Russia-Ukraine

[Scepticalscribe]

Oh good then, my bad. So you agree he should be assassinated since he's the one who's ordered the death of thousands of people, carpet bombing hospitals and occupied schools with children then?

Glad we see eye to eye on this one.

No.

Nowhere have I written - or stated, or said - that Mr Putin should be assassinated.

Rather, as I have already written, I believe that he should be compelled to stand trial.

This is at least the third post on this thread where my position has been misrepresented, or deliberately misunderstood. Perhaps reading comprehension is not the strong point of some on this thread.

I have argued - through several pages - for the application of the rule of law.

We must uphold our own standards, and must be seen to adhere to the standards we preach, otherwise, we are little better than those whom we condemn.

Leaving aside the legal and moral arguments, assassination as a political tool doesn't work, - even if the Russians were do carry out such an act themselves - and the long term effects have little to recommend them.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

In any case, if Republicans win the House - or, worse, the Senate - following the mid-term elections, I would rather imagine that US policy towards Ukraine might swivel, might pivot, as a consequence, with considerable pressure being exerted on Ukraine to enter talks, (and consider concessions).

 

[Cmaier]

Rather, as I have already written, I believe that he should be compelled to stand trial.

Which will never happen. He hasn’t broken any laws of the only jurisdiction that has access to him, because he created those laws. No other jurisdiction has access to him. So by insisting on an impossible solution, you are condemning thousands of more innocent ukrainians to having their homes and businesses destroyed, to freeze to death in the winter, to be blown up by rockets and artillery aimed at their homes, schools, and hospitals, and to be raped, slaughtered, and thrown into mass graves by russian troops.

But if it makes you feel better, I’m all for us going in there, kidnapping him, putting him on trial, and then executing him when he’s found guilty.

 

[Cmaier]

In any case, if Republicans win the House - or, worse, the Senate - following the mid-term elections, I would rather imagine that US policy towards Ukraine might swivel, might pivot, as a consequence, with considerable pressure being exerted on Ukraine to enter talks, (and consider concessions).

They will never consider concessions, nor should they. That only encourages Russia to do it again. Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, whatever random country Putin feels like taking chunks of next. And if Biden wants to support Ukraine, congress has no easy way to stop it. The executive branch is vested with enormous power to enact foreign policy, and to send troops and armaments where the president believes it is necessary to protect the U.S., its treaty allies, and its interests. If congress refuses to authorize money for weapons for Ukraine, those same weapons will go to Ukraine in the form of NATO or US troops. And rightfully so.

 

[lizkat]

And how does one go about that when the one pulling all the strings is being so relentlessly defended? If that were one of our family members being massacred by that maniac you can bet your ass they wouldn't be defending the person who ordered the strike.

One isn't defending Putin's behavior by saying that assassinating the guy will not solve the problem, and might exacerbate it.

The change in Putin's direction clearly has to come from one or more of his advisers persuading him that his domestic political situation is weakening and can be strengthened only by his cessation of military action in Ukraine.

Their pressure on him will be because of the effectiveness of the West's sanctions and military assistance to Ukraine... and maybe a tacit acknowledgment in Putin's inner circles, although not by Putin himself, that the West has actually behaved with restraint versus Russia, even given the mutual deterrence issues around potential use of nuclear weapons.

The West didn't have to do these things: ask Ukraine not to commit counter-aggression in Russia, ask Ukraine to signal readiness for a political end to conflict --not to give up turf, but to engage in conventional political means of ending a war, e.g., arranging a ceasefire, setting up a neutral location for talks, providing channels for discussion of repatriation of prisoners, medical care etc.​

The aggression in Ukraine is untenable because most of the countries in the world are UN members and do subscribe to territorial sovereignty --including his sometime pals in China, Iran, Turkey. His peers in UN security council do want this to stop.

Yes it's excruciating to see Putin's cruelty continue as winter approaches. Killing him won't stop it.

Who's to say that butcher of a general he put in as commander wouldn't say it's okay I got this, just get me more guns, some vodka, cabbage, potatoes, we are Russia and we will prevail. ​

Putin has to be brought to see stopping his aggression as an advantage to him, personally. That's the process that is already happening, grindingly slow though it is.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

One isn't defending Putin's behavior by saying that assassinating the guy will not solve the problem, and might exacerbate it.

Exactly, and very well said.

Excellent post.

 

[lizkat]

Exactly, and very well said.

Excellent post.

Doesn't help me slog through the war news every day. I'd like to kill him myself but hope no one does.

 

[lizkat]

They will never consider concessions, nor should they. That only encourages Russia to do it again. Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, whatever random country Putin feels like taking chunks of next. And if Biden wants to support Ukraine, congress has no easy way to stop it. The executive branch is vested with enormous power to enact foreign policy, and to send troops and armaments where the president believes it is necessary to protect the U.S., its treaty allies, and its interests. If congress refuses to authorize money for weapons for Ukraine, those same weapons will go to Ukraine in the form of NATO or US troops. And rightfully so.

Yeah Kevin McCarthy's talking campaign-level (or maybe Russian asset level?) trash when he speaks of reducing aid to Ukraine... and it's far from clear that the majority of his caucus would be with him if he went to make a thing of it next term, gavel in hand or otherwise. Americans don't like Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and that's a bipartisan sentiment.

Biden tried to make it clear he was not talking about Ukraine making territorial concessions, only for Ukraine to signal that it understood there must be a political settlement to end of any conflict, not just cessation of hostilities because the last man standing saw no one left to shoot at. It would be a process, not some kind of package. It would mean sitting down with a mediator (Turkey maybe) and possibly some international mediation facilitators, not ones strongly associated with the West, to hash out return of prisoners, return of Ukrainians forcibly removed to interior of Russia, safe passage out of conflict zones by retreating troops and logistics services and whatever else comes up as talks continue.

 

[Alli]

Yeah Kevin McCarthy's talking campaign-level (or maybe Russian asset level?) trash when he speaks of reducing aid to Ukraine... and it's far from clear that the majority of his caucus would be with him if he went to make a thing of it next term, gavel in hand or otherwise. Americans don't like Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and that's a bipartisan sentiment.

We’re in a world of hurt should McCarthy become Speaker.

 

[Citysnaps]

We’re in a world of hurt should McCarthy become Speaker.

Disappoints me no end he "represents" California, even if it's just a chunk of the state.

 

[lizkat]

We’re in a world of hurt should McCarthy become Speaker.

Yeah and not just him but the rest of those inclined to weaken federal government by defunding "inconvenient" agencies, then deriding them, declaring them incompetent and disbanding them, one at a time. But I digress.

McCarthy just on the matter of Ukraine (and other appropriations-related measures) as Speaker will be problematic unless some in his caucus can persuade him he's not immune to rebellion. John Boehner finally found out how difficult it can be to herd cats, and he had a far better grasp of how to do it than does Kevin McCarthy, even observing him as minority leader. Starting off by trying to kill aid to Ukraine is not the way to cement alliances as a new Speaker. He'd split the party and possibly the Trump base too.

 

[Macky-Mac]

So after Germany's Scholtz and China's Xi had a meeting, and apparently agreed that the prospect of Russia using nukes over the Ukraine situation would be a bridge too far, Xi was reported by Chinese state media to have "called on the international community to "reject the threat of nuclear weapons and advocate against a nuclear war to prevent a crisis on the Eurasian continent."

Of course no one has yet vouched for whether Putin has taken that on board as a useful suggestion.

Scholz and Xi agree Russia would cross a line with nuclear weapons in Ukraine

After a meeting with Xi in Beijing, Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the two leaders agreed that with the use of nuclear weapons, Russia would cross a line drawn by the international community.

www.npr.org

Sunday's briefing from ISW includes some comments about Xi among its discussion of Russia's apparent toning down of their nuclear threat.....an interesting briefing but too long to quote, so here's a link; ISW for 11-6

 

[Nycturne]

And how does one go about that when the one pulling all the strings is being so relentlessly defended? If that were one of our family members being massacred by that maniac you can bet your ass they wouldn't be defending the person who ordered the strike.

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it?

Here's where I might come off a bit callous, but I don't think taking Putin out should be on NATO's todo list right now. Yes it means the war goes on, and Putin's regime will likely continue to push the boundaries with war crimes under the thought that we wouldn't risk an escalation with a nuclear power. But it's not a great situation no matter what we do. The key in my mind is that we don't repeat the mistakes of the 1930s by letting a power just take territory unopposed in some misguided attempt at appeasement. And while it's not the ideal way to do it, the Ukrainian people, with humanitarian and military support, could certainly give the Russians a bloody nose here. I'm not that upset with what we've done up to this point to help Ukraine, and if anything, I'd want us to make sure we do everything we can on the humanitarian aid side as well so that Russia doesn't get away with attacking infrastructure.

I really don't want to see a precedent set that if you have nuclear arms, you can take territory unopposed. As far as I know though, we don't really have a great playbook for this sort of situation. So there's a lot of careful feeling it out as we go. And because Putin screwed up and showed the real state of the Russian military through this aggression, it sounds like there's suddenly some very real non-nuclear responses being planned in the event Russia does escalate with a nuclear weapon. I'll be honest, the idea that we seriously think we might be able to stop a nuclear power without resorting to MAD makes me a bit more hopeful that human civilization won't burn itself down in nuclear fire at some point.

McCarthy just on the matter of Ukraine (and other appropriations-related measures) as Speaker will be problematic unless some in his caucus can persuade him he's not immune to rebellion. John Boehner finally found out how difficult it can be to herd cats, and he had a far better grasp of how to do it than does Kevin McCarthy, even observing him as minority leader. Starting off by trying to kill aid to Ukraine is not the way to cement alliances as a new Speaker. He'd split the party and possibly the Trump base too.

Isolationism is fun though, who needs allies in the larger world? We can just turn ever inward and let the troubles of this world pass us by. /s

Brynn Tannehill makes a pretty good argument in my mind that from a strategic perspective, supporting Ukraine is probably one of the best ways to spend our military budget to take Russia off the table as a serious threat for the next couple decades, and let us focus more on China and North Korea in the near term. As having to deal with both Russia-NATO concerns and Pacific concerns splits our attention and resources. It also happens to be relatively cheap compared to getting directly involved.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1589616853709512704/

 

[AG_PhamD]

The thing I worry about in the event of an assassination (and trust me, I have wondered why no one has made an attempt on Trump, MTG and the like), is that it would turn them into martyrs. Which in turn, could and most likely would, create an even worse situation.

I’m sure it’s been tried, I just don’t think such plans/attempts are commonly advertised by the secret service. But there is a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_Donald_Trump

I suspect most sane people realize it would be extremely difficult to carry out an assassination without the resources of a state. And even that would be a challenge.

While I think it’s entirely reasonable to hope Putin is assassinated or deposed or whatever, it shouldn’t come with the expectation that freedom and democracy will follow. More than likely some power-hungry subordinate will follow. And the US involvement in an assassination of a major world leader in todays age would be unthinkable. Assassinating Putin sounds like an a very easy way of starting a nuclear war. Ignoring the fact many, many Russians support Putin, having another country take out your leader is a huge violation of sovereignty (Much of the Russian criticism is less about the war and more about how it is being fought). And if countries feel entitled to assassinate everyone they disagree with, we will find ourselves in an extremely dangerous world.

It’s not to say I don’t think Putin deserves the severest of consequences for what he has done, but for the safety and security of the world globally foreign assassinations are not a road worth going down.

 

[Yoused]

About a century ago (and a tad) the despot of the Russian Empire got his country into a bit of a war. It did not go well. Eventually he had to step down from his position. In the end, it turned out quite badly for him and his family (not to mention that Greg Rasputin). Other problems for Russia followed.

Granted, Nicky was kind of nudged into the war. He did not start it himself. Still, the Russian people can be rather unforgiving. You do have to push them very far to have the situation boil over, but turning the screws on dissent will do you no favors, because they tried that back then – it was de rigueur – and it just made things worse.

 

[AG_PhamD]

In other news, Ukraine is reportedly rebuilding their An-225 using their second unfinished airframe.

Second Mriya aircraft is being built at secret facility and is one third of the way complete

The Antonov State Enterprise is building a second An-225 Mriya aircraft after the first one was destroyed by Russian occupiers during the offensive in Kyiv Oblast in February. Source: Acting General Director of Antonov, Yevhen Havrylov, in Leipzig, speaking to Bild, a German newspaper.

news.yahoo.com

Zelensky apparently pledged $800m to the project, which seems a little insane during a time of war. I guess there’s no price for national pride? That’s not an fiscally rational decision at all.

I’m just a little confused because they claim in the article it’s about 30% complete. It had been previously reported for over a decade this second plane was was apparently 60-70% complete. Perhaps they scavenged parts off of it? Or they were trying to mislead investors.

I’m curious where they will be getting their engines- manufactured by Motor Sich is Zaporizhzhia. I’d imagine that factory is a currently crater in the ground.

Given the discontinuation of the 747 , the fact no one is making giant cargo jets (ie C-5, C-17), and everything else is limited by the cargo opening (ie 777F) and/or payload (C-130, A400m), I could potentially see Boeing or Airbus joining up with Antanov to make some sort of modern freighter aircraft.

 

[Citysnaps]

In other news, Ukraine is reportedly rebuilding their An-225 using their second unfinished airframe.

Second Mriya aircraft is being built at secret facility and is one third of the way complete

The Antonov State Enterprise is building a second An-225 Mriya aircraft after the first one was destroyed by Russian occupiers during the offensive in Kyiv Oblast in February. Source: Acting General Director of Antonov, Yevhen Havrylov, in Leipzig, speaking to Bild, a German newspaper.

news.yahoo.com

Zelensky apparently pledged $800m to the project, which seems a little insane during a time of war. I guess there’s no price for national pride? That’s not an fiscally rational decision at all.

I’m just a little confused because they claim in the article it’s about 30% complete. It had been previously reported for over a decade this second plane was was apparently 60-70% complete. Perhaps they scavenged parts off of it? Or they were trying to mislead investors.

I’m curious where they will be getting their engines- manufactured by Motor Sich is Zaporizhzhia. I’d imagine that factory is a currently crater in the ground.

Given the discontinuation of the 747 , the fact no one is making giant cargo jets (ie C-5, C-17), and everything else is limited by the cargo opening (ie 777F) and/or payload (C-130, A400m), I could potentially see Boeing or Airbus joining up with Antanov to make some sort of modern freighter aircraft.

An excellent move. And planned since the 225 was destroyed. Ukraine and Mriya will rebuild/survive.

 

[Yoused]

meanwhile, the looting becomes ridiculous

A Russian convoy stole an amusement park train from Ukraine and drove it out of Kherson, Ukrainian advisor claims

A video posted by Anton Gerashchenko shows a kid's choo-choo train amid a convoy of vehicles, which Gerashchenko said was driven by Russians.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[AG_PhamD]

An excellent move. And planned since the 225 was destroyed. Ukraine and Mriya will rebuild/survive.

I’m confident Ukraine will be successful in winning this war- or perhaps better said, losing less than Russia. And they will definitely rebuild stronger than ever. I actually wanted to visit Ukraine for years to visit Kiev, Odessa, Chernobyl, Duga Radar, Bukovel ski resort, etc and when the war broke out I figured that a visit might never happen. Things are looking up though.

I would love to see an AN-225 in the sky again. That said, it’s really not a financially reasonable endeavor. For years there’s been interest in finishing the second airframe but every analysis suggested it would cost hundreds of millions which would not be recouped (current estimate 400-800m). The only reason it even exists is because of the Soviet Buran (space shuttle) program and it will likely only ever fly again as part of a massive government project. You can buy A LOT of used 747’s these days for that price. They could probably squeeze a C-17 out of the US or NATO if they had a reason for one.

But it is a symbol of Ukrainian national pride. While not a sane investment, I imagine it would boost the Ukrainian economy by employing many people across the whole supply chain. I think it has to be rebuilt in order to restore Ukraine’s pride and national sense of self.

It seems similar to me like losing the twin towers on 9/11 in the sense they were a symbol of NYC and America for that matter. It’s not until the Freedom tower was completed that you could finally have the sense that NYC had finally recovered its symbolic loss and demonstrated strength in overcoming the tragedy.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Russian forces have made a quick withdrawal across the river in northern Kherson Obvlast with Ukrainian forces entering Kherson....another major success for Ukraine