation.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Looks like these three guys are too lazy to think outside the методичка. Now they have a методичка about oil and they don't deviate from it at all, no matter what others say at this thread.

[Storr]

The fact that 78% of Ukrainian refugees in the EU and UK are higher education/university graduates indicates to me that these are the kind people Ukraine desperately wants to bring back after the war in order to create a flourishing academia, political environment, civil society, and economy. If not, it could end up like a Bosnia or Kosovo situation where most/many that fled due to war didn't return due to better prospects and living standards.

https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1643065850793164801?s=20

[Storr]

A really interesting article diving into Soviet records from the Cuban Missile Crisis released to the public last year, with some parallels to the current conflict:

"At the top of the proposal, Khrushchev wrote the word “agree” and signed his name. Some distance below are the signatures of 15 other senior leaders. If the operation failed, Khrushchev wanted to make sure no other members of the leadership could distance themselves from it. He had successfully browbeaten his colleagues into literally signing on to his hare-brained scheme. A strikingly similar scene would repeat itself 60 years later, when, days before the invasion of Ukraine, Putin forced members of his security council, one by one, to speak out loud and endorse his “special military operation” at a televised meeting."

"Top Soviet commanders also wanted to conceal the true purpose of Operation Anadyr [code name for the operation which deployed missiles to Cuba]—even from much of the rest of the Soviet military. The official documents, part of the recently declassified trove, referred to the operation as an “exercise.” Thus, the greatest gamble in nuclear history was presented to the rest of the military as routine training. In a striking parallel, Putin’s misadventure in Ukraine was also billed as an “exercise,” with unit-level commanders being left in the dark until the last moment."

https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1642768744974897158?s=20

[Storr]

While Finland joins NATO, Ukraine is left waiting:

"Kyiv formally applied for membership in September but the alliance has taken no formal steps in response.

“There’s this application letter on the table and we’re just ignoring it,” said one of the diplomats. “Fine, membership might not be an option right now. But we can take concrete actions short of that or in support of that to show we believe in it long term.”"


https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1643128132273164289?s=20

[Middle-aged Europe]

While Finland joins NATO, Ukraine is left waiting:

"Kyiv formally applied for membership in September but the alliance has taken no formal steps in response.

“There’s this application letter on the table and we’re just ignoring it,” said one of the diplomats. “Fine, membership might not be an option right now. But we can take concrete actions short of that or in support of that to show we believe in it long term.”"


https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1643128132273164289?s=20

Well, admitting Ukraine as a member now would automatically mean World War III given the existence of Article V of the NATO treaty. Priority should be placed on getting Sweden in the alliance and continuing to supply Ukraine with arms and ammunition.

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1642935305333293056
https://twitter.com/TreasChest/status/1643128997125976065

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1643040450910236673

[Lord Halifax]

Well, admitting Ukraine as a member now would automatically mean World War III given the existence of Article V of the NATO treaty. Priority should be placed on getting Sweden in the alliance and continuing to supply Ukraine with arms and ammunition.

a war between NATO and Russia/Belarus would not be a world war

[Steve from Lambeth]

Well, admitting Ukraine as a member now would automatically mean World War III given the existence of Article V of the NATO treaty. Priority should be placed on getting Sweden in the alliance and continuing to supply Ukraine with arms and ammunition.

a war between NATO and Russia/Belarus would not be a world war

It would be. Mass-scale usage of nuclear weapons will negatively affect the health of the entire global population.

[Lord Halifax]

Well, admitting Ukraine as a member now would automatically mean World War III given the existence of Article V of the NATO treaty. Priority should be placed on getting Sweden in the alliance and continuing to supply Ukraine with arms and ammunition.

a war between NATO and Russia/Belarus would not be a world war

It would be. Mass-scale usage of nuclear weapons will negatively affect the health of the entire global population.

affecting the whole world is not the definition of a world war.

[CumbrianLefty]

I think this is semantics tbh, the real point is that it would emphatically not be desirable. The end.

[Lord Halifax]

I think this is semantics tbh, the real point is that it would emphatically not be desirable. The end.

I disagree, the WW3 hyperbole is both ludicrously Eurocentric and damaging to a rational assessment of the situation. War with Russia would be problematic but a conventional war is winnable, unlikely to turn nuclear, and extremely unlikely to involve any substantial military powers joining Russia, and it may in the end turn out to be the least bad option.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Russia has too many nuclear warheads for NATO to try to attack it in a non-Eurocentric way.