:yawn:

What evidence do you have that war crimes continue in occupied territories after the peace deals have been signed to a greater extent than they do during the war. — Isaac

What evidence do you have that they won't continue after a peace deal? And how would you bring the guilty to justice, after a peace deal?

What evidence do you have that they won't continue after a peace deal? — Olivier5

I can't think of a single precedent. In no circumstances at all, that I'm aware of, throughout history, have war crimes continued on the same scale after peace negotiations as they were at before them. I would think the complete absence of such a situation from the annals of human history would count as fairly substantial evidence.

There are no such war crimes in Russia nowadays.

The scale of war crimes in Russia-occupied Crimea and Donbas before the war were on a par with those committed by the Ukrainian forces.

So we have no historical precedent, no reason to think Russia treats its own citizens that way, and no evidence from 8 years of Russia-occupied territory in Ukraine of similar scales of war crime.

how would you bring the guilty to justice, after a peace deal? — Olivier5

Same way they were brought to justice after the Yugoslav conflict. Why would you think the methods would be any different?

IDK, it seems impossible to sell that as a war aim now. What is Putin going to say? "We had to do this to stop Ukraine from joining NATO. So this is a success. Ukraine is now only on fast track application status for NATO, something they lacked before, and two of our wealthy neighbors joined NATO, but sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? Oh, and we annexed new areas into Russia but then lost them. And I guess 60-80,000 Russians died and we totally drained down our military stockpiles and got economically isolated from the world and lost our main trading partners. But all in all it worked out because Ukraine isn't in NATO, even though they are closer to joining now than before, and now have a well supplied military of a million men with service experience."

I mean, I wish Putin would just resign and flee with his billions, but I can see why, from his perspective, he can't withdraw, because the entire thing is a humiliating disaster.

There are no such war crimes in Russia nowadays. — Isaac

They routinely murder and torture folks there.

Does that sound like the kind of environment you'd be airlifting in battalions worth of troops with cargo planes? — Tzeentch

So your theory is Russia helicoptered its crack troops to secure a cargo airfield that was a top priority despite being well aware it would be impossible to land their cargo planes there.

Does that sound sane to you? Wasn’t there anything else they could have used those limited resources for in pursuit of their limited war aims?

Is it normal military tactics to stuff around taking hold of an enemy transport hub that you never intend to use?

Even if you - as the military strategist here - were asked to construct a feint on Kyiv with this exact force available to you, would this have been your cunning plan? It this the top option?

Come on, be honest. What’s the bleeding point of ringing an unwanted airfield with precious paratroopers when you have a whole country of other more intelligent choices?

They routinely murder and torture folks there. — Olivier5

So? Are you completely incapable of following an argument. The question is about which strategy is most likely to quickly reduce the scale of war crimes. It is not about whether Russia do anything bad.

Ukrainian armed forces routinely murder and torture folks in Ukraine too. So how does this fact link to your assertion that peace negotiations will not lessen the scale of war crimes?

What seems to be completely escaping the counterargument here is the notion that anything can be judged comparatively. It is not sufficient to point out that things might be horrific under Russian occupation, to make an argument you have to show that they would be more horrific than continued war, either by scale or duration.

Just because you are unable to understand an argument, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Soddin war crime apologists...

So no actual counterargument then. Thought not.

If in doubt resort to accusations of apologism and return to shitposting random articles without comment.

Pathetic.

So your theory is ... — apokrisis

I haven't posited any theory about what those troops were doing there.

I'm just challenging your view that it somehow proves the Russians were deeply committed in their push for Kiev.

Is it normal military tactics to stuff around taking hold of an enemy transport hub that you never intend to use? — apokrisis

Certainly. Denying that capability is just as important as being able to use it yourself. And who said they never intended to use it? Maybe they did. That doesn't prove the intentions towards Kiev you claim they must've had.

Even if you were asked to construct a feint on Kyiv with this exact force available to you, would this have been your cunning plan? It this the top option? — apokrisis

I have but a fraction of the information required to give a serious answer to that. If any here profess that "they could have done it better" I would find that very cute. The point of education is generally also to make one aware of the many things one doesn't know.

What’s the bleeding point of ringing an unwanted airfield with precious paratroopers when you have a whole country of other more intelligent choices? — apokrisis

What makes you believe the airport is unwanted? Airports are important military targets, either for own use or denying them to the enemy. If a military force occupies an area of land, I would expect them to secure every single airport, regardless of their immediate intentions or use by the enemy.

Where the response to torture is "Yes, everybody does that," there's some moral calibration in order. No, not everybody does that, and those who do are criminals.

Western backing of Ukraine is hanging by a thread. The only parties that truly want it to continue are the Washington and Brussels elite. — Tzeentch

Huh? Support for Ukraine has been something, both "in spirit" / goodwill in general populations, and materially. Have you checked the reactions all over...? It's not just some elite highups in Washington and Brussels.

If Russia was to just take over, say, Donbas and Crimea, then their anti-NATO thing would still apply. Less so if they'd taken over Kyiv and captured/killed the government, I might add. As an aside, without a secured route to Crimea via Berdiansk/Melitopol, they'd still have a route via Kerch. There are whatever plans at work, possibly changing now and then, some possibly rushed or pushed out.

By the way, the referendums are only valid in some corner of the Russian system, despite the handshakes and (theatrical) fanfare by Putin in Moscow. They serve only to justify Russian incursions/conscriptions/whatever, to have a formality/declaration to stand on, to the Russian populace. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians continue on to take their land back.

(I'm guessing you're not serving in Kherson, . :smile:)

Well, if you are truly interested in arguments, I suggest you pay attention to what I and others here are saying.

Where the response to torture is "Yes, everybody does that," there's some moral calibration in order. No, not everybody does that, and those who do are criminals. — frank

Exactly. No need to trivialize war crimes.

Exactly. No need to trivialize war crimes. — Olivier5

Yes. The morally appropriate response is condemnation, period

I can't think of a single precedent. In no circumstances at all, that I'm aware of, throughout history, have war crimes continued on the same scale after peace negotiations as they were at before them. — Isaac

And yet the holocaust took place, largely in Poland, after Poland officially surrendered to the Germans.

The morally appropriate response is condemnation, period — frank

And fight.

Would-be philosophers busy trivializing war crimes... Figure that! Students of Heidegger perhaps.

Huh? Support for Ukraine has been something, both "in spirit" / goodwill in general populations, and materially. Have you checked the reactions all over...? It's not just some elite highups in Washington and Brussels. — jorndoe

When in my country's parliament ministers tried to call the war in Ukraine "our war", it raised a lot of eyebrows.

Given the large economic hardships (rampant inflation and energy scarcity) that are coming for much of Europe, it is my impression that support for Ukraine is very thin, and mostly something that is expressed in media and politics, but not felt among the population.

But that is admittedly just an impression I have.

If Russia was to just take over, say, Donbas and Crimea, then their anti-NATO thing would still apply. Less so if they'd taken over Kyiv and captured/killed the government, I might add. As an aside, without a secured route to Crimea via Berdiansk/Melitopol, they'd still have a route via Kerch. There are whatever plans at work, possibly changing now and then, some possibly rushed or pushed out. — jorndoe

Ukraine becoming NATO and Russia annexing the territories it now occupies would be a very flimsy solution indeed. Without a proper buffer, conflict is almost guaranteed. But trust is needed for this buffer to be re-installed, and that is non-existent. So the Russians have taken the approach that even during conflict their position in regards to Crimea must be 'safe'.

And the issue is of course access during times of conflict. The Kerch bridge would probably not survive day 1 of any future conflict.

I think they're just sympathetic to Russia for various reasons.

I'm American, and would give my life in defense of my country. I still condemn it pretty regularly. It's a stressful balancing act that I'm used to. I think maybe some haven't mastered the technique, so they enter into ambivalence where they really know better.

That's my theory, anyway

I think they're just sympathetic to Russia for various reasons. — frank

Not really, or perhaps to Russia as a regime. They are sympathetic to the Putin regime, not to the Russian people.

As if Russians are not known for their ethnic cleansing penchant in the occupied territories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samashki_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars

Not really, or perhaps to Russia as a regime. — Olivier5

My theory is that it's because Russia stands opposed to the West. The enemy of my enemy?

Correct, but unknown to @Isaac.

I say the hell with fascists, whatever their reasons to be fascist.

I say the hell with fascists, whatever their reasons to be fascist. — Olivier5

I've been thinking a lot lately about how people who are hateful are trying to deal with their own wounds. It makes them feel better to be mean.

I get that there are actual psychopaths, but that's not what's usually happening. It's mostly walking wounded, trying to pass their wounds on to somebody else.

The music for this session of Frank's Micro-church:

Where the response to torture is "Yes, everybody does that," there's some moral calibration in order. No, not everybody does that, and those who do are criminals. — frank

Both Russia and Ukraine have been accused of summary arrests and torture in the contested regions prior to the wars. Read the fucking reports before mouthing off with your pseudo-psychologising.

Exactly. No need to trivialize war crimes. — Olivier5

No one is trivialising war crimes. Some are using them to spit out lazy virtue signalling instead of actually considering the situation seriously.

And fight. — Olivier5

Go on then.

As if Russians are not known for their ethnic cleansing penchant in the occupied territories: — neomac

The question was...

which strategy is most likely to quickly reduce the scale of war crimes. — Isaac

Try reading first, commenting after. If you have anything to contribute about what course of action is most likely to REDUCE the severity of war crimes then let's have it, because I don't know if you've noticed but continued war doesn't seem to be doing that.

I can't think of a single precedent. In no circumstances at all, that I'm aware of, throughout history, have war crimes continued on the same scale after peace negotiations as they were at before them. I would think the complete absence of such a situation from the annals of human history would count as fairly substantial evidence.

There are no such war crimes in Russia nowadays. — Isaac

Except where Putin has succeeded in gaining a military victory: In Chechnya, the Chechen Republic. Of course, Russian officials and Putin and Kadyrov have declared the war to be over. However:

The separatists denied that the war was over, and guerrilla warfare continued throughout the North Caucasus. Colonel Sulim Yamadayev, Chechnya's second most powerful loyalist warlord after Kadyrov, also denied that the war is over. In March 2007, Yamadayev claimed there were well over 1,000 separatists and foreign Islamic militants entrenched in the mountains of Chechnya alone: "The war is not over, the war is far from being over. What we are facing now is basically a classic partisan war and my prognosis is that it will last two, three, maybe even five more years." According to the CIA factbook (2015), Russia has severely disabled the Chechen separatist movement, although sporadic violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus

And that there are Chechen fighting on both sides in Ukraine tells something about this conflict, even if it can be declared to be a victory for Putin.

But the war crimes? They are simply called human-rights violations nowdays:

Over the past decade, the world has been shaken by stories about human rights abuses in Chechnya. State-run executions of gay people were the the most notorious, but the reach of Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic, exceeds the borders of the republic. His disregard for human rights, and his deal with Vladimir Putin, is increasingly becoming a greater threat - even for his fellow human rights abusers in Moscow.

(See here)

The question is about which strategy is most likely to quickly reduce the scale of war crimes. — Isaac

If only we could tell. :/

The Ukrainians want the invaders to quit the bombing killing ruinage and leave. They're apparently not just going to give up. They're looking to affiliations other than Putin's Russia; their choice to make.

What does Putin want...? To de-NATO and de-Nazify...? Hard to tell exactly, though statements speeches history whatever suggest broader ambitions. Consequences over some time, not really easier to tell.

^{(Plato, Tacitus, Burke, Mill, Niemöller, Wiesel had some comments, by the way)}

One could at least hope for talks, diplomacy, more transparency, more bona fides signs, even cease-fire, etc, it just seems strained at the moment. :/ How to end warring?

In other news, max seddon reports ...

my country — Tzeentch

India?

an impression — Tzeentch

Hm "get out more"? It sure ain't just some elites in Washington and Brussels.

the Russians have taken the approach — Tzeentch

Putin took "the approach" of invasion nuclear-threats bombing killing ruinage land-grabbing + conscription.