Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Ken]

Are you talking about the bridge that is carrying all the troops, weapons, artillery, and missiles that Russia is using to attack and terrorize all of Southern Ukraine?

So are you saying attacks on Russian bridges, which kill civilians, are fully justified at this point?

Should the U.S. and other Western powers help provide materiel and other support to help Ukrainian armed forces and militias blow up Russian infrastructure?

Do you really want to have this argument Josh?

Under Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions to which BOTH Russia and Ukraine are signatories, some civilian infrastructure is considered to be legitimate military targets:

"In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

Any attack must be justified by military necessity: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".

Some targets are clearly legitimate, including all military personnel directly engaging in hostilities on behalf of a belligerent party who are not hors de combat or are not members of a neutral country. Some civilian infrastructure, such as rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications used by the military for communications or transporting assets, are all considered to be legitimate military targets.

So yes, the Kerst bridge was a completely legitimate military target under the rules of war agreed to by both Russia and Ukraine.

On the other hand, what is Russia doing? Yesterday Russia deliberately bombed children's playgrounds in Kyiv. Which is the textbook definition of terrorism. What is the military significance of a children's playground in a park in Kyiv? If Russia doesn't want to be labeled a terrorist state, maybe it should stop using terror as a weapon. Don't you think?



Kremlin TV actually said that yesterday's missile barrage was intended to be a "mood booster" for Russian audiences. Do you think that is a legitimate war aim? Killing as a means of boosting your mood? Or is it perhaps a sign of sickness in the Russian psyche?

[ken_sylvania]

Is there a particular reason you say "That's what Putin is doing" rather than saying "That's what Putin and Zelensky are doing."?

Because Zelensky is not bombing Moscow, he has not invaded Russia. He is not a military invader who is killing Russian civilians.

So then you would have no problem saying "That's what Putin, Bush, Obama, and Trump have been doing."?
I think what Putin is doing is horrible, but the Ukrainian conflict, including the involvement of the US, reminds me so much of what I've read about Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and so many other conflicts where the US got involved and the American people cheered "the good guys" in the conflict only to find out later the truth was much more complicated than they imagined.

[Ken]

Is there a particular reason you say "That's what Putin is doing" rather than saying "That's what Putin and Zelensky are doing."?

Because Zelensky is not bombing Moscow, he has not invaded Russia. He is not a military invader who is killing Russian civilians.

So then you would have no problem saying "That's what Putin, Bush, Obama, and Trump have been doing."?
I think what Putin is doing is horrible, but the Ukrainian conflict, including the involvement of the US, reminds me so much of what I've read about Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and so many other conflicts where the US got involved and the American people cheered "the good guys" in the conflict only to find out later the truth was much more complicated than they imagined.

If you want to argue that Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and the other architects of America's past wars belong in the Hague for war crimes you would have no argument with me. Even some WW2 architects like Curtis LeMay. On the other hand, Obama, Trump, and Biden all largely inherited wars which they wound down and ended rather than starting new ones under false pretenses such the case with Tonkin Gulf, "Domino Theory" or "War on Terror" "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

War should be a very last resort, not a first resort. And the last time the US was truly engaged in a war of last resort was WW2. And before that probably the Civil War. Although I'm admittedly not very conversant with the details of the Korean War.

[ken_sylvania]

Because Zelensky is not bombing Moscow, he has not invaded Russia. He is not a military invader who is killing Russian civilians.

So then you would have no problem saying "That's what Putin, Bush, Obama, and Trump have been doing."?
I think what Putin is doing is horrible, but the Ukrainian conflict, including the involvement of the US, reminds me so much of what I've read about Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and so many other conflicts where the US got involved and the American people cheered "the good guys" in the conflict only to find out later the truth was much more complicated than they imagined.

If you want to argue that Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and the other architects of America's past wars belong in the Hague for war crimes you would have no argument with me. Even some WW2 architects like Curtis LeMay. On the other hand, Obama, Trump, and Biden all largely inherited wars which they wound down and ended rather than starting new ones under false pretenses such the case with Tonkin Gulf, "Domino Theory" or "War on Terror" "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

War should be a very last resort, not a first resort. And the last time the US was truly engaged in a war of last resort was WW2. And before that probably the Civil War. Although I'm admittedly not very conversant with the details of the Korean War.

I doubt you can find a single major conflict that the US has been involved in, where the US didn't fight some battles primarily for PR and psychological reasons, the very motives you decry in Russia's war. Even the three "good Presidents" you mention regarded civilian deaths as "collateral damage." Every one of them was absolutely willing to sacrifice the lives of "other" civilians in order to reduce risk to US soldiers.

[Ken]

So then you would have no problem saying "That's what Putin, Bush, Obama, and Trump have been doing."?
I think what Putin is doing is horrible, but the Ukrainian conflict, including the involvement of the US, reminds me so much of what I've read about Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and so many other conflicts where the US got involved and the American people cheered "the good guys" in the conflict only to find out later the truth was much more complicated than they imagined.

If you want to argue that Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and the other architects of America's past wars belong in the Hague for war crimes you would have no argument with me. Even some WW2 architects like Curtis LeMay. On the other hand, Obama, Trump, and Biden all largely inherited wars which they wound down and ended rather than starting new ones under false pretenses such the case with Tonkin Gulf, "Domino Theory" or "War on Terror" "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

War should be a very last resort, not a first resort. And the last time the US was truly engaged in a war of last resort was WW2. And before that probably the Civil War. Although I'm admittedly not very conversant with the details of the Korean War.

I doubt you can find a single major conflict that the US has been involved in, where the US didn't fight some battles primarily for PR and psychological reasons, the very motives you decry in Russia's war. Even the three "good Presidents" you mention regarded civilian deaths as "collateral damage." Every one of them was absolutely willing to sacrifice the lives of "other" civilians in order to reduce risk to US soldiers.

Yes, war is a nasty business and tends to get out of control very quickly. Which is why it should always be a last resort.

You will not find me arguing or defending the morality of any of America's wars except perhaps the Civil War and World War II, both of which were not started by the United States government. One could argue alternative histories where the world would have been a worse place with either a Confederate victory in the Civil War or a Nazi victory in WW2. But beyond those two special cases I'm not sure war has accomplished much.

We shall see if Russia accomplishes any of the objectives it had when it resorted to war as a first resort on February 24, 2022. I have my doubts. I think they have a tiger by the tail and don't know how to let go. I think they hugely underestimated the resolve and capabilities of both Ukraine and the west. And hugely overestimated their own.

[temporal1]

WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS / Brown University

CIVILIANS KILLED & WOUNDED
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/cos ... /civilians

The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 387,072 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars. Civilian deaths have also resulted from U.S. post-9/11 military operations in Somalia and other countries.

People living in the war zones have been killed in their homes, in markets, and on roadways.
They have been killed by bombs, bullets, fire, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and drones.
Civilians die at checkpoints, as they are run off the road by military vehicles, when they step on mines or cluster bombs, as they collect wood or tend to their fields, and when they are kidnapped and executed for purposes of revenge or intimidation.

They are killed by the United States, by its allies, and by insurgents and sectarians in the civil wars spawned by the invasions.

War can also lead to death weeks or months after battles.
Many times more people in the warzones have died as a result of battered infrastructure and poor health conditions arising from the wars than directly from its violence. For example, war refugees often lose access to a stable food supply or to their jobs, resulting in increased malnutrition and vulnerability to disease.

The Costs of War reports document the direct and indirect toll that war takes on civilians and their livelihoods, including the lingering effects of war death and injury on survivors and their families.

Each new war begins with amnesia of previous wars.

[temporal1]

Page 116: March 7-25

From the NYT:

Russia signaled on Friday that it may be reducing its war aims.

The Defense Ministry said that the goals of the “first stage of the operation” had been “mainly accomplished,”
with Ukraine’s combat power “significantly reduced.”

Maj. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi said that Russia would now focus on defeating Ukrainian forces in the eastern Donbas region.
While Russia “does not exclude” that its forces will storm major Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv, he said that taking them over was not a primary objective.

This seems like a positive development.

And, not at odds with this, posted on March 7:

Russia's demands

Only one of those would be a change of how things are in practicality and perfectly fitting with the goal of a buffer against NATO.

No one knows what’s going on in PRIVATE talks.

Elon Musk’s recent twitter proposal reminded of early proposals from Russia (there was a “moment” when Putin+Z were talking of resolution, it was promising). evidently, the U.S./West were not interested. Reviewing reports from BEFORE Feb 24 (it seems to me) Putin has been clear and consistent about 1) what has bothered him/them, 2) their goals.

If this is correct, U.S. response seems peculiar, at best. It’s almost as if Z is not really in control of Ukraine’s destiny.

[Bootstrap]

Is there a particular reason you say "That's what Putin is doing" rather than saying "That's what Putin and Zelensky are doing."?

Because Zelensky is not bombing Moscow, he has not invaded Russia. He is not a military invader who is killing Russian civilians.

So then you would have no problem saying "That's what Putin, Bush, Obama, and Trump have been doing."?
I think what Putin is doing is horrible, but the Ukrainian conflict, including the involvement of the US, reminds me so much of what I've read about Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and so many other conflicts where the US got involved and the American people cheered "the good guys" in the conflict only to find out later the truth was much more complicated than they imagined.

I agree with you about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. (I haven't read up on Korea.)

Most of us assumed Ukraine wouldn't be complicated either, that Russia would take them over in a few weeks and that would be the end of it. Russia is threatening other countries in the region, too. What should Caesar do about this? That's very complicated, and it's a question for Caesar to answer.

But let's not make Ukraine more complicated than it is morally - this is military imperialism, restoring the greatness of the Russian empire because Putin wants a legacy. Russia has no right to invade its neighbors, bomb civilian centers of cities, create torture chambers, separate children from their parents, etc. And if you take Putin's speech seriously, he is claiming the right to invade a bunch of other countries.

You may notice that my posts don't claim that I know what Caesar should do here. They do claim that what Putin is doing is terribly wrong. And I don't believe Putin's propaganda.

[Josh]

Most of us assumed Ukraine wouldn't be complicated either, that Russia would take them over in a few weeks and that would be the end of it. Russia is threatening other countries in the region, too. What should Caesar do about this? That's very complicated, and it's a question for Caesar to answer.

Actually, that's not that complicated. We live in America. We're in the Western hemisphere. We don't need to get involved in invading countries in the Eastern hemisphere.

There are enough countries in the Eastern hemisphere that can wage war with each other.

But let's not make Ukraine more complicated than it is morally - this is military imperialism, restoring the greatness of the Russian empire because Putin wants a legacy. Russia has no right to invade its neighbors, bomb civilian centers of cities, create torture chambers, separate children from their parents, etc. And if you take Putin's speech seriously, he is claiming the right to invade a bunch of other countries.

Do you assert Ukraine has a right to bomb Russian civilians, such as bombing the Crimean bridge?

At some point, you need to stop choosing the "right side" in military conflicts. I realise this is very difficult when there are very loud voices shouting that you are a bad person if you don't support the American side in this conflict. This is the same problem our forebearers faced in WWI and WWII.

[ken_sylvania]

Because Zelensky is not bombing Moscow, he has not invaded Russia. He is not a military invader who is killing Russian civilians.

So then you would have no problem saying "That's what Putin, Bush, Obama, and Trump have been doing."?
I think what Putin is doing is horrible, but the Ukrainian conflict, including the involvement of the US, reminds me so much of what I've read about Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and so many other conflicts where the US got involved and the American people cheered "the good guys" in the conflict only to find out later the truth was much more complicated than they imagined.

I agree with you about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. (I haven't read up on Korea.)

Most of us assumed Ukraine wouldn't be complicated either, that Russia would take them over in a few weeks and that would be the end of it. Russia is threatening other countries in the region, too. What should Caesar do about this? That's very complicated, and it's a question for Caesar to answer.

But let's not make Ukraine more complicated than it is morally - this is military imperialism, restoring the greatness of the Russian empire because Putin wants a legacy. Russia has no right to invade its neighbors, bomb civilian centers of cities, create torture chambers, separate children from their parents, etc. And if you take Putin's speech seriously, he is claiming the right to invade a bunch of other countries.

You may notice that my posts don't claim that I know what Caesar should do here. They do claim that what Putin is doing is terribly wrong. And I don't believe Putin's propaganda.

Do you think I'm making a morally complicated case about something related to Ukraine? Or why the "but"?

To me, what seems morally complicated is trying to develop a moral paradigm that knows what "Russian Caesar" ought to do or not do, while remaining clue-less about what "Ukrainian Caesar" and "American Caesar" ought to do.