stroker said:What with all these reports of newly found executions and mass graves I think our buddy Vlad has just created a new Afghanistan on his doorstep...
I've lost any sympathy for Russian conscripts after seeing this. Anyone involved in these massacres is subhuman.
eastsideTim said:stroker said:What with all these reports of newly found executions and mass graves I think our buddy Vlad has just created a new Afghanistan on his doorstep...
I've lost any sympathy for Russian conscripts after seeing this. Anyone involved in these massacres is subhuman.
I was really hoping not to hear some of this again. I say again, thinking of 1944-1945, when Russian troops swept through Nazi occupied Europe, and often the population was better off under the Nazi's, especially if you were a woman.
We like to think that we're somehow different from the generations upon generations that came before us. That "this sort of thing" can't or won't happen because we're more civilized or we have agreed-upon standards or international courts that can put a stop to the abuse of the innocents in a war. But, really, I don't think this behaviour is subhuman at all - it's extremely human. I think the Milgram Experiment demonstrates how easily we can set aside all our civilization and defer to our baser instincts. As absolutely abhorrent and awful as it is, I just can't say that I'm particularly surprised that it happened just like the fact that the My Lai Massacre happened, or that the Mongols killed and raped their way across Asia and Eastern Europe. Such as it was, such as it ever shall be, I suppose.
A quick map update: As you can see, things are drastically different. Although they don't show it, I am sure there are still plenty of Russians north of Kyiv, but they are clearly pulling back (the map probably doesn't not consider them controlling the areas).
The question now of course is will the Russians make a concerted, and most importantly, effective, push in the Donbas region, and how long will that be until it happens? Clearly, based on previous efforts, it's hard to predict Russian success in that. Add to that the fact that the Ukrainians now have a much more concentrated area to defend, as well as a much clearer supply line, and ever increasing number of foreign fighters and weapons...
I would expect probably at least a week or two for re-deployment? I am not sure this will make the Russians more or less likely to negotiate, but one would tend to think they will wait until they at least are prepared for the new push before even considering real negotiations.
And of course there is this:
A resident of Irpin says that on streets named after the most famous Russian writers, Pushkin and Lermontov, Russian troops shot girls and women and then drove their tanks over them
I feel confident, there will be lot more stories like this coming out. I suspect it's going to make it pretty hard for Ukrainians to agree to any Russian gains after seeing such things.
Satellite imagery from Bucha, Ukraine, from 31 March: a mass grave on the grounds of the city's main church. Also and image from 10 March, which also shows evidence of a mass grave
I am certainly no expert on mass graves, but I am not sure what those shapes represent. By the distribution though, it clearly looks like what ever that is, it is nor meant to be picked up easily (e.g. like an ammo dump).
I don't think this crosses the line politically. The author is incredibly intelligent, and he is a consistent and honest critic of Russia.
From the WSJ today:
Biden Told the Truth: Putin Has to Go
By Garry Kasparov
Russia’s all-out war on Ukraine is entering its sixth week, and the past few days have seen a rhetorical shift in Vladimir Putin’s goals. Since the Kremlin lies about everything, real evidence of a Russian retreat or any change in posture is always necessary. Still, it feels like confirmation of battlefield observations that the Russian army has been thwarted in its primary objectives and will now attempt to salvage a disastrous military effort with a successful negotiation. As my former world championship challenger Nigel Short once said about peace offerings, “If your opponent offers you a draw, try to work out why he thinks he’s worse off.”
It would also fit Mr. Putin’s usual tactic of taking territory by force and then pivoting to diplomacy to secure his gains. Whether it’s feint or fiction, the pressure by Ukraine and its allies on Russia must only increase. Kharkiv and Mariupol now resemble the gutted ruins Mr. Putin created in Aleppo and Grozny. Yet the weapons Ukraine needs to stop long-range artillery, missile attacks and aerial bombing are still being held back by the U.S. and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations.
That should be the real story, not any controversy about President Biden saying Mr. Putin “cannot remain in power.” No free-world leader should hesitate to state plainly that the world would be a far better place if Mr. Putin were no longer in charge in Russia, and one way to help make that come about is to say it. Making it clear that Russia will be a pariah until Mr. Putin is gone is the best way to shake his support among elites, military
commanders and ordinary Russians.
The problem came when the White House attempted to walk back the remark, calling it an ad lib that did not reflect a U.S. policy about “regime change” in Russia. This retreat added fuel to my concerns about an internal split in the White House between those who sense the opportunity to toss Mr. Putin into the dust bin of history and those who are afraid of any change in the status quo and who would rather deal with the devil they know.
The latter would be an echo of 1991, when President George H.W. Bush gave his infamous “Chicken Kyiv” speech, reportedly penned by Condoleezza Rice, cautioning Ukraine against rushing to independence from the Soviet Union. Three weeks later Ukraine ignored that advice and declared independence. The Soviet Union collapsed within months.
The updated 2022 recipe calls for keeping Mr. Putin at the negotiating table for the Iran nuclear deal and not giving Ukraine the jets and other offensive weapons it needs to win the war. Everything I hear from other NATO members is that the U.S. has become the obstacle, and an explanation is required. Allowing Mr. Putin to keep an inch of Ukrainian soil after bombing civilians should be unimaginable. Conceding large areas of eastern Ukraine to the invader in exchange for a cease-fire would only give Mr. Putin time to consolidate and rearm for next time—and there will always be a next time. No peace deal should weaken the strong sanctions that have finally arrived, eight years late.
The only drawback to the end of the Cold War was the loss of the moral clarity provided by a
clear and present evil. Aside from a handful of fellow travelers and useful idiots, even Ronald Reagan’s critics couldn’t doubt the accuracy of his calling the Soviet Union “an evil empire” in a 1983 speech, as startling as it was to hear a politician speak so plainly in moral terms. It was also a tonic for those of us inside the Soviet Union to hear what we knew to be true said aloud by the leader of the free world.
Mr. Biden’s age may be a negative for some, but he remembers the Cold War. Gaffe or not, his remark reflected accurate instincts: Mr. Putin must go. But the war in Ukraine is also a distraction from his flailing domestic agenda. It’s hard to talk about economic and social issues in the U.S. when a real war is leading the news every night.
So who in Washington is calling the shots on Ukraine? If the Biden administration wants Ukraine to win, someone in the White House should say it and do what is necessary to make it possible. If the U.S. is offering deals to Mr. Putin or pressuring Ukraine to accept anything less than sovereignty over 100% of its territory, we should know. Tactical ambiguity can be useful, but a lack of strategic and moral unity and consistency leads to catastrophe.
Mr. Putin’s Russia is a bankrupt gas station run by a mafia that prefers to spend its time and money in London and New York. Offering any carrots to these war criminals would set the stage for a return to the appeasement and corruption that brought us to this deadly phase. It would also shake the foundation of collective defense in the region. As Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks told me last week, “We are afraid not of Russian tanks, but of Western weakness.”
Ukraine’s sacrifice will be in vain if the West’s moral confusion gives Russia a chance to regroup.
The outcome in Ukraine will define a new world order, for good or ill. Taiwan and China are watching closely. Xi Jinping’s natural alliance with his fellow dictator is looking less attractive after the free world’s outpouring of support for Ukraine. The U.S. can restore its leadership of the free world, or it can lead from behind while democracy continues to lose ground.
The West fell asleep when the Cold War ended. Ukrainians are sacrificing everything to shake President Biden, the White House and the world awake.
Mr. Kasparov is chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative.
Thinking and believing he has to go and publicly stating it, are two very different things, especially for a world leader.
Unfortunately, stating it just feeds into Put Put's narrative that the west and NATO are out to get him and his "special operation" was a preemptive strike before NATO could attack him. It potentially makes negotiations more difficult.
If you want to be bold and aggressive, you best have something to back it up, or at least the credible threat of it. One of the main reasons we are where we are is exactly because the West is seen as a toothless dog, and has proven that a number of times, and some could say we are still proving it (ignoring the obvious complications of course).
I suspect O2 will have some useful insights on this.
wae said:We like to think that we're somehow different from the generations upon generations that came before us. That "this sort of thing" can't or won't happen because we're more civilized or we have agreed-upon standards or international courts that can put a stop to the abuse of the innocents in a war. But, really, I don't think this behaviour is subhuman at all - it's extremely human. I think the Milgram Experiment demonstrates how easily we can set aside all our civilization and defer to our baser instincts. As absolutely abhorrent and awful as it is, I just can't say that I'm particularly surprised that it happened just like the fact that the My Lai Massacre happened, or that the Mongols killed and raped their way across Asia and Eastern Europe. Such as it was, such as it ever shall be, I suppose.
Your point is taken, but Putin's (and Russia's) credibility just went to negative. 1945 was within the context of a Nazi invasion, but this was the same tactic applied to people who Putin insists are essentially "Russian". These guys are listening to some quack spouting pseudo-geopolitical analysis and have deluded themselves into thinking they're pursuing their "destiny". The parallels to the Third Reich are obvious and unmistakable. I'm guessing Ukraine's position has changed to a best case scenario for Russia that Russia gains nothing from this invasion. The world has seen their likes before and won't tolerate them again. That being said, this NOT going nuclear is going to hinge on some Russian subordinate choosing to save his country rather than obey orders...
aircooled said:Thinking and believing he has to go and publicly stating it, are two very different things, especially for a world leader.
Unfortunately, stating it just feeds into Put Put's narrative that the west and NATO are out to get him and his "special operation" was a preemptive strike before NATO could attack him. It potentially makes negotiations more difficult.
If you want to be bold and aggressive, you best have something to back it up, or at least the credible threat of it. One of the main reasons we are where we are is exactly because the West is seen as a toothless dog, and has proven that a number of times, and some could say we are still proving it (ignoring the obvious complications of course).
I suspect O2 will have some useful insights on this.
I understand that, and Kasparov covered it in his letter, and I think his opinion is better informed than ours on the matter. It's nuanced. I don't think Biden intentionally said that, he said the quiet part out loud, but as I said, it was covered in the letter.
stroker said:That being said, this NOT going nuclear is going to hinge on some Russian subordinate choosing to save his country rather than obey orders...
I think this is true, which is why I'm more and more in favor of some clever and careful direct intervention.
What's going on over on the boarder with Moldova? Looks like there is some contested land over there that might need addressing?
All the talk about war crimes trials and such is primarily for domestic and alliance purposes, and has little bearing on how things will happen on the ground because there is no mechanism to follow through short of general war, which renders the whole exercise rather pointless. At most, these statements make it clear to Putin that he can expect no cooperation with the West in the immediate future, which in a sense makes his calculus easier. Russia's negotiations are being carried out with Ukraine, which has not called them off in response to the civilian losses, so Western claims to hold Putin accountable seem fairly hollow.
The more important issue here is holding NATO support for Ukraine together. Orban's big win in Hungary means that the EU and NATO have to deal with someone who is unabashedly supportive of Russia and Putin, and can roadblock a lot of initiatives. The war of words between NATO heads of state over recriminations and unmet expectations has already begun, with Poland and the Baltics increasingly making noises about how talking to Russia is pointless and accusing those who have (Macron) of wasting time and effort grandstanding instead of preparing. Putin will be well aware of this, and without a doubt Russian intelligence will be fomenting every bit of dissent it can in various Western media outlets.
If he can prolong the conflict long enough to exploit it, he may be able to get some territory (the land bridge to Crimea) and, more importantly, render meaningful security guarantees to Ukraine from the West harder to achieve. Ukraine has stated that iron-clad security guarantees are a necessary component of a settlement, but so far countries have been very reluctant to sign up for that thankless task. Imagine a scenario where the map remains more or less as it is, with each side consolidating their positions, and Russia offers a cease-fire in place, and negotiations for peace, but Ukraine has no guarantors lined up and cannot convince any country that matters to do so. Now what? Permanent hot peace, as in Korea? Take the cease-fire and keep looking for support? Keep fighting in hopes of reclaiming territory? Does the West keep up the river of free hardware if the fighting could have been stopped and Ukraine said no?
This is the area North North East of Kyiv:
Border Guards raised Ukrainian flags at Dniprovske, Dobryanka and Hremyach border checkpoints in Chernihiv region
Another tidbit I saw, but not confirmed, but believable. I had guessed that the Ukrainians would go hog wild on retreating Russians. Looks like some of the Russians found a solutions to that:
Kids Grabbed, Put on Tanks as Human Shields
Some particularly nauseating acts of the Russian soldiers have been revealed based on eyewitness accounts of them seizing Ukrainian children and putting them on tanks as “human shields” to prevent defenders of Ukraine from destroying them.
The accounts are part of evidence collected by the Office of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, as cited by The Guardian.
Those who witnessed the harrowing scenes say as they started to retreat, the Russian brutes grabbed local children and put them on top of their tanks.
https://www.morningpress.net/russian-troops-put-ukrainian-kids-on-tanks-for-use-as-human-shields/
VolvoHeretic said:What's going on over on the boarder with Moldova? Looks like there is some contested land over there that might need addressing?
Look up Transnistria
In reply to 93EXCivic :
Thanks, that was very informative. So, a tiny sliver of a country 250 miles long by about 20 miles wide occupying half of a river valley with a population of 550,000 people of many different ethnic groups, like a thin strip of North Dakota along the US highway 83 corridor running north to south settled by Norwegians to the north, Germans from Russia in the middle and Germans to the south, with a splattering of Polish and Irish thrown in, except with a lot more people. And, with current exports of about USD of $600 million and imports of about $1,000 million of which 2/3 of their $400 million deficit was with Russia for gas and oil. And, run like a mafia. Got it. 
In reply to aircooled :
I'd say you can confirm it, I found it on multiple sites. Pretty awful behavior by the Russians:
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-accuses-russia-kidnapping-children-looting-homes-kyiv-2022-4
This piece from Politico makes a fairly strong argument that the focus on war crimes will be counterproductive. I've made this case here before, but the author does it more thoroughly than I have.
Additionally, I find it all rather premature, as if the war is over. Signs are pointing to renewed Russian efforts in the east, which could easily go on for another month or more. Past that, I think Russia may be forced to taper operations due to attrition and depleted stockpiles (though the Russians tend to mothball everything, so there's probably 50-year old artillery ammunition and aerial bombs that they can and will drag out). The shape of the peace is yet to be determined, and building the gallows while it's still being sorted out doesn't exactly send an encouraging message to the other side.
No doubt there will be more atrocities in the days ahead, but I think it's wise they publicize what's happened so far. They can make the outside world aware of what's happening, and most importantly get third party documentation and evidence that can be used in court later on.
02Pilot said:Past that, I think Russia may be forced to taper operations due to attrition and depleted stockpiles (though the Russians tend to mothball everything, so there's probably 50-year old artillery ammunition and aerial bombs that they can and will drag out).
I hope so. That E36M3 tends to be a smidge unstable...
I had an awful thought this morning that we might still be discussing how this war is being conducted ten years from now...
02Pilot said:This piece from Politico makes a fairly strong argument that the focus on war crimes will be counterproductive. I've made this case here before, but the author does it more thoroughly than I have.
Additionally, I find it all rather premature, as if the war is over. Signs are pointing to renewed Russian efforts in the east, which could easily go on for another month or more. Past that, I think Russia may be forced to taper operations due to attrition and depleted stockpiles (though the Russians tend to mothball everything, so there's probably 50-year old artillery ammunition and aerial bombs that they can and will drag out). The shape of the peace is yet to be determined, and building the gallows while it's still being sorted out doesn't exactly send an encouraging message to the other side.
You seem contradictory here. "I find it all rather premature, as if the war is over" - I do not see a single source claiming this. Is there something I missed? From everything I have read, it's obvious that Russia is regrouping in the East to attempt some sort of victory in a limited field. Then you said "I think Russia may be forced to taper operations...", but that does point to a reduction is hostilities. I don't agree here, I do not see that Putt Putt has an easy way to reduce operations and still keep his position.
Personally, I think this all heads to a palace coup still. I welcome that. I said this earlier, but if a coup succeeds, the new leader apologizes unconditionally, helps Ukraine rebuild, and sets a date for a fair election in a period of time (6 months, whatever), he would instantly be the most popular leader in the world.
In reply to tuna55 :
My point was perhaps not as clear as I would have liked. I am stating that a discussion of post-war legal proceedings, charges of war crimes, and such, seems premature when fighting is ongoing, and there is no clarity about the end-state of things. Additionally, I do not believe that Russia can maintain a high optempo indefinitely, thus my statement about being forced to taper at some future point. Holding territory against sporadic resistance is one thing, actively fighting, especially offensively, is another.
If there is a coup in Russia, I would not expect the old government to look much different than the current one, just as in the Soviet Union. When Khrushchev was ousted, the system remained; only the priorities and details changed. Different faces, same system.
02Pilot said:In reply to tuna55 :
My point was perhaps not as clear as I would have liked. I am stating that a discussion of post-war legal proceedings, charges of war crimes, and such, seems premature when fighting is ongoing, and there is no clarity about the end-state of things. Additionally, I do not believe that Russia can maintain a high optempo indefinitely, thus my statement about being forced to taper at some future point. Holding territory against sporadic resistance is one thing, actively fighting, especially offensively, is another.
If there is a coup in Russia, I would not expect the old government to look much different than the current one, just as in the Soviet Union. When Khrushchev was ousted, the system remained; only the priorities and details changed. Different faces, same system.
Admittedly my latter point is optimistic, but you will probably concede that, while unlikely, what I laid out is true. If that happened, the leader would be enormously popular on the world stage, and Russia would quickly benefit.
I get your former point better now, though I do not think various people and organizations need to wait for the dust to settle before declaring war crimes.
In reply to tuna55 :
Without question, if a new Russian leader did what you describe, they would be hugely popular globally. They would also probably be hated in Russia by the people who benefited from the old system, and by those who remember the mess that happened the last time Russia tried to make nice with the West. The benefits to Russia would be questionable, as no matter how generous the West was (which is very much a question in itself), effective disbursement and distribution would depend on eliminating corruption inside Russia, which is no small task.
As to the question of war crimes (however one defines them), it's one thing for people and NGOs to be outraged and call for the heads of various people in righteous indignation; it's entirely another for heads of state of nations that are likely to be involved in the diplomacy necessary to resolve the crisis to do so. The former serves to give outlet to public opinion and attempt to influence decision-making, but the latter can shape the nature of events in a much more direct way. In the latter case, as I said, I think it is distinctly unhelpful and could easily make it harder to end the fighting by failing to give Putin a diplomatic off-ramp.
In reply to 02Pilot :
I slightly disagree, I think many of those that flourished under the current Russian system would welcome "woke" government like the US/west. They control the money, the advertising, the jobs all the while saying "Bad Pooty Poot, we only want Russia to advance and be a world leader!"
They made money. They like money. They will ensure there will be more money.
Also a wealthy westernized Russia would be more profitable than Russia ending up as China's lapdog.
So wait, Putin wrecks own public image, stages coup, installs figurehead who does whatever he says, world loves new Russian leader while really nothing changes.
Is Putin playing the long game?
02Pilot said:In reply to tuna55 :
Without question, if a new Russian leader did what you describe, they would be hugely popular globally. They would also probably be hated in Russia by the people who benefited from the old system, and by those who remember the mess that happened the last time Russia tried to make nice with the West. The benefits to Russia would be questionable, as no matter how generous the West was (which is very much a question in itself), effective disbursement and distribution would depend on eliminating corruption inside Russia, which is no small task.
As to the question of war crimes (however one defines them), it's one thing for people and NGOs to be outraged and call for the heads of various people in righteous indignation; it's entirely another for heads of state of nations that are likely to be involved in the diplomacy necessary to resolve the crisis to do so. The former serves to give outlet to public opinion and attempt to influence decision-making, but the latter can shape the nature of events in a much more direct way. In the latter case, as I said, I think it is distinctly unhelpful and could easily make it harder to end the fighting by failing to give Putin a diplomatic off-ramp.
I disagree, I think it wise for war crimes to be declared now. It's not up to the world to play some pretend game of tact with someone who couldn't care less. These "long game strategy" plays don't work, especially with an irrational actor. People aren't all that rational anyway. The people of Russia are eventually going to figure out that they're in the wrong, and EVERY REASONABLE COUNTRY declaring hate crimes is going to help with that. Most polls say something like 50-60% support within Russia for the war, which means even now they're barely a majority. Righteous acts like this help tip the majority the other way.
You'll need to log in to post.
