It's all good.

Please refrain from being an emotional idiot. — Vaskane

An ironic statement, considering the content of your post. :chin:

It wasn't clear to me you were disagreeing with Schmitt. You could have just said so and taken my post as an argument in support of your position.

But to each their own.

This is a gross misinterpretation of IHL.

It is unsurprising one might find terms like 'voluntary human shield' in a DoD manual, but please refrain from using such terms in a serious discussion about IHL.

To make a long story short, Israel has no right to order Gazans to move, and forcing Gazans to move would in many cases constitute war crimes under the articles pertaining to forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Resisting foreign occupation, and resisting war crimes, does not make a civilian population a legitimate military target or 'voluntary human shields'.

I feel a sudden urge to wash after having to explain this on a philosophy forum.

Sadly for you, the people I've quoted aren't so easily hand-waved, desperately though you may try.

You could simply provide evidence of your claim. — Echarmion

I did.

I've provided accounts of the people directly involved, accounts of people indirectly involved, reports by prominent UN and NATO representatives, opinion pieces by prominent academics, etc.

All "a flight of fantasy", of course.

This is why you're not taken seriously. You don't seem to realize that reality won't budge any further to accomodate your narrative.

That's not a fact, it's a wild flight of fantasy. — Echarmion

:lol:

This is why discussion with you oompa loompas is pointless.

Of course they were wildly over confident. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see any evidence of that. It seems to me you're cherry-picking snippets of information (from Russian propaganda channels, no less) and interpreting them to fit your preferred narrative.

The fact is there was a peace deal on the table in March / April, in which Ukraine reneged on their plans to join NATO, and Russia returned all the territory it occupied at that time. This deal was blocked by the US and Britain.

It seems to me that forcing Kiev to the negotiating table was the main purpose of the invasion, and everything from Russian troop numbers to deployments and disposition coincides with that idea. The deal was blocked because the US knew it would be seen as a Russian victory.


If you want to view this conflict through a lens of Russian incompetence, be my guest, though. I doubt I'll be able to change your mind. Given the staggering levels of Russian incompetence I'm sure a Ukrainian victory is just around the corner.

Given how deeply the US was committed to project Ukraine - given the size, state and equipment of the Ukrainian military, I find it unthinkable to be honest.

This is just not how military planning works. Military planners tend to plan, as a minimum, for 'most likely enemy course of action' and 'most dangerous'.

In what world was the most likely thing to happen for Ukraine to collapse? Even in Putin's wildest dreams it would be a stretch, and I find it very hard to believe for any modern military to fall for that level of wishful thinking.

You're trying to compare completely different types of countries and completely different types of conflicts. Apples to oranges, as usual.

Even a layman can understand that a country that has been receiving western military aid for a decade, with a large, well-trained and well-equipped military, wasn't simply going to 'collapse'.

... such as a fast track into the EU (which Russia explicitly said they did not oppose, only NATO). — boethius

It should be noted that Russia has voiced concerns about Ukraine joining the EU as well, because the EU features a military dimension such as a mutual defense clause (making it function, on paper, in a similar way to Art. 5 of the NATO treaty).

It would of course not involve the US, which the Russians perceive as the primary instigator. That's probably why they've been more open to EU membership for Ukraine.

What a disgusting and pathetic display of political opportunism by Washington:




First giving Netanyahu a blank check to commit his evil, blocking UN resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and with the Israel lobby appeased now going back to whinging about a two-state solution which will never happen anyway (and they know it) to avoid dropping too much in the polls.

:vomit:

My own view is that the Israelis restyle their state into a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, citizens having a choice of one of three passports, Palestinian, Israeli, or joint Israeli-Palestinian, full rights as citizens for all, and all Palestinians citizens. Obviously a lot of details to work out. — tim wood

Not a terrible idea. In my opinion a "one-state solution" with equal rights is probably the only real solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, though it's equally unlikely to happen given the huge amount of animosity and unwillingness on both sides. Also it would require Israel to stop being a principally Jewish state, which will probably not happen for various reasons either.

Maybe if Netanyahu gets ousted and a more reasonable political elite takes over. They might come to the conclusion that it is the only way to lasting peace and that there are simply no feasible alternatives.

I'm sure you are aware, but Gaza has not been "occupied" since 2005 by Israel. — schopenhauer1

The UN disagrees.

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.

And what exactly would you have them do? — tim wood

It's very simple. They should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As long as Israel is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, Israel is the problem.

Hamas leaders openly state it as it has been their position from the very beginning. — BitconnectCarlos

What Hamas thinks is completely irrelevant. Israel illegally occupies Gaza and the West Bank, period.

Israel kills the innocent as a byproduct of striking legitimate military targets. — BitconnectCarlos

That's just as intentional and murderous. Or should we try to re-frame Hamas' killing of innocents as a "byproduct of resisting occupation" also?

There is a difference between the indiscriminate, deliberate murder of civilians as Hamas does and targeting, e.g. the Hamas headquarters... — BitconnectCarlos

Unfortunately for you, Israel follows what it calls the 'Dahiya doctrine', which openly endorses the disproportionate killing of civilians, and we see that doctrine in action every day in Gaza.

What Israel is doing is eliminating a group that has fomented conflict within Israel. — BC

What Israel is doing is illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, as is confirmed by various UN Security Council resolutions, which are legally binding.

As far as I'm concerned, Israel is creating groups like Hamas through its blatant disregard for international and humanitarian law, as confirmed by various human rights organisations, including those within Israel.

Not to mention the current Israeli PM is party to what is colloquially called the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance'.

-

These comments read like a bad joke. I'm sorry to say.

Resistance fighters don't behead babies in their cribs. They don't throw babies into ovens. They don't murder a child's parents and then play with the children afterwards while filming it. 80% of the victims showed signs of torture. Then there's the rapes. And Hamas has clarified that they wish to do this again and again. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sensitive to this type of moral framing. Israel spent the last month indiscriminately murdering civilians in Gaza, a large portion of which were children. They were burned, maimed, cut to pieces also.

Even in the limited context of present events there's no moral high ground for them to claim, I'm afraid.

But you're right in the fact that resistance movements have a tendency to commit acts of extreme violence. That's nothing new.

The state of Israel per se IS the occupation per Hamas. Hamas is committed to the annihilation of any independent Jewish state on that land. — BitconnectCarlos

Regardless of whether that's true or not, Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank.

Antagonizing here meaning being a deadly attacker that rapes, kills, mutilates burns and kidnaps people, ... — schopenhauer1

Resistance movements are often very unpleasant in their methods, simply because they cannot resist the oppressor through conventional means. The Vietcong were no different, nor were the Taliban, or the IRA.

If Israel wants it to stop, they should stop the occupation.

At the end of the day, does the "governing" Hamas (or past tense now perhaps), did they give a shit about the lives of their people? If Israel didn't, did they? — schopenhauer1

Again, Hamas is a resistance movement. Its purpose is to resist the occupier.

It's not a political movement.

Israel actually supported Hamas in order to disenfranchise the Palestinian political movements, so go figure.


The problem is that Israel wants to continue its illegal occupation no matter what, so Israel is at the center of this problem.

That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? — schopenhauer1

The first thing that needs happen is for Israel to stop its belligerent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Until that happens, Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel.

Armed resistance isn't even forbidden under such conditions according to international law, and Israel, being the occupier, cannot legally claim self-defense.

More than your personal doubt, please give some reason why wouldn't this be the case? — ssu

Because the Russians had been drawing a red line since at least 2008, so supporting a coup was essentially calling Russia's bluff. That the US was unaware of this is simply unthinkable.

Also, I don't believe a single word that comes from US about its intelligence agencies.

Sorry, but the West was totally surprised with it's pants down when Russia annexed Crimea. — ssu

I doubt the US was completely surprised by it, since they had just supported a coup in Ukraine. Perhaps they hadn't anticipated that the Russians would dare invade Crimea with such a small force.

I'm sure the decision not to put boots on the ground was made somewhere between 2014-2021.

Luckily we are in NATO, poor of Sweden... — ssu

Personally, I really dislike my country throwing their lot in with countries like the US and Britain, which are essentially island nations that don't share any of the security concerns of the mainland European nations. It actually makes sense for them to play political games to keep the Eurasian continent divided, as per Mackinder's Heartland theory.

A European security structure would make more sense, though not via the EU.

What the fuck. This is ridiculous.

I even felt bad for Blinken on this one.

Someone stop this man. :lol:

However, a bigger factor I think is that the war festers during the Trump presidency and Russia gate was an overriding US political game that prevented the Trump administration from doing what RAND suggests for domestic political reasons. — boethius

Personally I think this war was going to happen no matter what. Many presidents, including Trump and Obama, tried to change the course of US foreign policy, but were unable to fight 'the Blob'.

The people who are in charge now aren't just favorable to the Blob, they ARE the Blob. Neocon hawks who have all been involved in project Ukraine. If you check their political track record, you'll find they're all elbow deep in Ukraine literally for decades.


Perhaps a more interesting question would be what the goal is of project Ukraine.

In my view, it is thinkable that they knew the Russians were going to invade, and also knew the Russians would eventually prevail, since the decision not to put NATO boots on the ground was obviously made in advance of the conflict.

Maybe the goal of project Ukraine really was to incorporate Ukraine into NATO/EU, but perhaps this was just the red herring to provoke Russia, and the actual goal of project Ukraine lies elsewhere - perhaps the goal was a forever war between Russia and Europe.

For example, European energy dependency has been a thorn in the United States' side for at least a decade, and it ties in nicely with the US blowing up Nord Stream.

Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US. — ssu

There is some role for regional players, but their influence compared to that of the great powers or their intelligence agencies is negligible.

I think people underestimate just how powerful the US and the CIA are/were. And this trend in large part countinues to this day. Just look at the gigantic propaganda campaigns surrounding Ukraine and Gaza.

Again, Iraq fell to Baathists. — schopenhauer1

Which the US supported.

The coup against Mossadegh was concocted by the British under Churchill because they were nationalizing the longstanding British oil companies there. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. Countries becoming modern, rejecting colonialism, etc.

Churchill was no less a scumbag. Perhaps even the worst of them all.

It's hard to say the US was the "bad guy" there. — schopenhauer1

I'd say that goes without saying. They armed the Taliban and subsequently put them in charge. I don't think I need to remind you who the Taliban were. It's one of many extremist groups that rose to power as a direct result of US interference.

That isn't to say the US was the only bad guy in Afghanistan.

However, out of all of those, it was Iran that actually was the worst of them because that could have been a democracy, even if not quite aligned with interests. — schopenhauer1

A lot of countries in the Middle-East had undemocratic forms of government, but for a lot of those countries that's what worked. It kept those countries stable and gave them prosperity. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, even Somalia, used to be genuinely modern (or well on their way towards modernity).

Prosperity is ultimately what brought Europe and the United States out of despotism, so in my mind there's no reason to assume the same wouldn't have happened in the Middle-East were it not for constant US meddling.

Sadly, wealthy countries are also powerful, and that's the one thing the United States and Israel could not tolerate in the region. Wealthy communist countries? Even worse!

Certainly America (and Britain and others) favored various policies before and during the Cold War, but I don't think the US would ever want Nasser or the Baath ideology to take charge. — schopenhauer1

It might not have been what they wanted, but that's what they got.

They were like children playing with fire, but it was someone else's house that burned down.

But for what it's worth, the US put these people in charge because they thought it would keep the communists/socialists out, often to no avail.

It's a known trope that many of the people the US put in power through regime change turned towards communism on their own initiative.

This of course convinced the US that the Soviets were everywhere and that they needed more regime change.

It's an incredibly cynical game the US played. The abuse of power and the toying with the fates of nations on a global scale. I don't think it has any precedent in history.

Excuse me, who put Nasser in charge in Egypt? Who started the string of coups in Syria? Uncle Sam's greasy fingerprints are all over the Middle-East, and wherever it got involved things got worse. Much worse. They're closing in on a century of sowing chaos in the Middle-East, much of it directly tied to protecting Israel's position in the region.

Oh, and if you do a bit of digging around the Ba'ath party coming to power in Iraq, guess what you find?

The whole thing is so ironic it would be a nice joke were it not for the fact that the United States has the blood of millions on its hands in the Middle-East alone.

The most important reason Israel is "singled out" is because it enjoys widespread western backing, and its special relationship with the United States ensures it is never held accountable. Western-sponsored crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, the United States and Israel are responsible for many of the dumpster fires that litter the Middle-East. The dictators, they themselves have put in power. The extremist groups, they themselves have created and supported. The moderates, they themselves have deposed or assassinated.

So yea, I'm not buying these crocodile tears.

Recently brought to my attention was a report written by former UN Assistant Secretary-General Michael von der Schulenberg, German professor Hajo Funke and retired formerly highest-ranking German general Harald Kujat.

The report features a detailed reconstruction of the peace negotiations that took place in March/April of 2022.

This is merely confirming what many of us already strongly suspected, but

Here are the seven points which comprise most of Schulenberg's contribution to the report:

1) Just one month after the start of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had come very close to an agreement for a ceasefire and to an outline for a comprehensive peace solution to the conflict.

2) In contrast to today, President Zelensky and his government had made great efforts to negotiate peace with Russia and bring the war to a quick end.

3) Contrary to Western interpretations, Ukraine and Russia agreed at the time that the planned NATO expansion was the reason for the war. They therefore focused their peace negotiations on Ukraine’s neutrality and its renunciation of NATO membership. In return, Ukraine would have retained its territorial integrity except for Crimea.

4) There is little doubt that these peace negotiations failed due to resistance from NATO and in particular from the USA and the UK. The reasons is that such a peace agreement would have been tantamount to a defeat for NATO, an end to NATO’s eastward expansion and thus an end to the dream of a unipolar world dominated by the USA.

5) The failure of the peace negotiations in March 2022 led to dangerous intensification of the war that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, especially young people, deeply traumatized a young generation and inflicted the most severe mental and physical wounds on them. Ukraine has been exposed to enormous destruction, internal displacements, and mass impoverishment. This is accompanied by a large-scale depopulation of the country. Not only Russia, but also NATO and the West bear a heavy share of the blame for this disaster.

6) Ukraine’s negotiating position today is far worse than it was in March 2022. Ukraine will now lose large parts of its territory.

7) The blocking of the peace negotiations at that time has harmed everyone: Russia and Europe – but above all the people of Ukraine, who are paying with their blood the price for the ambitions of the major powers and will probably get nothing in return. — Former UN Assistant-General Michael von der Schulenberg

Kujat and Funke conclude:

Fact is that the main results of the negotiations were based on a proposal by Ukraine, and Zelenskyy courageously supported them in an interview with Russian journalists on March 27, 2022, even after NATO decided against these peace negotiations. Zelensky had already expressed similar support beforehand in a sign that proves that the intended outcome of the Istanbul negotiations certainly corresponded to Ukrainian interests.

This makes the Western intervention, which prevented an early end to the war, even more disastrous for Ukraine. Russia’s responsibility for the attack, which was contrary to international law, is not relativized by the fact that responsibility for the grave consequences that ensued must also be attributed to the states that demanded the continuation of the war. — Peace for Ukraine

It's beyond me how anyone can take this seriously. — Echarmion

That could very well be. What's your academic background?

Since there has been some debate about what Mearsheimer actually believes about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I'll share this quote from a recent lecture given on the 23rd of October, 2023:

[Putin] has not come close to trying to conquer all of Ukraine. When he invaded Ukraine in 2022, they sent 190,000 troops in at the most. There is absolutely no way that a 190,000 troops could conquer Ukraine.

[...]

And if Putin were interested in all conquering of Ukraine, he would need at least 2,000,000, I would argue he would need at least 3,000,000 troops.* He did not have those kind of force levels. He did not try to conquer Kiev. The reason he invaded Ukraine is he wanted to force Zelensky to the bargaining table, so they could get some sort of agreement on Ukrainian neutrality, Ukraine not being in NATO. — John J. Mearsheimer

*Mearsheimer bases this on the German invasion of western Poland, and the size of Poland in relation to Ukraine. The lecture contains more detail.


Note that this is almost exactly my argument as I have defended it here for several months.

You take anything negative about the Russian invasion with a grain of salt. — ssu

I take media propaganda with a grain of salt, and if I binged on it as much as the average TFP poster then I would be very worried about my salt intake indeed.

I'm not a military expert, but what happened looks to me to be modelled on the WW2 German invasion of France, a high speed blitz takeover of the Capital avoiding the main defensive forces — unenlightened

But this is ridiculous.

What modern army is going to model their defense on 1940's France? Have you seen a Ukrainian Maginot Line anywhere?


Holding on to Kiev was Ukraine's most obvious goal, so taking Kiev while avoiding the main defensive forces is a non-starter. If anything the main body of the Ukrainian forces was located in and around Kiev.

Taking it would have required a force several times larger than what the Russians deployed on the Kiev axis, and months of grueling urban combat. Nothing in the Russian force posture suggests they were getting ready for such an operation.


Furthermore, as I've often argued here, occupying Kiev is unlikely to have been the Russians' goal for several reasons. One reason is that due to extensive US / western support it is unlikely that it would have made a large impact on the military situation. The Ukrainian army remained operational, and leadership of the war could be conducted from elsewhere.

Anecdotally, they were running short first of fuel, then of personal equipment for troops, and then of munitions and tanks and even training facilities for the reinforcements. But perhaps that is all Western propaganda. — unenlightened

Supposedly they were also running short on artillery shells, yet scarcely a day has gone by that the entire frontline hasn't been peppered by Russian artillery, so I do tend to take such reports with a grain of salt.

But from a military perspective, the Russians probably expended a large portion of their offensive capacity on the initial invasion. After the initial invasion failed to conclude the war through a negotiated settlement, the Russians changed their force posture towards defense and they started to dig in. At that point the demand for supplies changes also.

For example, the Russians may have been running "low" on tanks and fuel, but since they probably weren't planning further large-scale offensive operations that could also be the normal picture one would expect after the initial invasion was concluded and they entered a period of recuperation.

Then why did they have those long lines of stalled transport for a week or two, and why did they run short of so many things so quickly? Can they not count? — unenlightened

The inactivity of the Russian forces in northern Ukraine during the initial stages of the war in my view reflects their purpose as I have described it. Had the purpose been to overwhelm defenders and surround and occupy Kiev, we would have seen an entirely different pattern, more like we saw during the battle for Bakhmut and Avdiivka but much larger in scale.

What are/were the Russians running short of?

I think Putin thought the same about Zelensky. A puppet he could knock over in a few days.Do you think Russia began this prepared for a long war of attrition? — unenlightened

I doubt the Russians expected a quick military victory, considering the fact that they invaded with a force that was way too small to fully defeat the Ukrainian military and occupy all of Ukraine.

The operations in the north and around Kiev were intended to pressure Ukraine into negotiations, which we know did take place in March/April of 2022 and were subsequently blocked by the United States and Britain. So at the very least the Russians believed there was a possibility of a quick negotiated settlement through a show of military force. I guess at this time the Russians still believed the European desire for peace in eastern Europe and normal economic relations with Russia would trump neocon interests in Ukraine, but they were wrong.

Since negotiations failed, the Russian plan is probably to sit on the territory they now occupy and leverage their military advantage until either a negotiated settlement is reached or the war turns into a frozen conflict.

A quick negotiated settlement was obviously the preferred outcome, but it's pretty much unthinkable that the Russians did not plan for a situation in which negotiations failed.

Lastly, "war of attrition" is not necessarily an accurate characterization of this conflict even though the term is used a lot. It is more like a prolonged stand-off with occasional, relatively small-scale offensive actions. I don't think it is nearly as taxing on the Russian system as western media likes to suggest, and that the Russians can sustain these types of operations pretty much indefinitely.

Installing a puppet regime in a country that has been militarized by the United States over the course of 10 years, with an intact and capable army that enjoys extensive support from the US and its European neighbors? That is not really a feasible proposition. I think such a puppet regime would last a few days at most.

It should also be noted that the Russian military did not make any large push towards Odessa. After they captured Cherson they made a few incursions north / northwest ward and retreated upon meeting resistance.

Consider how the Russians fought the battle of Bahkmut, or the siege of Mariupol.

Kiev and Kharkiv are several times larger, so we would expect to see comparable movements only larger in scale. Yet, nothing in the behavior of the Russian forces suggested they were preparing for a lengthy siege or months of grueling urban combat.

I know what your explanation is for that; Russian incompetence, but I think that's a weak explanation.