History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to aircooled :

If accurate, it looks to me like the Ukrainian intelligence service has some very good information on when Russian officers are holding conferences and meetings. Given the reliance on remote participation in meetings (in addition to the obvious in-person contingents), and the probable use of secure comms channels for them, I wonder if they have a source in some technical branch that coordinates those meetings. Could also be SIGINT - I don't know what Ukrainian resources are like there; there's also the very real possibility that they are getting that type of information from external sources.

Yes, thank you, I wanted to note that also.   They REALLY seem to know where and when to hit....  even inside Russia.

Ukrainians continue steady and slow advance near Robotyne:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

got me banned at CC.com (It also had a lot to do with my self-righteous condescension. Hmmmm).

I thought an air of self-righteous condescension was mandatory at C-C.

02Pilot said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I would argue that no state is driven by "humanity or morality", much as some might like to claim they are. Even in instances of conflicts that appear to have a humanitarian purpose, I cannot think of a single case where the moral argument outweighs the pragmatic pursuit of state interest.

While it is certainly true that events cannot be accurately predicted in detail, there are enough commonalities in general that history offers a useful, if imperfect, guide to how things are likely to develop. Fundamental principles apply, and one of them is that rights are only as strong as the enforcement mechanism behind them. Much as we might like to think that there are rules of "natural law" inherent in human statecraft, these are merely an Enlightenment construct, and when insufficiently defended, fall apart when challenged.

Ukraine is indeed a sovereign state, and is entitled under international law to certain things. But international law is a very fungible thing, and virtually devoid of any practical enforcement mechanism, so it's largely toothless. Why? Because strong states have determined that they prefer to rely on unfettered individual strength or direct military alliances rather than the potentially slow, complex, and problematic nature of international institutions based on a lowest-common denominator set of rules. This means that Ukraine, or any other sovereign state, while it may claim the protection of international law, knows that it cannot be relied upon for actual meaningful assistance; this is why it initially sought direct bilateral assistance, rather than pursuing claims of protection at the UN or elsewhere.

Do they have a "right" to their pre-invasion borders? Technically, sure. Can they enforce that right? No. And any right that cannot be defended or enforced is meaningless in practical terms.

With all that in mind, I am curious about your position on the recent Azerbeijani operation in Nagorno-Karabakh. How does that fit into your worldview, and how do you explain the almost total silence on it from other states?

I confess not to know much about that situation other than briefly scanning headlines. I'll only say that I well understand that humanitarian crises exist simultaneously in multiple theaters in every age, and that not all can be righted. That doesn't mean that it isn't my desire to see North Korea liberated, or the plight of the Uyghurs ended, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict ended. I understand that every issue is very complicated, and that we as a country cannot simply go in guns blazing and fix things, but the situation in Ukraine is comparatively simple, and there is enough political will to really change a large portion of the world for the better. So let's do that.

I want to be careful because I am not sure if you meant this explicitly, but I am not alleging that countries always act on humanitarian or moral principles, or that the US is or has. I am saying that is my worldview, based on theology, humanity, and a hundred other factors. I strongly argue that morality is absolute and always has been. 

I understand what you are saying, but it should be noted that morality is a very relative term (especially throughout history).  Religious based morality of course, generally has a bit more stability (but of course can differ between religions).

Symbolic of how history sometimes is not so easily parsed, the Canadian PM caught a bit of flak (wait for it), when they honored a Canadian who fought against a previous Russian invasion of Ukraine... in WWII... by fighting on the German side.... in a Waffen SS unit.... 

Canadian parliament accidentally honours Nazi - with Zelensky and Trudeau applauding

Canada’s House of Commons gave a rousing standing ovation to a Ukrainian veteran who fought in the Second World War – unaware he had served in a Nazi SS unit.

Yaroslav Hunka, 98, was sitting in the gallery when he was described as a “Ukrainian hero” and a “Canadian hero” to applause from prime minister Justin Trudeau and president Volodymyr Zelensky.

However, leaders were left red-faced when House speaker Anthony Rota subsequently apologised after it emerged that Hunka served in the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division, a voluntary unit made up mostly of ethnic Ukrainians under Nazi command.

In reply to aircooled :

Was just reading into that this morning. I tried doing some searches today to find what was known of this guy before the incident. From what I can find, there is almost no mention of him being a nazi beforehand - most search results will bring up his recent pro-Ukrainian activism in Canada, which he was heavily involved in. The only pre-September info I can find that *might* tie him to his nazi past was a snippet from this paywalled JSTOR article that mentions a "Jaroslav Hunka:"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25778511

Some people have been quoted in the media saying that 10 seconds of Googling would've turned up his past, but from what I can find that looks like a case of circular reference - it doesn't help that even a time-limited search will bring up results more recent than the latest date criteria.

I also turned up some information on why this guy is likely not to be prosecuted or deported - long story short, in the post-WW2 era Canada let in a lot of war criminals, some who went to great lengths to hide their past and some who barely glossed over it, and Canadian law and legal precedent make it very difficult to prosecute someone for historical war crimes without direct evidence of individual participation.

In reply to aircooled :

That one really was a stupid moment that I sincerely hope happened due to a lack of due diligence and not because of some nefarious reasons. Stop and think for a minute, who were the 3 biggest factions of the Allied forces in WWII? This is like 1st or 2nd grade material, and not the type that would fool people on a game show because it is irrelevant either. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Right, but didn't they introduce him as someone who fought against the Soviets in WWII?

aircooled said:

I understand what you are saying, but it should be noted that morality is a very relative term (especially throughout history).  Religious based morality of course, generally has a bit more stability (but of course can differ between religions).

 

 

 

Tell me about it.  When we were in high school my sister and I had a huge argument about the morality of cannibalism.  My position was the cannibals thought they were living the morality of their culture, in fact almost a sacramental level of behavior, and therefore should not be judged by our modern taboo (and disgust) at the thought of cannibalism.

In reply to mtn :

They did, which should've been a pretty big red flag in itself. I found the JSTOR article which doesn't definitively list him as a nazi:

https://shron3.chtyvo.org.ua/Magochii_Pavlo_Robert/Nation-building_or_nation_destroying7_Lemkos_poles_and_ukrainians_in__contempory_Poland_anhl.pdf?

But apparently he had already spilled the dirt on himself, what the speaker failed to do 10 seconds of Googling on was the "First Ukrainian Division:"

On Friday, speaker Anthony Rota introduced Hunka as a war hero who fought for the First Ukrainian Division.

The First Ukrainian Division was also known as the Waffen-SS Galicia Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division, a voluntary unit under Nazi command.

Source

A search on that should've led to this page:

https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CD%5CI%5CDivisionGalizien.htm

There is now a Wikipedia article on the division as well but it was only made after the incident.

Looks like another series of attacks in Crimea.

Curious how they will be used:

President Zelensky: Abrams tanks are already in Ukraine

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I would argue that no state is driven by "humanity or morality", much as some might like to claim they are. Even in instances of conflicts that appear to have a humanitarian purpose, I cannot think of a single case where the moral argument outweighs the pragmatic pursuit of state interest.

While it is certainly true that events cannot be accurately predicted in detail, there are enough commonalities in general that history offers a useful, if imperfect, guide to how things are likely to develop. Fundamental principles apply, and one of them is that rights are only as strong as the enforcement mechanism behind them. Much as we might like to think that there are rules of "natural law" inherent in human statecraft, these are merely an Enlightenment construct, and when insufficiently defended, fall apart when challenged.

Ukraine is indeed a sovereign state, and is entitled under international law to certain things. But international law is a very fungible thing, and virtually devoid of any practical enforcement mechanism, so it's largely toothless. Why? Because strong states have determined that they prefer to rely on unfettered individual strength or direct military alliances rather than the potentially slow, complex, and problematic nature of international institutions based on a lowest-common denominator set of rules. This means that Ukraine, or any other sovereign state, while it may claim the protection of international law, knows that it cannot be relied upon for actual meaningful assistance; this is why it initially sought direct bilateral assistance, rather than pursuing claims of protection at the UN or elsewhere.

Do they have a "right" to their pre-invasion borders? Technically, sure. Can they enforce that right? No. And any right that cannot be defended or enforced is meaningless in practical terms.

With all that in mind, I am curious about your position on the recent Azerbeijani operation in Nagorno-Karabakh. How does that fit into your worldview, and how do you explain the almost total silence on it from other states?

I confess not to know much about that situation other than briefly scanning headlines. I'll only say that I well understand that humanitarian crises exist simultaneously in multiple theaters in every age, and that not all can be righted. That doesn't mean that it isn't my desire to see North Korea liberated, or the plight of the Uyghurs ended, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict ended. I understand that every issue is very complicated, and that we as a country cannot simply go in guns blazing and fix things, but the situation in Ukraine is comparatively simple, and there is enough political will to really change a large portion of the world for the better. So let's do that.

I want to be careful because I am not sure if you meant this explicitly, but I am not alleging that countries always act on humanitarian or moral principles, or that the US is or has. I am saying that is my worldview, based on theology, humanity, and a hundred other factors. I strongly argue that morality is absolute and always has been. 

I question your assertion that "the situation in Ukraine is comparatively simple, and there is enough political will to really change a large portion of the world for the better", both in terms of the quantity of political will available now and especially over time, and that complete restoration of Ukraine's territory (and necessarily the catastrophic defeat or collapse of Russia) will result in positive change. If indeed the Western objective is the establishment of a defensible, Western-oriented Ukrainian state within its pre-2014 borders - and I'm not saying that it is, and would argue that it isn't - how long will it take to achieve without triggering dangerous escalation? How many more years of Ukrainian losses will it take, and are those sustainable? How much will it cost the West, and how long will Western voters continue to support it? If it can be achieved, how long will it take Ukraine to recover, and how much will that cost? And what will Russia look like at the end of it all? I'd much rather see a treaty that exchanges some land and a neutrality agreement backed by a robust military based on a combat-proven cadre that now exists for peace in the near-term than a Ukraine that five years down the line has clawed back every last inch, but is now bled white, has burned through all of the Western goodwill and donations, and is left looking for friends, all the while eyeing an unstable Russia caught up in whatever power struggle has emerged in the wake of defeat, perhaps even civil war. Imagine the horror in Western capitals (and Moscow, for that matter) a few years from now as they watch China pour money into a desperate, but territorially complete, Ukraine, as it grasps for any sort of aid it can find.

Is this too pessimistic? Maybe, but it would be far from the first time it's happened - look at the US in Vietnam in 1964 versus the US in 1973, a nation near the peak of its Cold War strength at the beginning to drained, alliances in tatters, domestic situation in turmoil, struggling to just find a way out at the end, all because it couldn't figure out how to end a war it couldn't figure out how to win within the existing circumstances.

As far as morality, well, I think I and others have enumerated this here before, but I question the very existence of morality, let alone universal morality, regardless of what it's based on. Any proposed morality of here and now fits only here and now; taken out of specific context, it looks alien, dangerous, or farcical.

aircooled said:

▪️After the defeat of the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation

TBH it really does look pretty defeated: 

In reply to 02Pilot :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-officers-hadnt-paid-moscow-200016928.html
 

• Russian officers reportedly leaked sensitive intel on the Black Sea Fleet to Ukrainian partisans.

• A resistance group told the Kyiv Post that the officers hadn't received salary payments from Moscow.

• Ukrainian later targeted the Black Sea Fleet's headquarters in a huge missile strike last week.

After missing their anticipated salary payments, Russian officers decided to leak sensitive information about Moscow's Black Sea Fleet to a Ukrainian partisan movement. The intelligence later paved the way for a devastating missile strike on the fleet's headquarters in the occupied Crimean peninsula, Ukrainian media reported.

Scroll to continue with content

Ad

Ukrainian resistance fighters told the Kyiv Post in a recent interview that they managed to gather information about high-ranking Russian commanders from officers who were frustrated by Moscow's failure to pay their salaries on time. The officers were financially compensated in exchange for the information, which was then passed along to state agencies and reportedly used to plan last week's attack on the Black Sea Fleet's headquarters.

"Delays in payments alone do not force the military armed forces of the Russian Federation to go against the Russian authorities," a spokesperson for the partisan movement of Ukrainians and Tatars in Crimea (ATESH) told the Kyiv Post, which revealed details of the arrangement in a Monday report. "But the financial reward only helps them to decide on cooperation with the ATESH movement, it serves as an additional incentive."

Kyiv's forces on Friday bombarded the Black Sea Fleet's headquarters in Sevastopol, located on the southwestern edge of Crimea, with several Western-made Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles. Videos and photographs of the attack showed the moment one of the missiles slammed into the building, as well as the major structural damage that the facility suffered as a result.

The Ukrainian military later said that it timed the strike to coincide with a meeting of Russia's naval leadership. On Monday, Kyiv's Special Operations Forces said 34 people were killed — including Adm. Viktor Sokolov, the commander of the Black Sea Fleet — and another 105 were injured. Insider was unable to immediately and independently confirm the claims.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is not clear how much money was offered to the Russian officers, nor are the identities of these officers known. ATESH said they had access to activities of the Black Sea Fleet's leadership though. The group said information was passed to state agencies like the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR), the latter of which confirmed to the Kyiv Post that it has worked with partisans to help target Russian positions around Crimea.

"The Russian military is well aware of the existence of the partisan movement and throw all their forces and means to suppress it and identify our agents," the ATESH spokesperson said. "The growing resistance among the Crimeans confuses them very much."

A satellite image shows smoke billowing from a Russian Black Sea Navy HQ after a missile strike, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues, in Sevastopol, Crimea, September 22, 2023.PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via REUTERSMore

The strike on the Black Sea Fleet's headquarters marked the latest in a string of Ukrainian attacks over the past few weeks targeting high-value Russian positions and assets around Crimea, which Kyiv has vowed to liberate from nearly a decade under Russian occupation.

These incursions include the destruction of multiple S-400 air-defense systems, attacks on an air base and on a command post belonging to the Black Sea Fleet, and a massive missile strike on a shipyard in Sevastopol. Western intelligence assessed that the assault damaged two ships while also delivering a long-term blow to Moscow's maritime logistics and operations, and Ukraine's military claimed dozens of Russian sailors were killed.

"Crimea will definitely be demilitarized and liberated," Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wroteon social media after the Friday strikes on the headquarters. "Merchant ships will return to the Black Sea. And the Russian warships will eventually take their rightful place, turning into an iconic underwater museum for divers that will attract tourists from all over the world. To a free Ukrainian Crimea."

aircooled said:

I understand what you are saying, but it should be noted that morality is a very relative term (especially throughout history).  Religious based morality of course, generally has a bit more stability (but of course can differ between religions).

 

Symbolic of how history sometimes is not so easily parsed, the Canadian PM caught a bit of flak (wait for it), when they honored a Canadian who fought against a previous Russian invasion of Ukraine... in WWII... by fighting on the German side.... in a Waffen SS unit.... 

Canadian parliament accidentally honours Nazi - with Zelensky and Trudeau applauding

Canada’s House of Commons gave a rousing standing ovation to a Ukrainian veteran who fought in the Second World War – unaware he had served in a Nazi SS unit.

Yaroslav Hunka, 98, was sitting in the gallery when he was described as a “Ukrainian hero” and a “Canadian hero” to applause from prime minister Justin Trudeau and president Volodymyr Zelensky.

However, leaders were left red-faced when House speaker Anthony Rota subsequently apologised after it emerged that Hunka served in the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division, a voluntary unit made up mostly of ethnic Ukrainians under Nazi command.

Its also more fodder for the Russian propaganda machine about de-nazification. They called him a hero.

I also heard some reports Poland was pretty upset. If i heard correctly that group was known for atrocities committed in Poland. Either way its a bad look. Politicians are dumb and dont know history.

The Canadian Liberals have made a hash of all things foreign relation since 2015. We are now an irrelevant laughingstock. We contribute nothing but lectures and unwanted advice.

Canada's house speaker resigned today over the incident:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/americas/canada-house-speaker-anthony-rota-tuesday/index.html

In reply to GameboyRMH :

It does highlight though, why it can be rather useful to have some grasp of history.

"Can we find someone who also fought the Russians?".... "Really, you have a Ukrainian in Canada, perfect"...."uhm, what year was that"...."1943 you say...."

Just listened to the actual audio of it.  He even noted that this guy fought the Russians in WWII!  I guess he had no concept of who was fighting the Russians in WWII. 

In reply to aircooled :

Probably didn't realize that Canada and Russia were allies in that one, either.

That said, alliances only last as long as they serve a purpose, and today's mortal enemies are potentially tomorrow's staunch allies. Witness the Soviet Union between circa 1933 - international pariah,  dangerous exporter of Communist revolution - to 1943, as part of perhaps the world's least probable alliance of major powers. Or Germany just a decade after the Big One, at which point we were very happy to collaborate with Germans, in spite of certain, um, distasteful prior behavior - we rebuilt their economy and military, they helped us build ICBMs and get to the Moon, yadda yadda yadda.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Germans also helped the Soviets get into space, too, no?  

The space race boiled down to who had a bigger budget and got better German scientists 

I found myself explaining why Germany was a W country code in a 17 digit VIN.  For a lot of people, half of Germany being part of the USSR is an abstraction.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Yeah, but our Germans were better than their Germans; we both captured them, but we paid them and gave them nice houses, while the Soviets threatened them and their families with the Gulag. Plus, our rockets blew up less, and we had enough sense to keep the brain trust away from the launch pad, unlike our rivals.

That is where the bigger budget goes to   It helped that all of the smart guys escaped to the western part of the country, the ones who didn't nope out in the 30s anyway.  Most of THOSE got "paperclipped" into nuclear research, though, not rocketry.  (yeah, i know it's anachronistic to use that term)

People love to complain about management, but good managers are worth every penny in efficiency and morale, too!  Ref: Soviet management as the best bad example

aircooled said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

It does highlight though, why it can be rather useful to have some grasp of history.

"Can we find someone who also fought the Russians?".... "Really, you have a Ukrainian in Canada, perfect"...."uhm, what year was that"...."1943 you say...."

Just listened to the actual audio of it.  He even noted that this guy fought the Russians in WWII!  I guess he had no concept of who was fighting the Russians in WWII. 

You can almost hear in the speaker's voice when he realized what he was reading actually meant.  Just kept going with it, so props to him on sticking with it.  Still a ROFL moment.  

Two recent CSIS publications that may be of interest:

Post-Prigozhin Russia in Africa: Regaining or Losing Control?

and

The Past, Present, and Future of US Assistance to Ukraine: A Deep Dive into the Data

Looks like the commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was not blowed up.  He appears to be intact... for now.

Some other things going on behind the lines...

----

Interethnic tensions appear to be sowing division between elements of the Russian 42nd Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment defending against the Ukrainian counteroffensive in western Zaporizhia Oblast. Arsen Temiraev, a mobilized serviceman from the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania serving with the 70th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment, posted a video on September 25 alleging that Russian military police of the 70th Regiment beat Temiraev and two other soldiers of the 71st Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment’s 3rd Battalion in Tokmak on September 24.[14] Temiraev claimed that the military police asked about his ethnicity before telling Temiraev that “Russia is for Russians.” Temiraev claimed that the military police beat him and the other servicemen because a Tokmak local alleged that the soldiers had sexually assaulted children, a crime that Temiraev denied having committed. Temiraev complained that he thought the “Nazis were on the other [Ukrainian] side, [but] it turns out they [the Nazis] are among us.”[15] North Ossetian-Alanian Republic Head Sergey Menyailo responded on September 26, claiming that the elements of the “Storm Ossetia” and “Alania” volunteer battalions in the area verified the incident.[16] Menyailo reported the incident to the Southern Military District command, which informed the commander of the 58th Combined Arms Army, and called the incident unacceptable towards any Russian soldier. Interethnic tensions between Russian units operating in the frontline and near the rear of western Zaporizhia Oblast may threaten the integrity of Russian defenses and unit cohesion amidst recent Ukrainian gains in the area.

Interethnic tensions may also threaten Chechen Republic Head Ramzan Kadyrov’s broader standing within the Russian political sphere amid an ongoing controversy surrounding Kadyrov’s son. Kadyrov posted footage on September 25 of his son, Adam Kadyrov, beating a detained man accused of burning a Quran, and Ramzan Kadyrov praised his son for the beating.[17] The incident prompted varied condemnation and calls for investigations from Russian officials.