The non-war war can only end with more war. The final accounting will come down to how much territory UA will hand to Russia and the decision is not up to UA.
I think itβs more Putinβs insistence on international law and its particulars. He very clearly wants a case where the precedents are all NATO/US actions. Not that the whole thing will ever be tried in court. Heβs been very specific throughout so that itβs pretty much citations of UN articles and the aforementioned precedents. Is it helpful? No idea and maybe not.
I donβt think itβs going according to plans or hopes, but other developments make that fact less pressing. The only 54 votes at the UN condemning Russian action (down from 141) is telling. The US and EU impaling themselves on Ukraine is asinine, and thereβs no way the kremlin could have or should have predicted that, even accounting for the known idiocy and incompetence in Oceania. So now it makes a certain amount of sense to just keep blowing shit up as Ukraine feeds it to Russian artillery.
"even some units in the American army are having their equipment sent over, leaving their own units weaponless" There is a report here that special forces formations are losing certain advanced weaponry in this way ("weaponless" probably overstates the current status; rather, "readiness" is being impaired).
This may be a feature; not a bug. Ever since 24 Navy Seals (special forces) were shot down in Afghanistan in a single incident it has been my hunch that US Rulers find Special Forces units potentially threatening; claims were made that the fix was in this event: the Seals suddenly found their stealth helicopters were unavailable and were in a basic helicopter; claims were made that the Taliban were informed of their flight path.
In any event: " several agendas at work" is key. Always assume: "it's never one thing". At a minimum, the one thing that has been ruled out is a decisive outcome anytime soon. Europe needs at least one winter of impoverishment in order to "defend freedom".
Interesting; at least six retired Navy Seals are running for US House of Representatives in Nov 2022. They have released an ad recently - in part:
"'These former Navy SEALs have protected America from enemies all over the world. Now they have one grave threat left' .... The ad then shows a photo of Pelosi"
I think things will get more interesting, not less. Here, in the Heartland (Ukr) and just about everywhere. To my north, the Premier of Saskatchewan (Canada) has said he will arrest federal environmental agents who enter private farmland to test for nitrogen levels - i.e. a marker of fertilizer use.
De-nazify = destroy nazis; separate captives into: mercs, regular army, draftees, nazis (id'd by insignia, tats, social media, interrogation); tried & treated accordingly
How far to go? = How close to Russia's border do NATO arms reach?
Why not take over all Ukraine? = Who wants Galicia? Novorossiya has the majority Russian people & most valuable parts, from ports to factories, to arable land to rare earth elements.
Victory is how the leader defines it.
Yes, it appears the US is demilitarizing itself, & building a national police force in its place. Consider: 1st purged conservatives, 2nd forced toxic jabs, 3rd pulling arms from training & active forces to send to Ukraine, 4th enabling/allowing advanced weapons to be sold on dark web to terrorists & whoever, 5th bought up huge amounts of small arms & ammo for domestic agencies, 6th hirings additional 87,000 IRS agents "willing to use lethal force"
There are a range of logical reasons why the Kremlin calls this an SMO, firstly what is the objective? Denazification & demilitarisation, & securing the Donbass. These are not the traditional objectives of wars of invasion - if we accept that Russia, technically "invaded" Ukraine (which, as it happens, I do not accept & personally do not call it an invasion, but a liberation from a combination of ZOG/Nazis, because Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 as far as I am concerned, after the Maidan coup). The traditional objective of an invasion is the occupation of a country & either its annexation & absorption into the invading state, or the establishment of some kind of protectorate, or series of protectorates from the remainder. Essentially, I think, Russia is first of all avoiding the war terminology to avoid the "invader" & "occupier" terminology, both for legalistic reasons, as well as for posterity & historic collective memory. If we agree that the territory Russia has under its control now, the south east, from Lughansk to Herson, & that this territory will be at some stage incorporated into Russia, then we are talking a liberation - & I think it is very important for the Kremlin, for Putin personally, for this to be seen as a liberation. As with Crimea. As with the Donbass. The issue about the broader enterouge, the government chinovniks & their attitude, well, I refer to Sergei Narshkin. Did anyone take note of his performance when Putin asked him if he is in agreement with the launching of the SMO? Narishkin had no idea what was going on, he said yes, I agree with the incorporation of the Donbass into Russia, & Putin totally humiliated him by correcting him that this is not what the Russian Federation is actually seeking to do - & Narishkin just looked the total imbecile. What does this tell us about the administration? I'm not really sure - anyone who has worked in a profession, especially say, in my case the criminal justice system in a particular Anglo country, it is hard to find competent people. In Russia there is the legacy of the Yeltsin years, a whole load of interest groups that have to be contended with, & then just the matter of getting the right people in to the right posts - I think Putin has overall, done a commendable job, all in all. All things considered. And I suspect that outside of the military, in the presidential administration, not everyone is overly enthusiastic about the SMO. Putin is taking this thing slow, & going carefully. But above all else, the most important thing of all, is the pace of escalation with the West/NATO. I personally believe this to be the most important consideration of all, on a previous post I stated my view that this is why the SMO goes slow, to control the pace of escalation, because this is going to lead to a direct confrontation, sooner or later. When it does, Russian troops will be combat tested & combat ready. In the meantime, Putin can sort out what needs to be sorted out amongst the chinovniki & soloviki.
>which, as it happens, I do not accept & personally do not call it an invasion, but a liberation from a combination of ZOG/Nazis, because Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 as far as I am concerned, after the Maidan coup
Not really an argument, even though I agree. Certainly not recognized as a legitimate reason by current intl law standards.
>as well as for posterity & historic collective memory
Thats the point I made.
>Narishkin had no idea what was going on, he said yes, I agree with the incorporation of the Donbass into Russia, & Putin totally humiliated him by correcting him that this is not what the Russian Federation is actually seeking to do
Yes, exactly. I've written about this before. It bolsters my point.
>I think Putin has overall, done a commendable job, all in all. All things considered. And I suspect that outside of the military, in the presidential administration, not everyone is overly enthusiastic about the SMO
I think Putin is a very good ruler too.
>Putin can sort out what needs to be sorted out amongst the chinovniki & soloviki.
Mmm, not enough purges to my liking. Hardly any in the AP, even though I expected some.
To name it "war" is to commit Russia to a goal up to and including the destruction of the Ukrainian military, and the capitulation of Ukraine as a state - by 'not' naming it anything other than SMO "Z," Russia frees itself to move in any unorthodox direction it choses. Russia has punched hard - Ukraine can say what it wants to the rest of the world, but at the point of their spear, Ukrainian troops understand that if they're moving backwards, they're not winning. Only victories beget victory.
Β«the people running this war donβt want the war to be referred to as a war. But why?Β»
The primary reason is obviously legal: "war" is a crime in RF law, and "war propaganda" is also a crime (see note below).
The RF legal position has been that the DPR and LPR are sovereign states, the ukrainian government have started a war of aggression and ethnic cleansing against them, they are in a mutual defense pact with the RF, and they are currently counter-attacking against ukrainian aggression with the help of a small RF expeditionary force. On a scale much, much smaller than the "police action" by the USA and others in Korea in 1950.
The secondary reason I think is that it is too small an operation to be a "war" between the RF and Ukraine, and V. Putin wants to make it absolutely clear that escalation is possible.
Note: I read an interesting article that an U.N. commitment for member states was to enact laws against "war propaganda":
βArticle 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, obliges states to impose certain restrictions on freedom of speech. ... The final wording of Article 20 states clearly: βAny propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.β
In the aftermath of the Covenant, communist countries in many cases enacted suitable provisions in their domestic law. For instance, a Soviet law entitled βThe Defence of Peaceβ stated that βwar propagandaβ of any sort was a criminal offence. East Germany similarly made propaganda for a war an offence punishable by up to eight years in prison. To this day, many post-communist states retain similar provisions in their law. Moldovaβs constitutions, for instance, prohibits incitement to war; Armeniaβs constitution bans speech βfor the purposes of β¦ propaganda for violence and warβ; and the criminal codes in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzia, and Latvia similarly ban any βadvocacy for warβ. Some other countries, such as Morocco and Kenya have also enacted legislation to this end. Apart from Germany, however, states in the Western world have not met their obligation under the Covenant.β
Note: I think comment #161 in this page is a good explanation of the RF legal position:
That analysis is not quite correct, as Art. 51 technically does not apply in this situation. However, I do think that it does in fact apply anyway, and further that it is Ukraine that violated Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter with its aggression and war against the LPR and DPR. Accordingly, the so-called "West", along with Ukraine, are the actual parties acting illegally under international law and illegally attacking LPR and DPR, while Russia, LPr and DPR (and Belarus) are acting in accordance with international law. Analysis follows. [...] Accordingly, when Ukraine attacked and shelled DPR and LPR, it violated international law. Accordingly, DPR and LPR had every right to defend themselves. As observed above, Russia had the right to come to their defense.β
Β«It is little wonder then that the West appears to be acting erraticallyΒ»
So far the USA have played their cards consistently and skilfully, except perhaps for overestimating the impact of sanctions against a country rich in both fuels and cereals.
Β«retaking Ukraine is advantageous for Russia as a whole. But, on a factional level, the cost of doing so - sending in the entire army and using the top tier equipmentΒ»
The RF are sending in General Winter, a very russian thing to do.
Β«appears to be a cost that, for one reason or another, the Kremlin isnβt willing to incur.Β»
Well, let's see what General Winter does to the ukrainian fascist government, if that does not work then perhaps V. Putin will start doing something serious.
La Brea and Beverly (Los Angeles) on Saturday night...except they're a lot nastier, glaring at the gallery-going hipsters and few normies that share the area.
Amazing! I had the same question ... and.... oh - you are not joking ... ? - that IS what they are saying? What language are they speaking? I couldn't even determine that. Also amazing is how that Afro-Af American - (maybe originally Afro Caribbean ) hip hop style has spread globally - can't beat that soft power (ha ha)! .... or maybe you can....
I found this interview with Daria - near the front lines in Ukraine - this link may get you close - Aug 23 and 24 - about 4 min total . Her father is said to be fluent in 20 languages; here she is speaking two: Russian and fluent, nearly un-accented , English.
I would think that they call it SMO for things that have to do with international law. One must also follow certain protocols in the Duma, so as not to get into trouble later on. Once one plays the war card, consequences may follow that one doesn't intend.
As far as I know, Ukraine has never declared war on Russia either. Why?
Β«Many would agree with Mark Twain: βThere is no native criminal class except Congress.βΒ»
Gore Vidal, of the Gore oligarch/political family wrote:
Β«There is only one party in the Unted States, the Property Party [...] and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt β until recently [...] But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.Β»
In Europe there are different traditions, but I remember reading that when a journalist asked the italian president about "only" 1/3 of members of parliament being indicted, the president replied "only so far...", and IIRC a similar statistics applies to members of the indian parliament.
Β«there may be technical/procedural reasons for not officially declaring war, and this probably goes for both sides.Β»
Declaring war is a war crime under the U.N. Charter, so while the USA have waged many "special military operations" none has been a "war". The U.N. Charter only allows defensive operations against a war. Also "war" trigger a whole set of complicated "force majeure" clauses in insurance and other contracts.
Hypocrisy is much more convenient.
There is also that the βhaven't started anything serious yetβ special military operation is small in size and has limited objectives, so "SMO" seems actually adequate.
I'll be curious to see what happens in the winter. I guess in Feb/March when the SMO started it was pretty cold out but how will Ukrainian supply lines hold up this coming winter? And will Russia put the nat gas squeeze on Europe? And Ukraine itself - is it still getting gas from Russia? Or does it have domestic sources in the west? Kiev ain't Siberia but I guess it's cold enough.
Β«Others are fought for internal ideological reasons, like the war in Ukraine.Β»
The recreation of Greater Ruthenia and the expulsions of the malorussians and muscovites does not seem to me very ideological, it is just a grab for power and land.
Β«The Galician nationalists, even in the 90s, wanted to provoke a war with Russia to forever split the two countries.Β»
The fascist xenophobe ruthenians are not just in Galicia, they also are a significant part of the population of other western ukrainian (and western belarussian) provinces.
Β«For the Galician nationalists, the war is supposed to get as many Ukrainian families as possible to swear a blood vendetta against the RussiansΒ»
Here I would use the older terms "ruthenians" and "malorussians".
Β«If the goal was to actually invade Russia-proper or put nukes on the border, it has failed spectacularly.Β»
Obviously the goal has always been regime change in the Russian Federation, and ideally splitting it; the prize is a chain of DOD/CIA biowarfare labs and based around the chinese borders. It is sad for the russian nationalists, but in the USA view the RF is just a domino towards China.
Β«If the plan was more modest and was aimed at simply getting thousands of Slavs killed in a campaign of attritionΒ»
The Russian Federation is avoiding a campaign of *people* attrition as much as possible, on both sides: on the Russian Federation side because the number of troops involved is quite small and not so easily replaceable, and on the other side to minimize resentment.
Β«Actual victory over Russia makes sense on a higher, strategic level.Β»
Actually it does not: regime change is much more likely after a slow ukrainian defeat to take RF soldier lives as possible, followed by many years of resentful insurgency, Taliban style. The USA could afford to fund 20 years of counter-insurgency in both Iraq and Syria, the USA government calculation is that the RF cannot.
The non-war war can only end with more war. The final accounting will come down to how much territory UA will hand to Russia and the decision is not up to UA.
I think itβs more Putinβs insistence on international law and its particulars. He very clearly wants a case where the precedents are all NATO/US actions. Not that the whole thing will ever be tried in court. Heβs been very specific throughout so that itβs pretty much citations of UN articles and the aforementioned precedents. Is it helpful? No idea and maybe not.
I donβt think itβs going according to plans or hopes, but other developments make that fact less pressing. The only 54 votes at the UN condemning Russian action (down from 141) is telling. The US and EU impaling themselves on Ukraine is asinine, and thereβs no way the kremlin could have or should have predicted that, even accounting for the known idiocy and incompetence in Oceania. So now it makes a certain amount of sense to just keep blowing shit up as Ukraine feeds it to Russian artillery.
"even some units in the American army are having their equipment sent over, leaving their own units weaponless" There is a report here that special forces formations are losing certain advanced weaponry in this way ("weaponless" probably overstates the current status; rather, "readiness" is being impaired).
This may be a feature; not a bug. Ever since 24 Navy Seals (special forces) were shot down in Afghanistan in a single incident it has been my hunch that US Rulers find Special Forces units potentially threatening; claims were made that the fix was in this event: the Seals suddenly found their stealth helicopters were unavailable and were in a basic helicopter; claims were made that the Taliban were informed of their flight path.
In any event: " several agendas at work" is key. Always assume: "it's never one thing". At a minimum, the one thing that has been ruled out is a decisive outcome anytime soon. Europe needs at least one winter of impoverishment in order to "defend freedom".
The next war the US military fights will be on home soil. Disarming the SOF may be a precaution in case they end up on the wrong side.
Interesting; at least six retired Navy Seals are running for US House of Representatives in Nov 2022. They have released an ad recently - in part:
"'These former Navy SEALs have protected America from enemies all over the world. Now they have one grave threat left' .... The ad then shows a photo of Pelosi"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/six-former-navy-seals-run-for-congress-with-one-goal-take-down-pelosi
I think things will get more interesting, not less. Here, in the Heartland (Ukr) and just about everywhere. To my north, the Premier of Saskatchewan (Canada) has said he will arrest federal environmental agents who enter private farmland to test for nitrogen levels - i.e. a marker of fertilizer use.
De-militarize = destroy bases, arms warehouses & depots, training centers, fighter planes, copters, drones, artillery, soldiers...
De-nazify = destroy nazis; separate captives into: mercs, regular army, draftees, nazis (id'd by insignia, tats, social media, interrogation); tried & treated accordingly
How far to go? = How close to Russia's border do NATO arms reach?
Why not take over all Ukraine? = Who wants Galicia? Novorossiya has the majority Russian people & most valuable parts, from ports to factories, to arable land to rare earth elements.
Victory is how the leader defines it.
Yes, it appears the US is demilitarizing itself, & building a national police force in its place. Consider: 1st purged conservatives, 2nd forced toxic jabs, 3rd pulling arms from training & active forces to send to Ukraine, 4th enabling/allowing advanced weapons to be sold on dark web to terrorists & whoever, 5th bought up huge amounts of small arms & ammo for domestic agencies, 6th hirings additional 87,000 IRS agents "willing to use lethal force"
There are a range of logical reasons why the Kremlin calls this an SMO, firstly what is the objective? Denazification & demilitarisation, & securing the Donbass. These are not the traditional objectives of wars of invasion - if we accept that Russia, technically "invaded" Ukraine (which, as it happens, I do not accept & personally do not call it an invasion, but a liberation from a combination of ZOG/Nazis, because Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 as far as I am concerned, after the Maidan coup). The traditional objective of an invasion is the occupation of a country & either its annexation & absorption into the invading state, or the establishment of some kind of protectorate, or series of protectorates from the remainder. Essentially, I think, Russia is first of all avoiding the war terminology to avoid the "invader" & "occupier" terminology, both for legalistic reasons, as well as for posterity & historic collective memory. If we agree that the territory Russia has under its control now, the south east, from Lughansk to Herson, & that this territory will be at some stage incorporated into Russia, then we are talking a liberation - & I think it is very important for the Kremlin, for Putin personally, for this to be seen as a liberation. As with Crimea. As with the Donbass. The issue about the broader enterouge, the government chinovniks & their attitude, well, I refer to Sergei Narshkin. Did anyone take note of his performance when Putin asked him if he is in agreement with the launching of the SMO? Narishkin had no idea what was going on, he said yes, I agree with the incorporation of the Donbass into Russia, & Putin totally humiliated him by correcting him that this is not what the Russian Federation is actually seeking to do - & Narishkin just looked the total imbecile. What does this tell us about the administration? I'm not really sure - anyone who has worked in a profession, especially say, in my case the criminal justice system in a particular Anglo country, it is hard to find competent people. In Russia there is the legacy of the Yeltsin years, a whole load of interest groups that have to be contended with, & then just the matter of getting the right people in to the right posts - I think Putin has overall, done a commendable job, all in all. All things considered. And I suspect that outside of the military, in the presidential administration, not everyone is overly enthusiastic about the SMO. Putin is taking this thing slow, & going carefully. But above all else, the most important thing of all, is the pace of escalation with the West/NATO. I personally believe this to be the most important consideration of all, on a previous post I stated my view that this is why the SMO goes slow, to control the pace of escalation, because this is going to lead to a direct confrontation, sooner or later. When it does, Russian troops will be combat tested & combat ready. In the meantime, Putin can sort out what needs to be sorted out amongst the chinovniki & soloviki.
>Denazification & demilitarisation,
How does one accomplish this?
>which, as it happens, I do not accept & personally do not call it an invasion, but a liberation from a combination of ZOG/Nazis, because Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 as far as I am concerned, after the Maidan coup
Not really an argument, even though I agree. Certainly not recognized as a legitimate reason by current intl law standards.
>as well as for posterity & historic collective memory
Thats the point I made.
>Narishkin had no idea what was going on, he said yes, I agree with the incorporation of the Donbass into Russia, & Putin totally humiliated him by correcting him that this is not what the Russian Federation is actually seeking to do
Yes, exactly. I've written about this before. It bolsters my point.
>I think Putin has overall, done a commendable job, all in all. All things considered. And I suspect that outside of the military, in the presidential administration, not everyone is overly enthusiastic about the SMO
I think Putin is a very good ruler too.
>Putin can sort out what needs to be sorted out amongst the chinovniki & soloviki.
Mmm, not enough purges to my liking. Hardly any in the AP, even though I expected some.
Putin is aces and the RF is lucky to have him.
To name it "war" is to commit Russia to a goal up to and including the destruction of the Ukrainian military, and the capitulation of Ukraine as a state - by 'not' naming it anything other than SMO "Z," Russia frees itself to move in any unorthodox direction it choses. Russia has punched hard - Ukraine can say what it wants to the rest of the world, but at the point of their spear, Ukrainian troops understand that if they're moving backwards, they're not winning. Only victories beget victory.
Β«the people running this war donβt want the war to be referred to as a war. But why?Β»
The primary reason is obviously legal: "war" is a crime in RF law, and "war propaganda" is also a crime (see note below).
The RF legal position has been that the DPR and LPR are sovereign states, the ukrainian government have started a war of aggression and ethnic cleansing against them, they are in a mutual defense pact with the RF, and they are currently counter-attacking against ukrainian aggression with the help of a small RF expeditionary force. On a scale much, much smaller than the "police action" by the USA and others in Korea in 1950.
The secondary reason I think is that it is too small an operation to be a "war" between the RF and Ukraine, and V. Putin wants to make it absolutely clear that escalation is possible.
Note: I read an interesting article that an U.N. commitment for member states was to enact laws against "war propaganda":
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/war-propaganda/
βArticle 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, obliges states to impose certain restrictions on freedom of speech. ... The final wording of Article 20 states clearly: βAny propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.β
In the aftermath of the Covenant, communist countries in many cases enacted suitable provisions in their domestic law. For instance, a Soviet law entitled βThe Defence of Peaceβ stated that βwar propagandaβ of any sort was a criminal offence. East Germany similarly made propaganda for a war an offence punishable by up to eight years in prison. To this day, many post-communist states retain similar provisions in their law. Moldovaβs constitutions, for instance, prohibits incitement to war; Armeniaβs constitution bans speech βfor the purposes of β¦ propaganda for violence and warβ; and the criminal codes in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzia, and Latvia similarly ban any βadvocacy for warβ. Some other countries, such as Morocco and Kenya have also enacted legislation to this end. Apart from Germany, however, states in the Western world have not met their obligation under the Covenant.β
Note: I think comment #161 in this page is a good explanation of the RF legal position:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/ukraine-doubling-down.html
βDaniel Kovalik: Why Russia's Intervention in Ukraine Is Legal Under International Law
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/04/no_author/daniel-kovalik-why-russias-intervention-in-ukraine-is-legal-under-international-law/β
That analysis is not quite correct, as Art. 51 technically does not apply in this situation. However, I do think that it does in fact apply anyway, and further that it is Ukraine that violated Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter with its aggression and war against the LPR and DPR. Accordingly, the so-called "West", along with Ukraine, are the actual parties acting illegally under international law and illegally attacking LPR and DPR, while Russia, LPr and DPR (and Belarus) are acting in accordance with international law. Analysis follows. [...] Accordingly, when Ukraine attacked and shelled DPR and LPR, it violated international law. Accordingly, DPR and LPR had every right to defend themselves. As observed above, Russia had the right to come to their defense.β
Β«It is little wonder then that the West appears to be acting erraticallyΒ»
So far the USA have played their cards consistently and skilfully, except perhaps for overestimating the impact of sanctions against a country rich in both fuels and cereals.
Β«retaking Ukraine is advantageous for Russia as a whole. But, on a factional level, the cost of doing so - sending in the entire army and using the top tier equipmentΒ»
The RF are sending in General Winter, a very russian thing to do.
Β«appears to be a cost that, for one reason or another, the Kremlin isnβt willing to incur.Β»
Well, let's see what General Winter does to the ukrainian fascist government, if that does not work then perhaps V. Putin will start doing something serious.
Any idea what the rapping yids are saying?
"We are not involved, we are not involved, we don't understand, we don't know whats going on."
And then it repeats.
La Brea and Beverly (Los Angeles) on Saturday night...except they're a lot nastier, glaring at the gallery-going hipsters and few normies that share the area.
Amazing! I had the same question ... and.... oh - you are not joking ... ? - that IS what they are saying? What language are they speaking? I couldn't even determine that. Also amazing is how that Afro-Af American - (maybe originally Afro Caribbean ) hip hop style has spread globally - can't beat that soft power (ha ha)! .... or maybe you can....
I found this interview with Daria - near the front lines in Ukraine - this link may get you close - Aug 23 and 24 - about 4 min total . Her father is said to be fluent in 20 languages; here she is speaking two: Russian and fluent, nearly un-accented , English.
https://twitter.com/ghostofural?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1562631076933091330%7Ctwgr%5E60b125885e6cd99b3e460bf6400c36026d71897d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Fejones%2Fwho-killed-daria-dugina%2F
I would think that they call it SMO for things that have to do with international law. One must also follow certain protocols in the Duma, so as not to get into trouble later on. Once one plays the war card, consequences may follow that one doesn't intend.
As far as I know, Ukraine has never declared war on Russia either. Why?
The Duma, that den of thieves and criminals, would still probably vote for a war, so I don't think thats it.
Β«The Duma, that den of thieves and criminalsΒ»
They have learned from a great example:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/americans-republicans-in-general-democrats-in-particular/284015/
Β«Many would agree with Mark Twain: βThere is no native criminal class except Congress.βΒ»
Gore Vidal, of the Gore oligarch/political family wrote:
Β«There is only one party in the Unted States, the Property Party [...] and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt β until recently [...] But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.Β»
https://www.senate.gov/art-artifacts/historical-images/political-cartoons-caricatures/38_00392.htm
In Europe there are different traditions, but I remember reading that when a journalist asked the italian president about "only" 1/3 of members of parliament being indicted, the president replied "only so far...", and IIRC a similar statistics applies to members of the indian parliament.
I meant that there may be technical/procedural reasons for not officially declaring war, and this probably goes for both sides.
Β«there may be technical/procedural reasons for not officially declaring war, and this probably goes for both sides.Β»
Declaring war is a war crime under the U.N. Charter, so while the USA have waged many "special military operations" none has been a "war". The U.N. Charter only allows defensive operations against a war. Also "war" trigger a whole set of complicated "force majeure" clauses in insurance and other contracts.
Hypocrisy is much more convenient.
There is also that the βhaven't started anything serious yetβ special military operation is small in size and has limited objectives, so "SMO" seems actually adequate.
I'll be curious to see what happens in the winter. I guess in Feb/March when the SMO started it was pretty cold out but how will Ukrainian supply lines hold up this coming winter? And will Russia put the nat gas squeeze on Europe? And Ukraine itself - is it still getting gas from Russia? Or does it have domestic sources in the west? Kiev ain't Siberia but I guess it's cold enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv#Climate
Β«Others are fought for internal ideological reasons, like the war in Ukraine.Β»
The recreation of Greater Ruthenia and the expulsions of the malorussians and muscovites does not seem to me very ideological, it is just a grab for power and land.
Β«The Galician nationalists, even in the 90s, wanted to provoke a war with Russia to forever split the two countries.Β»
The fascist xenophobe ruthenians are not just in Galicia, they also are a significant part of the population of other western ukrainian (and western belarussian) provinces.
Β«For the Galician nationalists, the war is supposed to get as many Ukrainian families as possible to swear a blood vendetta against the RussiansΒ»
Here I would use the older terms "ruthenians" and "malorussians".
Β«If the goal was to actually invade Russia-proper or put nukes on the border, it has failed spectacularly.Β»
Obviously the goal has always been regime change in the Russian Federation, and ideally splitting it; the prize is a chain of DOD/CIA biowarfare labs and based around the chinese borders. It is sad for the russian nationalists, but in the USA view the RF is just a domino towards China.
Β«If the plan was more modest and was aimed at simply getting thousands of Slavs killed in a campaign of attritionΒ»
The Russian Federation is avoiding a campaign of *people* attrition as much as possible, on both sides: on the Russian Federation side because the number of troops involved is quite small and not so easily replaceable, and on the other side to minimize resentment.
Β«Actual victory over Russia makes sense on a higher, strategic level.Β»
Actually it does not: regime change is much more likely after a slow ukrainian defeat to take RF soldier lives as possible, followed by many years of resentful insurgency, Taliban style. The USA could afford to fund 20 years of counter-insurgency in both Iraq and Syria, the USA government calculation is that the RF cannot.