The Ukrainian War IV: "And von Moltke Laughed ..."

[Farnhamia]

I encourage everyone to consult the news sources of their choice for up-to-date news. Suffice it to say, the situation is fluid. The Russians have adjusted their goals, concentrating on the east and the south, while showering Ukraine with missile strikes and artillery barrages. The Ukrainians have counterattacked and regained territory, not to the point of evicting the Russians but enough to make them think. Amidst the bombardments, rhetorical rhetorical bombast continues, too. Oh, and a giant no-prize for anyone figuring out the title.

The previous edition ...

[The Jamesian Republic]

First.

[Farnhamia]

First.

Did I forget the part where the first person who posts "First" goes straight to the Eastern Front?

[Vistulange]

This is one of those events where I wish we didn't have another thread iteration. Nothing constructive to add from the previous thread—just condolences for all the Ukrainians who're facing difficult times.

[Port Caverton]

Sweden agrees to extradite man to Turkey in wake of NATO deal

[The Jamesian Republic]

First.

Did I forget the part where the first person who posts "First" goes straight to the Eastern Front?

Slava Ukraine!

[Vadterland]

What the hell are the Russians putting in their cigarettes? Whatever's in them, it's strong enough to wipe out an air force base and I want some.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sweden agrees to extradite man to Turkey in wake of NATO deal

Seems broadly fine and not a case for political asylum, which I imagine is why it made the news as some of Turkeys requested extraditions are that.

[The Two Jerseys]

What the hell are the Russians putting in their cigarettes? Whatever's in them, it's strong enough to wipe out an air force base and I want some.

Hi-test copium.

[Gallia-]

From here: viewtopic.php?p=39876305#p39876305

Why does Russia and Ukraine both have more 40 year olds than either 50 or 20 year olds?

Because they had a little baby bulge in the mid-1980's? Duh.

Why do they have more 80 year olds than 70 year olds?

Why does North Korea have more 70 year olds than 69 (nice) and 68 year olds?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... d_2020.png

The only people who were demographically affected directly by WW2 are quite literally in their late 80s and 90s. Not their early 80s. No one in their 70s. Those people would have been born too young to have children and too young to fight in the army. The people who had kids in or around WW2 are now in their mid to late 80s and early 90s. They are ancient. Anyone earlier would be actual kids, either born during or after the war, rather than before it. That has no effect on demography because the Russians don't marry 5 year old girls to 25 year old Senior Riflemen.

FWIW Europe and the Axis were losing about as many people as they were having in WW2 and so none of them had any particular demographic shedding, since they all ended the war with more people than they started (well, France didn't, but it got better). The baby boom only added to them at the end of the day, because their losses were not hugely discernible. OTOH Russia lost way more than it had during the war and chewed up tons of young kids in the process, so they took about 4 years to recover their losses, and a lot of their women were left single and presumably childless. It doesn't take that long to pump out a few million kids though when you're already huge like Russia was, even with the losses of WW2, which is why they were able to produce a bunch of kids in 4 years to replace all of the Great Patriotic War's dead pretty rapidly.

Did they lose any Lavochkins or Yakovlevs or Kurchevskys or Chelomeis because of it? Probably. But that wouldn't have helped them anyway because they didn't do much with the ones they had.

Thus, they suffered no serious demographic, or real economic, decline because of WW2. No one actually did. Wars don't generally lead to massive declines in future populations (or economies) like that. They're not destructive enough to keep people from wanting to start families or build factories. Only bank runs and currency crises are that destructive (that we know of). The Soviets suffered some minor demographic lag in that it took longer for them to recover their pre-war population, but as I explained above they maintained replacement rate TFR longer so it didn't matter in the end. That's mostly because the USSR had shifted from an agrarian to an industrial economy about 20 years after places like America did.

Yes, I'm literally telling you that the collapse of the Soviet Union's modern healthcare system was several orders of magnitude worse than Hitler.

Why do they both have more 10 year olds than 18 year olds?

Yes. People born in...*checks notes*...2002 were certainly affected by the demographic consequences of their...*checks notes*...great-great-grandfather being blown up by a Nebelwerfer in 1942 at Leningrad. Sure. That tracks.

The answer, is

You don't know how demographics work?

The war killed, for example, 3 out of every 4 soviet males born in 1923.

So what? The demographic consequences of the Great Patriotic War are hugely overblown by people on the Internet for some reason. Maybe they play too much HOI4? In real life if your potential suitor dies, you just don't get married. Simple as. There are plenty of surplus females in Russian and Ukrainian demographics at the top end of the demography. Some of these, maybe most in certain age groups, were probably single their entire lives and never had kids. Maybe they married later. Who knows? Who cares? It's not reflected in the demographics since the USSR has a healthy demographic pyramid right up to the 1970's, where it dips a bit, and then goes back up in the 1980's until the 1990's, where it tanks.

That's...that's kinda how population pyramids work my dude.

Its casualties were heavily concentrated in a particular age group and demographic, and by your own evidence we can directly see the impact.

No, actually by my own evidence you don't see any impact whatsoever?

I guess if you care about having "too many elderly single women" then it might be an issue. But if you're looking for hot grandmas in your area and you happen to be near Moscow then I guess you don't.

There's a fat stack of single seniors right in the 70-80 range though that were born in wartime and never married because their husbands got blown up, but that didn't do anything to the USSR writ large as you can clearly see the bulk of succeeding generations are successively bigger...until the 1990's. The FSU will be facing a massive eldercare and pensions crisis in about 30-40 years, which reflects them being 10-20 years behind the Western curve, but that's it. I don't think it will matter much at that point in the XXI though. Pensions will be the least of people's worries in 40 years I'd imagine.

Maybe they would have had 350 million people instead of 280 million though? Or maybe a billion? Who knows. It's a completely fantastical number you can just make it up I guess, but as far as comparison to the USA, the USSR suffered no ill consequences from the Great Patriotic War in terms of demography, except for an extremely brief and irrelevant period between the end of WW2 and the start of the Korean War, which had no discernible macroeconomic effects. It may even have helped them have more kids who knows? Goodness knows Russia wouldn't have anywhere near as much public housing in the 1980's had Hitler not leveled more than half the country.

They did suffer for it of course, but just in other ways. The collapse of Soviet public healthcare and tax base was a much bigger hit on "reasons to start a family in Russia" than Hitler though.

[Picairn]

Reposting this for those who haven't had the time to read about the truth behind the Amnesty report.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright, so a lot more evidence just came out that proves Amnesty International's "report" was very poorly researched and rushed, including statements from field reporters who interacted with their report team and legal professors on this matter. I'll compile it here for NSG's benefit. Government sources are obviously excluded to prevent any accusation of bias.

1. Out-of-context claims

Tom Mutch, a New Zealander reporter who personally met and discussed the report with Donatella Rovera, the lead author of the report and Amnesty International’s Senior Crisis researcher, and the Amnesty staff in Kramatorsk:

I was sat around a table with Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s Senior Crisis researcher predicting their upcoming report would land like a lead balloon. We were in the kitchen of our hotel in Kramatorsk, the administrative capital of Ukrainian controlled Donetsk and we could hear the boom of artillery outside our windows every hour.

Rather than expressing shock at the relentless Russian bombardment, the Amnesty staff seemed much more concerned with the fact that a Ukrainian army unit had taken refuge in the basement of a college building.

We’d all been to the building: an abandoned language school in the frontline town of Bakhmut which had been turned into a temporary barracks for a Ukrainian unit. This is not a war crime. A military is perfectly entitled to set up in an evacuated educational institution, although of course that building can no longer claim civilian protection and there was a mainly abandoned civilian apartment block over the road, which had not been fully evacuated.

But Rovera was insistent that this military presence in a populated area was a “violation of international humanitarian law”’. When I pressed her on how the Ukrainian Army was supposed to defend a populated area, she said that it was irrelevant.

By that logic, I continued, Ukraine would have to abandon the major locations such as the city of Kharkiv. “Well, they must avoid as far as possible taking positions in a populated area,” she replied. “International humanitarian law is very clear on this.”

I suggested her coming Amnesty International report would be received badly if it failed to differentiate between defensive and offensive operations in urban areas. But it appeared the authors’ minds had been made up: Ukraine was endangering its own civilians by the mere act of attempting to defend its cities.

[...] I was in one of the locations mentioned in the Amnesty report, a school block in the under-fire city of Lysychansk, with Ukrainian soldiers as they offered an evacuation ride to any civilian residents who wished to leave. Three did, and we traveled with them as we returned to safer locations. I had reported this all at the time.

If what Tom Mutch said is true, Amnesty committed an egregious error by omitting critical context that some of the buildings occupied by Ukrainian soldiers were already abandoned or evacuated at the time of research.

Bakhmut, one of the cities which Amnesty accused Ukraine of failing to evacuate, was in fact the subject of one of APNews' articles on Ukrainian evacuations.

“The Russians are right over there, and they’re closing in on this location,” Mark Poppert, an American volunteer working with British charity RefugEase, said during an evacuation in the town of Bakhmut on Friday.

“Bakhmut is a high-risk area right now,” he said. “We’re trying to get as many people out as we can in case the Ukrainians have to fall back.”

He and other Ukrainian and foreign volunteers working with the Ukrainian charity Vostok SOS, which was coordinating the evacuation effort, were hoping to get about 100 people out of Bakhmut on Friday, Poppert said.

[...] Most people have already fled Bakhmut: only around 30,000 remain from a pre-war population of 85,000. And more are leaving each day.

Amnesty saying they have no info or were not aware of Ukrainian evacuations of civilians from the frontline is horribly wrong and ignorant. This isn't even a contest.

Russian attacks halt plans to evacuate Ukrainian civilians | March 6

Civilians in eastern Ukraine told to evacuate as Russian forces regroup | April 6

Ukraine Rushes to Evacuate Civilians in East as Russia’s Offensive Pushes Forward | April 19

Third Humanitarian Convoy Under Way to Evacuate Civilians from Besieged Ukraine City, Secretary-General Tells Security Council | May 6

All civilians evacuate Mariupol’s Azovstal | May 8

Ukraine struggles to evacuate civilians from devastated eastern city | June 14

Ukraine evacuates civilians from Sloviansk as Russian troops advance | July 6

Zelensky orders civilians to evacuate Donetsk region | July 31

2. Misrepresentations of international law

Amnesty's claim on this subject is maximalist.

We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas.

In other words, Ukrainians are committing war crimes.

Here is what the International Red Cross says about criminal liability under international law:

In fact, it is generally recognized that the defender’s obligations do not create individual criminal liability.

A current imbalance in individual criminal responsibility exists, where an attacker can commit a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions in at least five different ways, but the defender who is in the best position to protect civilians in urban environments faces no such liability.

As the Red Cross publishes, it is legally impossible for Ukraine to have committed war crimes in this context. They may, however, have other obligations.

In Article 58 and 59 of Additional Protocol I, the defender's obligations are detailed.

It is important to underline that a party is not required to evacuate civilians or civilian objects from any built-up area as such, but only to remove them from the vicinity of military objectives.

A defending party may go further and evacuate civilians in accordance with Article 17 of the Fourth Geneva Convention—a point reinforced by the reference to Article 49 of the Convention made in Article 58(a)—but it is not obliged to do so.

And Article 58 either does not apply to urban warfare or gives plenty of leeway for the defenders due to its wording around feasibility:

Article 58(b) directs the parties to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. At the diplomatic conference, several states voiced concerns that this obligation could curtail their right to take the most efficient measures necessary for the defence of their national territory. Since the precautionary duties under Article 58 apply only to the maximum extent feasible, France suggested in the case of densely populated territories such as those of metropolitan France, Article 58(b) “could not really become operative” at all (Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference, Vol 6, 213). Italy declared that “it is clear that a State with a densely populated territory could not allow that provision to hamper the organization of its defence” (ibid, 235).

... as France emphasized, the obligation extends only to what is feasible—which is generally understood to demand only measures that are “practicable or practically possible, taking into account all circumstances existing at the relevant time, including those circumstances relevant to the success of military operations” (ibid, 232).

Parties to the conflict will have to weigh whether they can avoid placing military objectives within or near densely populated areas without compromising the successful defense of the area. This decision has more to do with a judgment as to what is practicable—all things considered—rather than what is practically possible. Factors that should feed into this assessment include the nature of the military objectives involved, the military significance of the populated area, the hostile action expected from an adversary and the extent and nature of the civilian harm that the placement of military objectives would pose, as well as the availability and effect of any mitigating measures.

In short, Ukrainians can't be criminally liable for placing civilians near military objectives, and they have no legal obligation to move their military units if the military objective is important enough.

Amnesty attempted to address this with two sentences in their report:

Most residential areas where soldiers located themselves were kilometres away from front lines. Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas.

They provide no other evidence as to what viable alternatives were available. They neglected to mention that these built-up areas were military objectives precisely because they were civilian areas that the Russians wanted to take. And they did not make an assessment that balances the military objective with the risk to civilians in those situations. How could they? They're not experts on the Ukrainian military.

Here's what Jack Watling, Senior Research Fellow - Land Warfare, says about that:

The Amnesty report demonstrates a weak understanding of the laws of armed conflict, no understanding of military operations, and indulges in insinuations without supplying supporting evidence.

It is not a violation of IHL for Ukrainian military personnel to situate themselves in the terrain they are tasked to defend rather than in some random piece of adjacent woodland where they can be bypassed.

The Ukrainian military has regularly urged civilians to leave areas of fighting and facilitated them doing so. Forcing displacement is itself a violation of IHL and throughout history many civilians have chosen to remain in areas where there are ongoing military operations.

In setting unattainable expectations of civilian protection, Amnesty trivialises an important issue.

Here is what UN war crimes investigator Marc Garlasco says:

They got the law wrong. Protocol 1 states militaries shall to the maximum extent feasible AVOID locating military objects near populated areas.

Ukraine can place forces in areas they are defending - especially in urban warfare. There is no requirement to stand shoulder to shoulder in a field - this isn’t the 19th century. Ukraine still has an OBLIGATION to protect civilians - but they are taking steps to do so like helping civilians relocate.

And here is what Distinguished Professor of International Law Michael Schmitt says:

Amnesty International’s allegation of unlawful conduct by Ukraine is unconvincing. IHL is a nuanced body of law because it must carefully balance two sometimes competing interests – military necessity and humanitarian considerations.

In my estimation, Amnesty International has acted irresponsibly by making the claim without providing supporting evidence, citing the specific rules that it believes have been violated, or laying out its legal analysis. These failures have deprived Ukraine of a meaningful opportunity to respond and the international community of an ability to properly assess it.

I urge the organization to immediately remedy the situation by releasing its evidence and explaining the legal basis for its conclusion that the conduct violates IHL. As the entity leveling a charge of unlawful conduct, some of which could qualify as a grave breach of IHL, Amnesty International bears the burdens of persuasion and proof. It has not met that burden.

Given that the entire obligation here hinges on the balance between military and civilian needs, and that the civilian needs are intertwined with military objectives in urban combat, the most important question of whether Ukraine failed to fulfill their obligation went unaddressed in Amnesty's report.

Instead, Amnesty merely claims they failed them. This is poor reporting and worse advocacy.

3. Military units in hospitals

Amnesty claims that Ukraine set up military bases in hospitals. This is one part of their claim which could constitute criminal liability, as it's clear in international law that the misuse of protected symbols such as the red cross is a war crime.

Their report goes:

Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital.

Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

Their claim is factually incorrect. Using hospitals for military purposes is not a clear violation of IHL. There are many permissible military uses for hospitals.

One of them is military hospitals. Many of them exist throughout the world, and there is nothing war criminal about them. Some of them exist in war zones as well. For example, the Egyptian Field Hospital at Bagram Airbase that treated 7,000 patients at its peak (for free) was set up in about as "military objective" a place as could be in Afghanistan. It was located right next to the tarmac where the US Air Force was flying missions out of.

It is also perfectly acceptable that civilian hospitals are used to treat and house military personnel. They have in the past, and there is no specific prohibition against that in IHL, as long as there is no intent to shield the combatants inside from enemies.

Another legal military use for hospitals is for the treatment of captured prisoners of war. In fact, IHL specifically obligates militaries to provide adequate medical treatment for POWs.

As Distinguished Professor of International Law Michael Schmitt writes:

The critical provision with respect to the reported behavior is Article 12(4) of Additional Protocol I. It provides, “Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack.” But the rule is limited. The mere presence of military personnel in or near medical facilities (aside from those guarding the facility or being treated) is not unlawful absent an intent to shield. Amnesty International cites no facts unambiguously demonstrating such an intent, leaving only speculation as to why they were there.

The DoD Law of War Manual provides, “[f]or example, a hospital may not be used as a shelter for able-bodied combatants or fugitives, as an arms or ammunition depot, or as a military observation post” (§ 7.10.3.1). Setting up a base in a medical compound would certainly qualify, but whether “resting, milling about, and eating” would is questionable.

Yet the rule simply removes the special protection medical facilities enjoy; absent intent to shield, there is no IHL violation.

I suspect that the brief nature of this section in the Amnesty report indicates that they KNOW that this is not a real IHL violation because using hospitals to shield military targets from attack is a very serious charge. If there were any validity to this, they would (and should) have spent more ink detailing their accusation.

Bonus: Neil Hauer, a reporter who spent a few days staying with Tom Mutch and Donatella Rovera in the same hotel in Kramatorsk in May, says that the latter has a pre-set agenda:

Donatella stayed in the same hotel as us for several days in Kramatorsk in May. It was quite clear from conversations that she had an agenda already - to be contrarian and 'well akshually Ukraine is just as bad' before she even began her fieldwork there.

Addendum: More journalists have been coming out and exposing Donatella Rovera, the lead author of the disastrous Amnesty report, of her ignorance in urban warfare and her bizarre behavior:

Tom hit this one on the head, the only bit that I’ll add is that when we met Rovera and her research colleague in Kramatorsk, they insisted that Ukrainians fighting in urban terrain must relocate to a forested area. Not too sure how you do that in a city 1/

Rovera was very concerned about how she was perceived by the other journos in the hotel. She argued with former French Foreign Legionnaires and Royal Marines that she had been to more conflict zones than them — combat veterans — and was more knowledgeable 2/

She also refuted our own accounts of what we had seen during our reporting in the field, insisting that what we saw couldn’t possibly be true. At one point she clearly mixed up mortars and artillery — a shock for a conflict researcher with decades of experience 3/

Neil Hauer expanded on his encounter:

At one point we described a van we had seen that same day that had clearly taken small arms fire and was pockmarked with bullet holes. @DRovera *insisted* that we must have been mistaken and that it was mortar fire instead. She wasn't even there! Absolutely bizarre.

[Vistulange]

Sweden agrees to extradite man to Turkey in wake of NATO deal

Seems broadly fine and not a case for political asylum, which I imagine is why it made the news as some of Turkeys requested extraditions are that.

This one is an interesting one. Particularly since I'd expect the Swedish judiciary to be very nitpicky about the cases they review so as to minimise the chance of extraditing to Turkey. I mean, fraud makes sense since in order to extradite, the crime needs to be a crime in both countries. That makes Turkey's charges of "terrorism" go out the window thanks to Turkey's broad terrorism laws.

But, here's the thing, only one of the three things the man has provided as reasons for his prosecution will practically get you prosecuted. That's the military service one. "Having Kurdish roots" is ludicrous—about 17% of Turkey's population is directly Kurdish, never mind "Kurdish roots". There are a lot of people to go through before getting to that one bloke in Sweden if it's about being Kurdish. It's the opposite for being Christian: who gives a shit? There are statistically so few of them in Turkey that being a Christian doesn't even make you a good confessional minority to pick on; that honour often goes to Alevis.

Refusing to serve in the military actually has penalties provided by the Turkish Penal Code, though I don't quite recall the precise articles, as well as the Military Service Law, I believe. However, particularly after 2007-2012, these haven't been enforced as rigidly, and while refusing to serve will drag you through a whole lifetime of red tape and bureaucracy, people aren't thrown into prison for it, or Shanghaied into service. That's very 1990's.

[Antipatros]

Russia says Swiss 'no longer neutral', can't act as go-between with Ukraine

[Deblar]

What the hell are the Russians putting in their cigarettes? Whatever's in them, it's strong enough to wipe out an air force base and I want some.

The finest copium money can buy

[Picairn]

Oh, and a giant no-prize for anyone figuring out the title.

Let me guess, this is Helmuth von Moltke the Elder who is laughing because the Russians lack a professional NCO corps trained in mission command, which he pioneered.

[The Lone Alliance]

Since I've had so much fun writing them the first time I'm keeping my "List of Russian lies" here and I will update the list semi-regularly for when New or Old Russian lies come to the surface.

So List of Russian Lies about the war in Ukraine:

Claimed that the Russian army was strong enough to reach Berlin within 48 hours.
Claimed that the Russian army was strong enough to reach Kyiv within 48 hours.
Claimed that they wouldn't invade Ukraine.
Claimed that claims that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine was a NATO false flag.
Claimed in February that Ukraine had been attempting to use a car bomb to blow up a Luhansk official or a train full of Russian civilians in Luhansk, using footage from 2019.
Claimed in February that Polish Mercenaries had attempted to murder Donetsk civilians in a chemical weapons attack. using audio footage from 2010.
Claimed that the Ukrainian army wouldn't fight back and they'd only face scattered resistance from Nazis.
Claimed that the Ukrainian airforce was destroyed completely on the first day.
Claimed that NATO forced Russia to attack Ukraine.
Claimed that NATO was planning an invasion of Russia through Ukraine.
Claimed that the Kyiv Regime was going to surrender in February
Claimed that Russia would nuke the west if the west sent Ukraine Aid.
Claimed that they have won the war and Ukraine will now be part of Russia.... three days in.
Claimed that Zelensky had fled to Poland.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in March.
Claimed that Russia would nuke the west if the west sent Ukraine military aid.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in February.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in March.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in April.
Claimed that the Russian economy wasn't suffering.
Claimed that Russia would bring consequences if NATO invited Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
Claimed that the proof of the lack of victory is evidence that everyone in Ukraine is a Nazi who needs 30 years of forced rehabilitation and gulaging.
Claimed they were not killing civilians.
Claimed that Bucha was done by British Soldiers.
Claimed that Bucha was done by Azov Neo Nazis.
Claimed that Bucha was done by Ukrainian Artillery.
Claimed that Bucha never happened all the bodies were brought in.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in April.
Claimed that Ukraine lost all their Bayraktars in April.
Claimed that Russia would bring consequences if Finland and Sweden agreed to join NATO.
Claimed that Ukraine was being invaded to stop secret NATO Biolabs that were being used to create superweapons that can kill Russians and\or COVID and Monkeypox.
Claimed that the Hospital in Mariupol was full of Azov
Claimed that the theatre full of children in Mariupol were full of Azov.
Claimed that the entire Kyiv offensive was a feint.
Claimed that the entire Sumy offensive was a feint.
Claimed that the Kharkov offensive was a feint before turning around and trying to go back.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in March.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in April.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in May.
Claimed that Ukraine lost all their Bayraktars in May.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in May.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in March.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in April.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in May.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in December.
Claimed that Ukraine attacked Transnistria in an obvious false flag.
Claimed that the Kramatorsk railway station attack was a Ukrainian false flag because "Russia doesn't use that missile type anymore" despite pictures of Russian soldiers during the war using said missile.
Claimed that Russia didn't take massive losses in a failed River crossing.
Claimed that taking massive losses in a failed river crossing is completely normal and it happens to everyone.
Claimed that Ukraine launched an attack on Snake Island with helicopters, Ships and NATO commandos and Russia killed all of them.... before trying to claim that the dead Russian soldiers were actually NATO officers before blurring them out when people noticed that they were wearing Russian issued military clothing.
Claimed that there was a NATO Admiral in Mariupol leading Azov.... yet never produced Admiral.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron all of the Ukrainians located in the Luhansk district in May.
Claimed that Russia was not deporting Ukrainians to Russia
Claimed that Ukrainians were not being taken from Ukraine and deported to locations inside Russia.
Claimed that an old computer from 2006 covered in crude "Property of NATO stickers" all over were a top secret NATO computer that Russia captured from Nazis.
Claimed that there was a secret plot by Ukrainian Nazis to kill a Russian propagandist that required Green wigs, unworn Swastika T-shirts, and three copies of the SIMs 3 in the place of SIM cards.
Claimed that Poland was going to invade West Ukraine.
Claimed that the Moskva was fine.
Claimed the Moskva had an internal fire not related to war.
Claimed that the Moskva safely made it back to harbor,
Claimed that the Moskva was sunk in an accident.
Claimed that only a single person died on the Moskva when she sank.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in June.
Claimed that Russia had Cauldroned all of the Ukrainians located in the Luhansk district in June.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in July.
Claimed that the Ukrainians are Genetically enhanced supersoldiers with STDs.
Claimed that the Ukrainians were using Black Magic to attack the Russian forces
Claimed that Ukrainians were selling them Western artillery... failed to produce any.
Claimed that the Kremenchuk shopping mall attack was caused by a fire from Ukrainian Munitions being hit by a Russian missile and not from Russian missiles having poor aim.
Claimed a logging truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed a supply truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed an Ambulance was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed another civilian truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed that a second story room in an old factory was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed Ukraine has lost more drones than Ukraine has ever owned.
Claimed that Ukraine has lost more aircraft than they ever owned.
Claimed Ukraine has lost all their HIMARs.
Claimed they weren't going to bomb Odessa after agreeing to a trade deal.... before bombing Odessa.
Claimed that a Ukrainian HIMARs killed the Azov POWs who were clearly set on fire.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was not hit.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was hit but damage was mild.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was hit but the damage wasn't to the point that the bridge wasn't usable despite traffic at the bridge stopping and Russians being forced to use ferries to cross the water.
Claimed that no aircraft were destroyed in the Crimea explosion.
Claimed that only one person died in said explosion. (Later admitted that over 60 died)
Claimed that the damage to the Kherson Dam was unwarranted even while the destruction photos show destroyed Russian military vehicles that had been parked there.
Claimed that Russia was never going to leave Kherson.
Claimed that Ukraine were dying by the hundreds and their army would collapse around Kherson.
Claimed that because of Annexation Kherson belonged to Russia forever.
Claimed that the Crimea bridge was fine.
Claimed that the Crimea bridge attack was a NATO attack.
Claimed that Ukraine was planning on invading Belarus.
Claimed that Bakhmut had fallen.
Claimed that Bakhmut had fallen again.
Claimed that Bakhmut had fallen yet again.
Claimed that Bakhmut had fallen and Ukraine is using human waves attacks to take it back.
Claimed that the Drone that hit the Russian Airbase was shot down and did no damage even after photos of damage appeared.
Claimed that no one died in the New Years attack
Claimed that Bradley IFVs have been destroyed even though they haven't even shown up in Ukraine.
Claimed that Ukraine has been defeated and that Millions of NATO soldiers are what they're fighting.
Claimed that Poland Invaded and conquered Ukraine and that they're liberating Ukraine from Polish occupation.
Claimed that thousands and thousands of NATO soldiers have died, provided no evidence supporting it.
Claimed that Soledar had NOT fallen after saying it had fallen.

[Vistulange]

Russia says Swiss 'no longer neutral', can't act as go-between with Ukraine

Some logic. Turkey is literally a NATO member state, and yet it has been acting as a go-between.

[Sordhau]

Russia says Swiss 'no longer neutral', can't act as go-between with Ukraine

Some logic. Turkey is literally a NATO member state, and yet it has been acting as a go-between.

Russia has nothing to fear from a wealthy, land-locked country that does nothing but sit on it's hoard of Nazi gold and occasionally send soldiers to serve the Pope. Even if Switzerland wanted to harm Russia what could Bern realistically do? Ban chocolate exports?

The country that controls the Dardanelles, on the other hand...

[BEEstreetz]

I had a really interesting discussion with another player about "rational choices" and the underlying factors behind RF's and PRC's actions on the international stage. Made a very good reply even gave him sources about anthropology and culture studies to read if he wanted to but the page got refreshed. Told him to TG me tomorrow but never did.
Hopefully he appears here again because I remember roughly what my reply was.

[Ulajhan]

Glory! I have made it to the new thread! on the first page hopefully?

[Continental Free States]

Since I've had so much fun writing them the first time I'm keeping my "List of Russian lies" here and I will update the list semi-regularly for when New or Old Russian lies come to the surface.

So List of Russian Lies about the war in Ukraine:

Claimed that the Russian army was strong enough to reach Berlin within 48 hours.
Claimed that the Russian army was strong enough to reach Kyiv within 48 hours.
Claimed that they wouldn't invade Ukraine.
Claimed that claims that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine was a NATO false flag.
Claimed that the Ukrainian army wouldn't fight back and they'd only face scattered resistance from Nazis.
Claimed that the Ukrainian airforce was destroyed completely on the first day.
Claimed that NATO forced Russia to attack Ukraine.
Claimed that NATO was planning an invasion of Russia through Ukraine.
Claimed that the Kyiv Regime was going to surrender in February
Claimed that Russia would nuke the west if the west sent Ukraine Aid.
Claimed that they have won the war and Ukraine will now be part of Russia.... three days in.
Claimed that Zelensky had fled to Poland.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in March.
Claimed that Russia would nuke the west if the west sent Ukraine military aid.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in February.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in March.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in April.
Claimed that the Russian economy wasn't suffering.
Claimed that Russia would bring consequences if NATO invited Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
Claimed that the proof of the lack of victory is evidence that everyone in Ukraine is a Nazi who needs 30 years of forced rehabilitation and gulaging.
Claimed they were not killing civilians.
Claimed that Bucha was done by British Soldiers.
Claimed that Bucha was done by Azov Neo Nazis.
Claimed that Bucha was done by Ukrainian Artillery.
Claimed that Bucha never happened all the bodies were brought in.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in April.
Claimed that Ukraine lost all their Bayraktars in April.
Claimed that Russia would bring consequences if Finland and Sweden agreed to join NATO.
Claimed that Ukraine was being invaded to stop secret NATO Biolabs that were being used to create superweapons that can kill Russians and\or COVID and Monkeypox.
Claimed that the Hospital in Mariupol was full of Azov
Claimed that the theatre full of children in Mariupol were full of Azov.
Claimed that the entire Kyiv offensive was a feint.
Claimed that the entire Sumy offensive was a feint.
Claimed that the Kharkov offensive was a feint before turning around and trying to go back.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in March.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in April.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in May.
Claimed that Ukraine lost all their Bayraktars in May.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in May.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in March.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in April.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in May.
Claimed that Ukraine attacked Transnistria in an obvious false flag.
Claimed that Russia didn't take massive losses in a failed River crossing.
Claimed that taking massive losses in a failed river crossing is completely normal and it happens to everyone.
Claimed that Ukraine launched an attack on Snake Island with helicopters, Ships and NATO commandos and Russia killed all of them.... before trying to claim that the dead Russian soldiers were actually NATO officers before blurring them out when people noticed that they were wearing Russian issued military clothing.
Claimed that there was a NATO Admiral in Mariupol leading Azov.... yet never produced Admiral.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron all of the Ukrainians located in the Luhansk district in May.
Claimed that Ukrainians were not being taken from Ukraine and deported to locations inside Russia.
Claimed that an old computer from 2006 covered in crude "Property of NATO stickers" all over were a top secret NATO computer that Russia captured from Nazis.
Claimed that there was a secret plot by Ukrainian Nazis to kill a Russian propagandist that required Green wigs, unworn Swastika T-shirts, and three copies of the SIMs 3 in the place of SIM cards.
Claimed that Poland was going to invade West Ukraine.
Claimed that the Moskva was fine.
Claimed the Moskva had an internal fire not related to war.
Claimed that the Moskva safely made it back to harbor,
Claimed that the Moskva was sunk in an accident.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in June.
Claimed that Russia had Cauldroned all of the Ukrainians located in the Luhansk district in June.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in July.
Claimed that the Ukrainians are Genetically enhanced supersoldiers with STDs.
Claimed that Ukrainians were selling them Western artillery... failed to produce any.
Claimed a logging truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed a supply truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed an Ambulance was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed another civilian truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed that a second story room in an old factory was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed Ukraine has lost more drones than Ukraine has ever owned.
Claimed that Ukraine has lost more aircraft than they ever owned.
Claimed Ukraine has lost all their HIMARs.
Claimed they weren't going to bomb Odessa after agreeing to a trade deal.... before bombing Odessa.
Claimed that a Ukrainian HIMARs killed the Azov POWs who were clearly set on fire.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was not hit.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was hit but damage was mild.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was hit but the damage wasn't to the point that the bridge wasn't usable despite traffic at the bridge stopping and Russians being forced to use ferries to cross the water.
Claimed that no aircraft were destroyed in the Crimea explosion.

Wonder how many times a day you're gonna need to change this tbh.

[Perikuresu]

Since I've had so much fun writing them the first time I'm keeping my "List of Russian lies" here and I will update the list semi-regularly for when New or Old Russian lies come to the surface.

So List of Russian Lies about the war in Ukraine:

Claimed that the Russian army was strong enough to reach Berlin within 48 hours.
Claimed that the Russian army was strong enough to reach Kyiv within 48 hours.
Claimed that they wouldn't invade Ukraine.
Claimed that claims that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine was a NATO false flag.
Claimed that the Ukrainian army wouldn't fight back and they'd only face scattered resistance from Nazis.
Claimed that the Ukrainian airforce was destroyed completely on the first day.
Claimed that NATO forced Russia to attack Ukraine.
Claimed that NATO was planning an invasion of Russia through Ukraine.
Claimed that the Kyiv Regime was going to surrender in February
Claimed that Russia would nuke the west if the west sent Ukraine Aid.
Claimed that they have won the war and Ukraine will now be part of Russia.... three days in.
Claimed that Zelensky had fled to Poland.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in March.
Claimed that Russia would nuke the west if the west sent Ukraine military aid.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in February.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in March.
Claimed that Mariupol was taken.... in April.
Claimed that the Russian economy wasn't suffering.
Claimed that Russia would bring consequences if NATO invited Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
Claimed that the proof of the lack of victory is evidence that everyone in Ukraine is a Nazi who needs 30 years of forced rehabilitation and gulaging.
Claimed they were not killing civilians.
Claimed that Bucha was done by British Soldiers.
Claimed that Bucha was done by Azov Neo Nazis.
Claimed that Bucha was done by Ukrainian Artillery.
Claimed that Bucha never happened all the bodies were brought in.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in April.
Claimed that Ukraine lost all their Bayraktars in April.
Claimed that Russia would bring consequences if Finland and Sweden agreed to join NATO.
Claimed that Ukraine was being invaded to stop secret NATO Biolabs that were being used to create superweapons that can kill Russians and\or COVID and Monkeypox.
Claimed that the Hospital in Mariupol was full of Azov
Claimed that the theatre full of children in Mariupol were full of Azov.
Claimed that the entire Kyiv offensive was a feint.
Claimed that the entire Sumy offensive was a feint.
Claimed that the Kharkov offensive was a feint before turning around and trying to go back.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in March.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in April.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in May.
Claimed that Ukraine lost all their Bayraktars in May.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron the entire Ukrainian army in the east in May.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in March.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in April.
Claimed that Belarus was going to join the invasion in May.
Claimed that Ukraine attacked Transnistria in an obvious false flag.
Claimed that Russia didn't take massive losses in a failed River crossing.
Claimed that taking massive losses in a failed river crossing is completely normal and it happens to everyone.
Claimed that Ukraine launched an attack on Snake Island with helicopters, Ships and NATO commandos and Russia killed all of them.... before trying to claim that the dead Russian soldiers were actually NATO officers before blurring them out when people noticed that they were wearing Russian issued military clothing.
Claimed that there was a NATO Admiral in Mariupol leading Azov.... yet never produced Admiral.
Claimed that Russia was about to Cauldron all of the Ukrainians located in the Luhansk district in May.
Claimed that Ukrainians were not being taken from Ukraine and deported to locations inside Russia.
Claimed that an old computer from 2006 covered in crude "Property of NATO stickers" all over were a top secret NATO computer that Russia captured from Nazis.
Claimed that there was a secret plot by Ukrainian Nazis to kill a Russian propagandist that required Green wigs, unworn Swastika T-shirts, and three copies of the SIMs 3 in the place of SIM cards.
Claimed that Poland was going to invade West Ukraine.
Claimed that the Moskva was fine.
Claimed the Moskva had an internal fire not related to war.
Claimed that the Moskva safely made it back to harbor,
Claimed that the Moskva was sunk in an accident.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in June.
Claimed that Russia had Cauldroned all of the Ukrainians located in the Luhansk district in June.
Claimed the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbass were routed in July.
Claimed that the Ukrainians are Genetically enhanced supersoldiers with STDs.
Claimed that Ukrainians were selling them Western artillery... failed to produce any.
Claimed a logging truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed a supply truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed an Ambulance was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed another civilian truck was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed that a second story room in an old factory was a destroyed HIMARs.
Claimed Ukraine has lost more drones than Ukraine has ever owned.
Claimed that Ukraine has lost more aircraft than they ever owned.
Claimed Ukraine has lost all their HIMARs.
Claimed they weren't going to bomb Odessa after agreeing to a trade deal.... before bombing Odessa.
Claimed that a Ukrainian HIMARs killed the Azov POWs who were clearly set on fire.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was not hit.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was hit but damage was mild.
Claimed the Kherson bridge was hit but the damage wasn't to the point that the bridge wasn't usable despite traffic at the bridge stopping and Russians being forced to use ferries to cross the water.
Claimed that no aircraft were destroyed in the Crimea explosion.

What started off as burning the already crisp picked cherries from a NS user has turned into it's own thing

[Shamhnan Insir]

What do we think of the EU visa ban on Russians?

I think it's fair. Can't be party to a country bombing the shit out of a neighbor and consider it unfair that the other neighbors will deny you a cosy holiday destination.

[Picairn]

What do we think of the EU visa ban on Russians?

I think it's fair. Can't be party to a country bombing the shit out of a neighbor and consider it unfair that the other neighbors will deny you a cosy holiday destination.

From what I've read, the biggest issue with the proposal is that it will take away the easiest route for "good Russians" (anti-war, anti-Putin dissidents) to gain asylum in the US and EU countries. Going through the official channels for asylum is a difficult process, you must prove that you're politically persecuted before being granted asylum status, and the success rate is rather low since the paperwork burden is high and rejection rate equally so.

Typically, some Russians circumvent those burdensome requirements by the old-fashioned way: calling in favors from officials or institutions that they are acquainted with, get them to sign off on the paperwork and pull strings to get it accepted quickly. Otherwise, they'll have to wait months to be processed.

Any other channel for traveling abroad is also difficult on its own. Take the UK for example. Business visa? Where's your recommendation letter and leave permission from your employer? Academic? What is your research project and which foreign university is sponsoring you? Student? Have you received an unconditional offer to study at a university and do you have access to £9000 cash?

It all boils down to whether we still want "good Russians" to get the easy way out or to punish Russians as a collective. And I personally lean on the former, because the latter doesn't help the war effort at all, if not actively harms it. Getting good Russians on our side could help undermine Putin's political legitimacy.

At the very least, Russian anti-war activists, journalists, and political dissidents should be granted visas in all circumstances.

[Vistulange]

What do we think of the EU visa ban on Russians?

I think it's fair. Can't be party to a country bombing the shit out of a neighbor and consider it unfair that the other neighbors will deny you a cosy holiday destination.

Pretty much what Picairn said. There's a balance to be struck between "make the Russians feel it" and "hearts and minds". I feel that banning visas for Russians isn't particularly productive, and mostly contributes to the animosity. Hell, if we want to be a touch dramatic, we could even say it might contribute to a feeling of, wait for it, a "clash of civilisations" (I hate myself for referencing Huntington).

There is very little gained by blocking Russians from the EU. As Picairn pointed out, the folks who like to go to Europe, such as those with yachts sitting in some European marina or another, will not be deterred by this as they will probably put their connections into play—Gerhard Schröder, anybody?—and the ordinary Russian will be stuck, but with what reason, that is unclear.