Europe at War

[Florestan]

I forgot, did Napoleon defeat Russia?

If marching on Moscow and occupying it militarily, flying the French flag over the Kremlin, means defeating Russia, then yes, he did,

As different from marching on Kiev and occupying it militarily, which Putin is not able to do.

[Todd]

If marching on Moscow and occupying it militarily, flying the French flag over the Kremlin, means defeating Russia, then yes, he did,

An interesting take on history.

[drogulus]

     I doubt it will be necessary to go to war with Russia in Russia. The next batch of Russian rulers will have learned to be somewhat more cautious.

[Florestan]

Gladstone was urging Disraeli to wage a humanitarian war against the Turks in his pamphlet about the 'Bulgarian Attrocities' in 1876ish.

Please read Dostoevsky's Diary of a Writer in this respect. You'll find that Putin is actually a moderate.  FMD argued for nothing less and nothing more than Russia taking and holding Constantinople forever and patronizing a Pan-Southern-Slavic federation.

[Karl Henning]

Ukraine is in no sense an aggressor. As they are involved in combat Ukraine is a combatant

[Florestan]

An interesting take on history.

Feel free to have a different one.

[Florestan]

Ukraine is in no sense an aggressor. As they are involved in combat Ukraine is a combatant

The sad irony is that while we are involved in vocabulary disputations people are killed and maimed on the ground.

Russia is the plain and naked aggressor. Ukrainians defend themselves. Period.

[Karl Henning]

The sad irony is that while we are involved in vocabulary disputations people are killed and maimed on the ground.

Russia is the plain and naked aggressor. Ukrainians defend themselves. Period.

Aye, we all know that. And probably we all understand that the luxury to discuss fine points of language is one which the Ukrainians are quite a distance from enjoying, themselves.

[Madiel]

I woke to several pages of drogulus redefining "war" in ways that would make Lewis Carroll proud.

Of course this isn't the first time. We have the war on drugs, the war on terror (which I remember a judge instantly critiquing after 9/11 when a government lawyer said "we are at war" in an opening address).

War has a technical meaning, drogulus, whether you and others like using it as a rhetorical device or not. When you throw the term around wherever you feel like it, you actually lose the ability to create nuance between situations. If you claim that NATO is at war now, you lose the ability to talk about levels of escalation.

And quite frankly you waste everybody's time. Those pages of people being distracted by your idiosyncratic  language are a waste.

[Florestan]

What the international community witness is an undeclared Russian war on Ukraine which turned into ongoing Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

Period.

[drogulus]

I woke to several pages of drogulus redefining "war" in ways that would make Lewis Carroll proud.

Of course this isn't the first time. We have the war on drugs, the war on terror (which I remember a judge instantly critiquing after 9/11 when a government lawyer said "we are at war" in an opening address).

War has a technical meaning, drogulus, whether you and others like using it as a rhetorical device or not. When you throw the term around wherever you feel like it, you actually lose the ability to create nuance between situations. If you claim that NATO is at war now, you lose the ability to talk about levels of escalation.

And quite frankly you waste everybody's time. Those pages of people being distracted by your idiosyncratic  language are a waste.

     War is not a technical term and I am using it in one of its correct meanings. Perhaps you could tell me what it is that would be escalated if NATO took bolder action. What would that thing be?

     There is a serious point here. One kind of war is the kind you deny you are in, or deny will soon happen, or won't involve you because your country is merely sending weapons and ammunition and target spotting intelligence to a country that is fighting a defensive........notwar?

     People might think war is immoral to the point that they won't call just action war. It has to be called something else. I don't tolerate that. You send the weapons, they kill the enemy, it's war.

[greg]

Anyone hear about the redditors going to Ukraine getting people killed because the photos they took gave away the location of their barracks, and the Russian military easily spots it and blows it up?

Some people  ... the craving for social validation and approval literally getting themselves and others killed, perhaps if they had more supportive friends in their past it would have eased their appetite and prevented this from happening.

[drogulus]

     The story I heard was about the mall that was destroyed after someone posted something about seeing soldiers there.

[MusicTurner]

Anyone hear about the redditors going to Ukraine getting people killed because the photos they took gave away the location of their barracks, and the Russian military easily spots it and blows it up?

Some people  ... the craving for social validation and approval literally getting themselves and others killed, perhaps if they had more supportive friends in their past it would have eased their appetite and prevented this from happening.

Yes, there were also official warnings from Ukraine about it being potentially damaging.

Even in Sweden, where there is a lot of open talk about possible Russian aggression, authorities have already officially asked the public not to post any military pictures/stuff from Sweden either.

[drogulus]

     I suppose everyone knows about the kamikaze drones Ukraine acquired from the US. I'd like to know who is operating them.

[amw]

Really? So, bombing Peal Harbor was a perfectly legitimate response to the USA's 'declaration of war' against Japan when it imposed oil embargoes in the early 1940s?
Seriously??

It was a disproportionate response to be sure. I'm not sure whether it would have been considered a legitimate response under League of Nations law, but according to United Nations law:

The 1965 "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty" [declares] that No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or other types of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind.

In more recent international law, this declaration (similar language has been reaffirmed several times) has been considered an extension of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which "prohibits all UN members from resorting to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (i.e., UN member or not)." Economic sanctions or embargos and blockades are considered threats or uses of force respectively, and are thus generally a privilege the UN Security Council reserves for itself, otherwise being legally indefensible in most cases. (Although no legal measures are usually taken against UNSC permanent members that impose sanctions on other countries, since these members can just veto any legal action against themselves.) See, e.g., https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=ils for an overview of the situation at the end of the twentieth century, along with (many) other sources.

Given that the Russian invasion of Ukraine violates international law in a number of particulars already, including at least some of the Geneva Conventions (e.g., prisoners of war have been executed, civilians have been relocated into Russian territory, white phosphorus has been used, etc.), one could argue that US/EU economic warfare is the only currently-possible legal remedy short of military warfare, since Russia could veto any UNSC measures undertaken to bring it back in line with international law. But it is still a form of warfare, legally speaking.

[drogulus]

      A Uke fighter pilot (SU-27) says they are using tactics taught to them by "American friends".

     

[drogulus]

     NATO has the best lawyers.

[relm1]

Putin is being backed into a corner now and he's certainly not going to admit defeat, so the only thing left is nuclear warfare.

Fatalistic point of view.  He has other options like proclaiming victory.  In his world, he controls the narrative so can define "victory". 

[Madiel]

     War is not a technical term.

It is. This is why the notion of a declaration of war exists. There are a whole range of legal mechanisms that depend on a state of war existing.