Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[rc18]

https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1569338010306768898?t=A1nd_foLhO_9C8AoaW...

Honestly I find this story strange and not really believable.  

You don't advertise the fact you are in the middle of negotiations for the enemy to surrender, allowing their senior officers time to restore order.

This briefing seems like mind games to me.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

All these arguments about legality are irrelevant. In reality, those associated with Right Sector have already identified the "collaborators" (NSFW) of newly liberated territories and listed their crimes ranging from "accepted food from Russian military" to "continued to work as a doctor under Russian occupation".

There won't be any prospect of an anti-Ukrainian insurgency because all the prospective insurgents will have either left or been shot. Perhaps a few lucky ones will get actual trials for collaboration. The Ukrainians have zero reason to give amnesty to anyone or to define "collaboration" in overly narrow terms. By Soviet standards they're being generous; they counted as "collaborators" anyone who was captured for any reason and anyone who survived the local German occupation without evacuating or joining the local partisans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, these people are very clearly colonial officers complicit in a project of cultural genocide. They're entitled to a fair trial, of course, but Ukraine has every right to throw the book at them.

Some, perhaps even most. But, as with the missionaries - there must have been a substantial minority who primarily wanted to teach literacy or maths to kids in a desperate area. Probably a lot of delusion affecting these people (as with the soldiers who thought they weren't attacking Ukraine in the first phase), but a case-by-case basis might be better for them than a minimum of 8 years in prison.

TimTurner's point about amnesty is pertinent, especially as Ukraine approaches February 23 lines (which it might well push beyond). "Just following orders" isn't morally acceptable even for conscripts, but some legal leniency might be for the best when it comes to mobilised men who have essentially been treated as slaves. Ukraine should seek to inspire further surrenders from LDPR men who are being told by the Russians that the best treatment they can get is to fight for Putin with an 1890s rifle in hand, although there is an incentive not to do this so long as Russia holds more POWs to exchange than Ukraine.

Of course there's going to have to be some distinction made between people who went along with their lives when they thought Russia would be their long-term future, and people who went above and beyond to cozy up with the occupier as a way to accrue power (especially if that power was wielded to oppress their countrymen). But calling for a blanket amnesty seems frankly preposterous. Not only is it an insult to the vast majority of Ukrainians who either silently endured occupation or actively fought against it, but it creates plenty of perverse incentives of its own. I have to imagine that the knowledge that they might be held accountable by Ukraine (or even, at this stage, by Ukrainian partisans) is keeping at least a few would-be collaborators at bay. Besides, it doesn't seem like a great idea to entrust the future of liberated territories to people who have shown a willingness to actively prop up their occupation as long as it was convenient.

I know the word "denazification" has taken a quite perverse connotation when associated with this war, but when it comes to the real denazification, the general consensus (at least among people left of center) is that it didn't go far enough, not that it went too far. Clearly people at the time felt differently, and they no doubt had in mind a lot of the reasons you and Tim are talking about. But I hope we can agree they were wrong - that there were higher considerations that should have prevailed over those. I think the logic applies just as much here. By all means, sort out the grunts from the ringleaders - but justice for the latter should be swift.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Yeah, these people are very clearly colonial officers complicit in a project of cultural genocide. They're entitled to a fair trial, of course, but Ukraine has every right to throw the book at them.

Some, perhaps even most. But, as with the missionaries - there must have been a substantial minority who primarily wanted to teach literacy or maths to kids in a desperate area. Probably a lot of delusion affecting these people (as with the soldiers who thought they weren't attacking Ukraine in the first phase), but a case-by-case basis might be better for them than a minimum of 8 years in prison.

TimTurner's point about amnesty is pertinent, especially as Ukraine approaches February 23 lines (which it might well push beyond). "Just following orders" isn't morally acceptable even for conscripts, but some legal leniency might be for the best when it comes to mobilised men who have essentially been treated as slaves. Ukraine should seek to inspire further surrenders from LDPR men who are being told by the Russians that the best treatment they can get is to fight for Putin with an 1890s rifle in hand, although there is an incentive not to do this so long as Russia holds more POWs to exchange than Ukraine.

Of course there's going to have to be some distinction made between people who went along with their lives when they thought Russia would be their long-term future, and people who went above and beyond to cozy up with the occupier as a way to accrue power (especially if that power was wielded to oppress their countrymen). But calling for a blanket amnesty seems frankly preposterous. Not only is it an insult to the vast majority of Ukrainians who either silently endured occupation or actively fought against it, but it creates plenty of perverse incentives of its own. I have to imagine that the knowledge that they might be held accountable by Ukraine (or even, at this stage, by Ukrainian partisans) is keeping at least a few would-be collaborators at bay. Besides, it doesn't seem like a great idea to entrust the future of liberated territories to people who have shown a willingness to actively prop up their occupation as long as it was convenient.

I know the word "denazification" has taken a quite perverse connotation when associated with this war, but when it comes to the real denazification, the general consensus (at least among people left of center) is that it didn't go far enough, not that it went too far. Clearly people at the time felt differently, and they no doubt had in mind a lot of the reasons you and Tim are talking about. But I hope we can agree they were wrong - that there were higher considerations that should have prevailed over those. I think the logic applies just as much here. By all means, sort out the grunts from the ringleaders - but justice for the latter should be swift.

Denazification happened after the war was finished, so the political risk of going after more Nazis was far lower. Leniency now might help speed the war's end and/or tilt the conflict in Ukraine's favour (it is still far from certain that Ukraine can take or hold all of what is occupied). Ukraine should seek to lower LDPR morale and create distance between their troops (especially the mobilised ones) and Russia. Throughout history, this has been a big part of how the Taliban, the Vietcong and others successfully broke the unity of armed coalitions.

I'm not suggesting a blanket amnesty is a good idea - there is value in POW exchanges as of yet and there are war criminals who need to be tried. Still, hinting at some form of leniency for the average mobilised Joe might not be a bad plan.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yeah, these people are very clearly colonial officers complicit in a project of cultural genocide. They're entitled to a fair trial, of course, but Ukraine has every right to throw the book at them.

Some, perhaps even most. But, as with the missionaries - there must have been a substantial minority who primarily wanted to teach literacy or maths to kids in a desperate area. Probably a lot of delusion affecting these people (as with the soldiers who thought they weren't attacking Ukraine in the first phase), but a case-by-case basis might be better for them than a minimum of 8 years in prison.

TimTurner's point about amnesty is pertinent, especially as Ukraine approaches February 23 lines (which it might well push beyond). "Just following orders" isn't morally acceptable even for conscripts, but some legal leniency might be for the best when it comes to mobilised men who have essentially been treated as slaves. Ukraine should seek to inspire further surrenders from LDPR men who are being told by the Russians that the best treatment they can get is to fight for Putin with an 1890s rifle in hand, although there is an incentive not to do this so long as Russia holds more POWs to exchange than Ukraine.

Of course there's going to have to be some distinction made between people who went along with their lives when they thought Russia would be their long-term future, and people who went above and beyond to cozy up with the occupier as a way to accrue power (especially if that power was wielded to oppress their countrymen). But calling for a blanket amnesty seems frankly preposterous. Not only is it an insult to the vast majority of Ukrainians who either silently endured occupation or actively fought against it, but it creates plenty of perverse incentives of its own. I have to imagine that the knowledge that they might be held accountable by Ukraine (or even, at this stage, by Ukrainian partisans) is keeping at least a few would-be collaborators at bay. Besides, it doesn't seem like a great idea to entrust the future of liberated territories to people who have shown a willingness to actively prop up their occupation as long as it was convenient.

I know the word "denazification" has taken a quite perverse connotation when associated with this war, but when it comes to the real denazification, the general consensus (at least among people left of center) is that it didn't go far enough, not that it went too far. Clearly people at the time felt differently, and they no doubt had in mind a lot of the reasons you and Tim are talking about. But I hope we can agree they were wrong - that there were higher considerations that should have prevailed over those. I think the logic applies just as much here. By all means, sort out the grunts from the ringleaders - but justice for the latter should be swift.

Denazification happened after the war was finished, so the political risk of going after more Nazis was far lower. Leniency now might help speed the war's end and/or tilt the conflict in Ukraine's favour (it is still far from certain that Ukraine can take or hold all of what is occupied). Ukraine should seek to lower LDPR morale and create distance between their troops (especially the mobilised ones) and Russia. Throughout history, this has been a big part of how the Taliban, the Vietcong and others successfully broke the unity of armed coalitions.

I'm not suggesting a blanket amnesty is a good idea - there is value in POW exchanges as of yet and there are war criminals who need to be tried. Still, hinting at some form of leniency for the average mobilised Joe might not be a bad plan.

A blanket amnesty, to the best of our knowledge, is neither wise nor necessary for Ukraine. The question of some kind of amnesty needs to be looked at both from a short-term and a long-term one (the two are separate considerations but are closely related). Ukraine as a nation will need to be rebuilt in its ex-LDPR and DPR portions, and the manpower of people who once served the Russians could be quite valuable in bringing that about. But also, in context of a battle front, Ukraine could built on momentum by using mind games and sincere mercy to weaken the enemy. This is where the question of amnesty comes in. Note, this does not mean "be soft on the Russians and all those who aided them" - those who violate an amnesty can be dealt with rather harshly.

[2952-0-0]

Honestly I find this story strange and not really believable.  

You don't advertise the fact you are in the middle of negotiations for the enemy to surrender, allowing their senior officers time to restore order.

This briefing seems like mind games to me.

Methinks that maybe a few Russian units have either surrendered or are in the process of surrendering due to a sheer lack of food and ammo, but Ukrainian propaganda are purposefully exaggerating this news to bring about a full-scale collapse.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, these people are very clearly colonial officers complicit in a project of cultural genocide. They're entitled to a fair trial, of course, but Ukraine has every right to throw the book at them.

Some, perhaps even most. But, as with the missionaries - there must have been a substantial minority who primarily wanted to teach literacy or maths to kids in a desperate area. Probably a lot of delusion affecting these people (as with the soldiers who thought they weren't attacking Ukraine in the first phase), but a case-by-case basis might be better for them than a minimum of 8 years in prison.

TimTurner's point about amnesty is pertinent, especially as Ukraine approaches February 23 lines (which it might well push beyond). "Just following orders" isn't morally acceptable even for conscripts, but some legal leniency might be for the best when it comes to mobilised men who have essentially been treated as slaves. Ukraine should seek to inspire further surrenders from LDPR men who are being told by the Russians that the best treatment they can get is to fight for Putin with an 1890s rifle in hand, although there is an incentive not to do this so long as Russia holds more POWs to exchange than Ukraine.

Of course there's going to have to be some distinction made between people who went along with their lives when they thought Russia would be their long-term future, and people who went above and beyond to cozy up with the occupier as a way to accrue power (especially if that power was wielded to oppress their countrymen). But calling for a blanket amnesty seems frankly preposterous. Not only is it an insult to the vast majority of Ukrainians who either silently endured occupation or actively fought against it, but it creates plenty of perverse incentives of its own. I have to imagine that the knowledge that they might be held accountable by Ukraine (or even, at this stage, by Ukrainian partisans) is keeping at least a few would-be collaborators at bay. Besides, it doesn't seem like a great idea to entrust the future of liberated territories to people who have shown a willingness to actively prop up their occupation as long as it was convenient.

I know the word "denazification" has taken a quite perverse connotation when associated with this war, but when it comes to the real denazification, the general consensus (at least among people left of center) is that it didn't go far enough, not that it went too far. Clearly people at the time felt differently, and they no doubt had in mind a lot of the reasons you and Tim are talking about. But I hope we can agree they were wrong - that there were higher considerations that should have prevailed over those. I think the logic applies just as much here. By all means, sort out the grunts from the ringleaders - but justice for the latter should be swift.

Denazification happened after the war was finished, so the political risk of going after more Nazis was far lower. Leniency now might help speed the war's end and/or tilt the conflict in Ukraine's favour (it is still far from certain that Ukraine can take or hold all of what is occupied). Ukraine should seek to lower LDPR morale and create distance between their troops (especially the mobilised ones) and Russia. Throughout history, this has been a big part of how the Taliban, the Vietcong and others successfully broke the unity of armed coalitions.

I'm not suggesting a blanket amnesty is a good idea - there is value in POW exchanges as of yet and there are war criminals who need to be tried. Still, hinting at some form of leniency for the average mobilised Joe might not be a bad plan.

We're talking past each other. From what I've seen, Ukraine is already offering very generous terms to enemy soldiers who want to defect (I'm not sure whether that's just for Russians or if it includes DNR and LNR forces, but barring contrary evidence we should assume the latter). That's a whole separate issue from what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is enemy collaborators, people who facilitate the running of civilian administration for the benefit of the occupier. That's a completely separate issue from defecting soldiers, and I don't think they should be confused like that. Sure, there might be some edge cases where it might be worth it to lure in an influential local collaborator with a promise of amnesty, and in this case by all means do it. But this is gonna be a pretty marginal situation. In terms of general policy, Ukraine's interest is the exact opposite: striking fear into their hearts so as to deter more would-be collaborators. Ukrainian partisans seem to be doing a good job of that while the occupation is ongoing. Once the occupation is ended, though, rule of law should prevail and Ukraine's legal system should take on that responsibility, but still act with all due diligence.

[Coldstream]

Yeah, these people are very clearly colonial officers complicit in a project of cultural genocide. They're entitled to a fair trial, of course, but Ukraine has every right to throw the book at them.

Some, perhaps even most. But, as with the missionaries - there must have been a substantial minority who primarily wanted to teach literacy or maths to kids in a desperate area. Probably a lot of delusion affecting these people (as with the soldiers who thought they weren't attacking Ukraine in the first phase), but a case-by-case basis might be better for them than a minimum of 8 years in prison.

TimTurner's point about amnesty is pertinent, especially as Ukraine approaches February 23 lines (which it might well push beyond). "Just following orders" isn't morally acceptable even for conscripts, but some legal leniency might be for the best when it comes to mobilised men who have essentially been treated as slaves. Ukraine should seek to inspire further surrenders from LDPR men who are being told by the Russians that the best treatment they can get is to fight for Putin with an 1890s rifle in hand, although there is an incentive not to do this so long as Russia holds more POWs to exchange than Ukraine.

Of course there's going to have to be some distinction made between people who went along with their lives when they thought Russia would be their long-term future, and people who went above and beyond to cozy up with the occupier as a way to accrue power (especially if that power was wielded to oppress their countrymen). But calling for a blanket amnesty seems frankly preposterous. Not only is it an insult to the vast majority of Ukrainians who either silently endured occupation or actively fought against it, but it creates plenty of perverse incentives of its own. I have to imagine that the knowledge that they might be held accountable by Ukraine (or even, at this stage, by Ukrainian partisans) is keeping at least a few would-be collaborators at bay. Besides, it doesn't seem like a great idea to entrust the future of liberated territories to people who have shown a willingness to actively prop up their occupation as long as it was convenient.

I know the word "denazification" has taken a quite perverse connotation when associated with this war, but when it comes to the real denazification, the general consensus (at least among people left of center) is that it didn't go far enough, not that it went too far. Clearly people at the time felt differently, and they no doubt had in mind a lot of the reasons you and Tim are talking about. But I hope we can agree they were wrong - that there were higher considerations that should have prevailed over those. I think the logic applies just as much here. By all means, sort out the grunts from the ringleaders - but justice for the latter should be swift.

100% agreed. The fact Hans Globke was able to hold high office in West Germany well in to the 60s despite his involvement in the Nuremberg laws is a stain on Germany *and* the allies. The Nazis should have been torn out root & stem, same should happen with Putin and his acolytes. The fact some are merely civil servants getting on with their jobs (“only following orders”) is irrelevant. The Ukrainians have learnt by now the dangers of the alternative.

[rc18]

I am sceptical about this, but the source is well-connected and potentially could have inside info.

https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1569424508020203520?s=20&t=hUzFK2hB...

[2952-0-0]

100% agreed. The fact Hans Globke was able to hold high office in West Germany well in to the 60s despite his involvement in the Nuremberg laws is a stain on Germany *and* the allies. The Nazis should have been torn out root & stem, same should happen with Putin and his acolytes. The fact some are merely civil servants getting on with their jobs (“only following orders”) is irrelevant. The Ukrainians have learnt by now the dangers of the alternative.

The line between those who merely worked under the Russians, and those who worked with the Russians, will not be clear cut.

Suppose say Ivan worked as the manager of the power grid in Donetsk City. In normal times, he did perfectly normal things to keep the lights on. But, the Russians came and demanded that he allocate more power to their bases. Then, the Russians invite Ivan to attend an electric engineering course in a Russian university, where he met plenty of Russian "minders". Upon his return, he continues his job. He was also required to attend parades glorifying the pro-Russian puppet government. 2022 comes along, and Ivan is tasked with quickly repairing the power grid after each Ukrainian strike. This, of course, has the effect of allowing the Russian army to continue operating with minimal disruption.

Was Ivan complicit with the Russians, or was he just doing his job to keep the lights on?

As for the reference to ex-Nazis gaining power in West Germany, Germany faced a similar question when it was reunified in 1990. Granted, East Germany was magnitudes less evil than Hitler, but the dilemma still remained. Most East German civil servants were allowed to keep their jobs, and the more problematic ones (e.g. Party ideologists) were given early retirement pensions. Of course, the ones who unambiguously committed crimes, like soldiers who shot at those fleeing across the Berlin Wall, still faced criminal trials - on the grounds that they should have understood that their orders were against fundamental human rights.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The line between those who merely worked under the Russians, and those who worked with the Russians, will not be clear cut.

Suppose say Ivan worked as the manager of the power grid in Donetsk City. In normal times, he did perfectly normal things to keep the lights on. But, the Russians came and demanded that he allocate more power to their bases. Then, the Russians invite Ivan to attend an electric engineering course in a Russian university, where he met plenty of Russian "minders". Upon his return, he continues his job. He was also required to attend parades glorifying the pro-Russian puppet government. 2022 comes along, and Ivan is tasked with quickly repairing the power grid after each Ukrainian strike. This, of course, has the effect of allowing the Russian army to continue operating with minimal disruption.

Was Ivan complicit with the Russians, or was he just doing his job to keep the lights on?

That's for the Ukrainian justice system to decide. Personally, I wouldn't go too hard on a case like this (I'm a lot more concerned with people who run the puppet governments, as it is a direct challenge on Ukraine's existence as a state in a way merely obeying armed bandits at gunpoint isn't), but it's not my decision to make.

[Coldstream]

Personally I’ve always seen collaborators as people who either are crucial to the occupying regime or otherwise benefit from the arrangement. I’m pretty hardline on it personally, I think people who think fascism is wrong but go along with it anyway for an easy life are as reprehensible as you can get.

In Ivan’s case, he should have refused to follow their orders and resigned. Perhaps that’s a difficult choice to make, but choosing to stay serving the Russians is not a neutral act - it is making a choice. I don’t think you need to hang someone for that, or even lock them up, but if the Ukrainians want to make an example of collaborators that’s their right.

[2952-0-0]

Hmm, another Time of Troubles, with oligarch-warlords?

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1569428022532481025

[Frodo]

Ukraine Military Chief Says Crimea Will Be Target for Next Year's Offensive

[Oryxslayer]

Hmm, another Time of Troubles, with oligarch-warlords?

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1569428022532481025

This smells fishy, if only because a state trading it's monopoly on force for uncertain prospects has totally never backfired before and ruined everything. That path is too well tread and to well understood by historians and politicians alike for Russia to make the same mistake she is exploiting in some African countries....right?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Last week:




Now:

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Some reports from Ukrainian communications is that their biggest problem now is that the Russians are leaving behind so much equipment they're having trouble seizing it all. That's their big concern.

[2952-0-0]

This smells fishy, if only because a state trading it's monopoly on force for uncertain prospects has totally never backfired before and ruined everything. That path is too well tread and to well understood by historians and politicians alike for Russia to make the same mistake she is exploiting in some African countries....right?

Putin has been viewing the oligarchs as merely his fund managers, and not (as under Yeltsin) as figures who could influence him. So, if he can no longer trust the army to deliver his desired outcome, he might call on his fund managers to finish the job. He's also smart enough to ensure that, of course, the really best troops in Russia are reserved to protect himself. From that perspective, that might buy him just another roll of the dice.

But, it's obvious where this is all heading. I'm looking forward to the Bald and Bankrupt videos. "Oooh, a truly authentic Soviet checkpoint, staffed by Roman Abramovich's men!"

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1569360858949509120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw...

[Storr]

Google translation of the quoted tweet:

""Due to moral exhaustion"

The platoon commander, his deputies, and department commanders from the Kalynets village of the Moscow region suddenly wanted to go home on August 30. You can see the weather in the glorious city of Izyum

Found 10 such reports. Neatly folded. The authors have already looped [ran away]."

https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1569414862836563969?s=20&t=CV6FmyBPqnqN0d...

https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1569432769775771653?s=20&t=CV6FmyBPqnqN0d...

[NOVA Green]

Another Russian Exec suffers an unusual death...

Ivan Pechorin, 39, managing director of the Corporation for the Development of the Far East and the Arctic, reportedly fell off a boat at full speed and died Saturday near Russky Island in the Sea of Japan in Primorsky Krai, Russia, near Vladivostock, about 5,800 miles east of Moscow.

Pechorin worked under Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to the Russian publication Komsomolskaya Pravda, modernizing aviation in eastern Russia while developing resources in the Arctic in light of heavy sanctions.

Pechorin's last public appearance reportedly occurred at the Eastern Economic Forum, held from September 5 to 8 in Vladivostok. The Daily Mail reported that Pechorin spoke during a session called, "Everyone has their Own Route: The Logistics of a Changed World."

https://www.newsweek.com/putins-key-man-artic-found-dead-after-falling-overboard-1742218

[NOVA Green]

Senior Ukrainian Military sources are now claiming that:

A Russian marines brigade has been almost completely wiped out by Ukraine's Armed Forces, Kyiv said Monday.

The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine posted on Monday its daily assessment on Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which began more than 200 days ago.

The update, posted on its Facebook page, said that the Ukrainian military destroyed almost 85 percent of Russia's 810 marine infantry brigade, which is based in the city of Sevastopol in the Russian-occupied Crimean Peninsula

"After the successful actions carried out by the Defense Forces in the Kherson direction, the enemy suffered significant losses in manpower,"

Ukraine said the rest of the servicemen have an extremely low morale and psychological state, and "massively refuse to return to the combat zone."

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-marines-brigade-destroyed-ukraine-kyiv-kherson-1741927

[Hope For A New Era]

I'm looking forward to the Bald and Bankrupt videos. "Oooh, a truly authentic Soviet checkpoint, staffed by Roman Abramovich's men!"

Impossible to not read that in his voice.

[NOVA Green]

So bit of a follow-up on a story I had previously posted regarding the dissent within Russia from elected City Council districts within Moscow and St. Pete.

More than 40 local elected officials across Russia signed a two-sentence petition on Monday that ended with: “We demand the resignation of Vladimir Putin from the post of president of the Russian Federation!”

The petition, pushed by opponents of the Ukraine invasion, had no practical impact, and it was roundly ignored in Russia’s state-controlled media. But it was striking in its very existence, showing that despite the Kremlin’s extraordinary crackdown on dissent, Ukraine’s counteroffensive successes have left opponents of President Vladimir V. Putin newly emboldened — and his supporters looking for someone else to blame.

Pro-war commentators and politicians have pointed to the military leadership or senior officials, saying they have not waged the war with sufficient decisiveness and competence, or have not delivered all the facts to Mr. Putin. Longtime Kremlin critics have seized on that discord, and Russia’s setbacks at the front, to take the risk of speaking out against Mr. Putin.

“There is now hope that Ukraine will end this war,” said Ksenia Torstrem, a member of a municipal council in St. Petersburg who helped organize the petition and called Ukrainian advances an “inspiring factor” for it. “We decided we needed to put pressure on from all sides.”

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1569423308537339905?t=M0Z4WoHeKld1ni5...