Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/11/20 03:35:02
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Grey Templar wrote: Russia being scared of NATO can mean only one of two things,
1) They are insanely insecure to be scared of the paper tiger.
2) Its just a convenient excuse to push back aggressively and expand.
The Russians know their boarders are indefensible. The entire point of the Soviet Union (and by extension the Warsaw pact) was to provide Russia buffer states loyal to them to be their meat shields. Putin wants those meat shields back because yes, they are this insecure. Russia was rocked by instability after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the pendulum swinging the other way as people try and find security in the old way of doing things.
2014/11/20 11:40:38
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Grey Templar wrote: Yup. Russia has been invaded twice, neither attempt was successful.
England, another country with a famed natural barrier has been invaded once. And it was successful.
Actually there were numerous invasions of England, unless Saxons and Vikings don't count. As several others have pointed out, russia has endured numerous, successful, invasions. Only Hitler and Napoleon failed, and both due to their own arrogance rather than any tactical acumen on the part of the Russians. (Russia was nearly bled white by both, as happened in WW1)
2014/11/21 00:20:57
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
This is exactly my opinion. I don't to risk WW3 for the sake of Ukraine and our Politicians' ego.
We risk WW3 every day just for the egos. At least if the whole place went to hell in a handbasket over the Ukraine, we could say there was a reason.
Dunno about England, but several NATO members have recently kicked out Russia's ambassadors and some have had the act reciprocated by Russia for various reasons.
At the rate Vladamir's going, Finland will soon have a terrible famine that Russia will have to send their army in to distribute aid supplies.
2014/12/01 23:42:21
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
I seem to recall their high point was called the Battle of Mons Badonicus.
He might want to consult De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae or Historia Brittonum. Possibly Annales Cambriae. Might want to look up a certain dux bellorum named 'Artorius'.
2014/12/06 16:23:25
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia has been invaded unsuccesfully a lot more than twice. Disregarding the Crimean War (as the aim there was not to take territory), the last invasion of Russia that was successful was the Polish invasion during the Time of Troubles.
Also, blaming the defeats of Hitler and Napoleon entirely on their egos displays ignorance of history.
So, you're saying that Napoleon refusing to finish off the mauled Russian army with his fresh reserves at Borodino when Kutuzov fumbled the withdrawal and assuming that Russia would surrender just because he occupied Moscow did not lose the war for him? and that Hitler forcing his generals to wait in plain sight so the Russians could reenforce to their hearts content at Kursk, or refuse to allow them to draw the Russians into a war of maneuver against the Germans, one they could have likely won? (Remember that the Russian army, while more numerous, was not yet as mobile as it was later in the war and the Germans had for all intents and purposes absolute air superiority..)
And *I'M* the one ignorant of History?
Iron_Captain wrote: Russia's victory in both wars was more due to Russia's size, harsh environment and tenacity of the Russian people than due to an arrogant leader on the other side.
You do realize that not planning for those things was arrogance, right? Napoleon assuming it would be all over by Winter. Hitler by not playing to the existing divisions in Russia at the time. Most of western Russia would have torn itself apart before the Nazis ever got there if they had played it right.
Well... us English did. The Scots and Irish weren't too happy about it.
I seem to recall the Irish's objections to english rule in general rolled on for about 500 years and the casualties on all sides were quite heavy, actually. If you only want to start with William of Orange and Mary of England (thus, not an invasion, but a usurpation, since Mary was in line for the throne) the Jacobite rebellions were um, quite long, and bloody, finally coming to a military end with Bonnie Prince Charlie at the Battle of Culloden.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/06 16:33:00
2014/12/06 18:32:09
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Ketara wrote: Which makes it somewhat ambiguous as far as the phrase 'invasion' goes; when half your army is local, it's not so much an invasion as it is an insurrection backed by foreign powers.
The fact his wife was next in line after James also helped.
2014/12/10 03:16:52
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Hypothetical question: If a government is no longer in a state of being due to being violently removed, does a nation still exist to invade?
Under international law, the answer is yes, surprisingly. The state of a nation's internal political situation is not factored in determining if a country has been invaded by a foreign power or not.
The US Invasion of Somalia is an example of this.
To be blunt, it's a very flimsy pretext for a land grab. Particularly when spouting that old chestnut about defending an ethnic minority.
2014/12/12 00:11:37
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Which international law is that? (genuinely curious) Is it the UN? And is the definition of a 'nation' directly linked to the previous incarnation of government, however bad it might be?
While not specifying as an invasion, the hague Convention and article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention lay it out.
Hague art 42:
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
4th Geneva Convention, Article 2:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Basically, any time you march into a territory not your own, you're considered an occupying force, regardless of what you call it, or if they welcome you with open arms, as long as you have no legal claim over the territory in question. It doesn't matter if the government there can put up resistance or not.
1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78)
2014/12/12 02:06:44
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Ketara wrote: See, I can spot about five linguistic issues with that definition without even trying. It doesn't nail down my hypotheticals, rather, it just makes it more complicated.
I might bounce it around the war studies department, see if I can get another definition.
You'll have fun. Just to make your head spin more, the original language of Hague was not English.
Red Cross gives a nice little summery of what is and is not allowed under what's generally known as the Law of Occupation:
ICRC wrote:
The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
Collective punishment is prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
Cultural property must be respected.
People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.
2014/12/25 00:34:17
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
I like how the rebels stopped the government offensive approaching the bridge by destroying the bridge. I'm guessing most of the far bank is in Government hands now then, though fighting remains intense, apparently.
2015/01/19 21:30:39
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
loki old fart wrote: I feel sorry for those people who have been murdered, because they believed in freedom of expression.
Or were driven out of their homes and forced across into Ukrainian territory for the sin of not being 'Russian'. Amusingly, this has been going on in Crimea as well, though, as our favorite apologist will be quick to point out, they're willingly leaving. Their homes mysteriously burning while the authorities do nothing to stop it has nothing to do with it.
Mind you, though, everyone in Crimea is enjoying a long, cold, food deprived winter. Seems Russia is generous with guns, but not so open with food, fuel, and money. Apparently while international sanctions might not scare Putin, they put the fear of god into many non-state owned companies, who are refusing to do business there, meaning severe shortages of food and basics.
Iron avoids the obvious that Russia is in violation of the Geneva Conventions several different ways regarding their operations in the Ukraine. Crimea alone violated three treaties they themselves signed, and not just with the Ukraine. By taking it, they basically set fire to every nuclear disarmament treaty in Eastern Europe. That has the potential to be very bad, for those not keeping score.
2015/01/19 23:14:09
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Iron_Captain wrote: They simply made a decision part of the population did not like (not signing a treaty with the EU), which is no fair, legal or moral ground for overthrowing a democratic government. The current Ukrainian government is unconstitutional and hypocritical. When you use illegal, unconstitutional means to usurp state power, you should not complain when others do the same to you.
Throwing four or five men out of office is hardly 'a overthrow of the government'. If it was, Richard Nixon would have been the last President of the United States.
The vote in the Ukrainian parliament was 386-0 to return to the 2004 Ukrainian Constitution and Yanukovych fled, after his own party voted in favor of this. While the Parliament did not immediately charge Yanukovych with a crime at that time, this was because he used the two or three days of mourning that the government was closed after the rioting to flee. Once courts were back in session, criminal charges were procured, based on his violation of the Constitution (the one in place at the time) by ordering the military to try and suppress the rioters, which itself led to the resignation of several staff officers of the Ukrainian army, who quit rather than follow an illegal order.
The parliament observed at the time that they had followed the law as closely as possible under the circumstances (ie the courts being closed and Yanukovych's flight from the Ukraine already being in progress).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/21 10:54:51
2015/01/22 00:45:50
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
It is a overthrow of the government if said men thrown out are the president and his ministers (who constitute the government). The government was thrown out of office, therefore the government was overthrown. Is that so hard to get? According to the Ukrainian constitution, it is of course possible to remove a government by legal means, however, these were not properly applied and therefore this constitutes an illegal, unconstitutional coup by the opposition.
Because it wasn't just the opposition, it was his own party too. 386-0 NO ONE voted in favor of keeping him. Not even a token 'hey, let's not make it wholly one sided' vote by the last guy to stand up and vote And, no, a government is way more than the four or five guys at the top, even under communism. The only government where that's even close to true is a dictatorship.
Iron_Captain wrote: That vote was not valid under both the 2010 and 2004 Ukrainian constitutions. And yes, Yanukovich too violated the constitution, which in itself would have been a valid ground to throw him out of office. However, this should have happened according to the proper procedures laid out in the constitution. These procedures were not observed by the opposition, therefore their throwing Yanukovich out of office is illegal.
He had already fled the capital before they even tabled the idea of a vote, and his own party was firmly in favor of his removal. They did so, on the grounds that he was no longer able to carry out his duties, having fled the country the day before. What then, leave the office empty? The Ukrainian Constitution doesn't actually cover if the President flees to another country. Further, the vote IS constitutional, as while the vote did not garner the required number of votes, despite getting 100% of the votes from those present, because the balance were vacated by MPs who were other wise occupied fleeing the country with millions of stolen dollars of the Ukrainian's money, or committing treason with Russia, or both! In other countries (even mine) those are high crimes and misdemeanors, and pretty much mean your seat in the government is vacant.
Further, their first act after renewing the previous Constitution was to more or less throw themselves out of office come the fresh elections. If the 'coup' as you put it was not the will of the people, they were free to vote against it. Instead, Russia invaded and supported rebellion against the sovereign government.
Yanukovich was a piece of gak, but the opposition was and isn't any different. All politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, gak filled scumbags. They are all the same.
I might say the same for every elected official I've ever met. But I'm biased there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/22 00:47:15
2015/01/23 23:57:11
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
There has been some action going on in Mariupol lately.
There has been a rocket strike that killed 30 people, Ukrainian government says rebels did it, rebels say it was government false flag operation. The government also claims the rebels want to launch an offensive on Mariupol, but the rebels deny that:]
Loki, 'hacktavists' don't usually work directly for the state. As has been pointed out in the past, Cyber-Berkut take their orders from SVR, and are also behind several attempts at Election rigging in the Ukraine. That they might, say, fabricate 'proof' of the Russian state media's claims doesn't seem too far fetched to me.
According to various experts trotted out by TASS over the last few months, the Ukrainian losses are huge.. If you actually add them up, the Ukrainians have lost four times the population of the entire Donbass region. Surly a sign of NATO intervention.
As anyone who has ever seen, heard of, or read about war will tell you, don't believe what you hear when people talk about casualties until after the treaty is signed, and then only half of it. After all, the Russians still don't know how many people they actually lost in WW2.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/29 01:36:51
2015/01/30 00:01:42
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Iron_Captain wrote: Who Cyber-Berkut are and who they work for is not known because the members are anonymous. All we know is that they are on the pro-Russian side, that they have published accurate sensitive information in the past, and have attacked several pro-Ukrainian sites and NATO.
Well, no, again, their information has been highly inaccurate in the past. Some of their supposed US documents have the sort of grammatical errors that suggest that they were written by a non-native speaker. Which makes them pretty suspect since I would hope that Jason P. Gresh
Lieutenant Colonel, US Army would have learned by now that "Your job is to cause some problems to the transport hubs in the south-east in order to frame-up the neighbor." isn't quite right, even when speaking in code. It sounds like he's a cover for Boris Badenov's latest plan to eliminate Moose and Squirrel.
Agreed. Casualty estimates are always highly unreliable, especially for an ongoing conflict.
What is sure is that Ukraine is suffering quite a few losses. In the past few weeks alone there have been a lot of prisoners taken, more than before, and including quite a few high-ranking officers.
According to some reports, mostly from Cargo 200, so grain of salt, the Russians have lost up to 6,200 men. Unfortunately, it's the only actual number I can find, and I consider it suspect. But assuming the Ukrainians really did lose 1k men, and the Russians were assaulting dug in positions, it's not outside the realm of possibility. The Ukrainians have had significant close air support, the 'rebels' have not really had much in that way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/30 00:01:57
2015/01/30 03:24:29
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Iron_Captain wrote: The Ukrainian Army also does not nearly get as much air support as they would want. The majority of their air force was not maintained and inoperable, and that was before the crisis began. Also, they are not Russian, they are pro-Russian. Most of them are Ukrainians.
It only takes a handful in the right place at the right time.
Further, Ukrainians don't get flown back to Russia as 'Cargo 200's. That's specifically reserved for dead Russian Military. (Wounded is 'Cargo 300'). According to sources inside Russia, over 6,200 Cargo 200's have landed in Russia since Mid January.
Either the Russian military is writing fake manifests to over-report it's casualties, or they're taking losses somewhere.
2015/02/05 00:29:30
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Sending arms is just going to be wasted money and a propaganda coup for Putin methinks.
Not so much. Putin's been screaming how the US has been sending guns and tanks and bombs and troops to back the Nazis for a few months now. Officially the US has been sending food and non lethal military gear. As opposed the highly lethal tanks and guns that Putin has been sending.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/05 01:11:16
2015/02/09 23:43:24
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Iron_Captain wrote: That will only make things much worse. The only road to peace is diplomatic compromise.
I seem to recall that sentiment has been stated about numerous expansionist powers in the past, particularly those who used small ethnic groups as a justification to annex territory. Said treaties sometimes lasted long enough for the ink to dry.
I don't expect Russia to suddenly over run Poland in the near future, but this current policy elicits a knee jerk reaction in those of us who still have negative associations with the name 'Joseph Stalin'. I know many Russians think he was great, but a lot of people still think Hitler had the right idea too.
2015/02/10 00:05:22
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
What else would you exactly call it? The sheer amount of brand new Russian tech that even most Russian troops don't have yet and the number of Russian troops dying mysteriously has reached the point that one must ask who Putin thinks he's fooling when he claims that the Russian military has not invaded the Ukraine. I mean, honestly, the elected leaders and military commanders have all mysteriously been replaced by Putin's hand picked man, who had also previously overseen Russian actions in Crimea, Moldova, Lithuania, and Georgia.
A Russian bear with a paper bag over it's head is still a Russian bear.
...
