advertisement


Ukraine V

tones said:
These are presumably people whom the Russians see as Russian citizens, happy at being returned to the bosom of the Motherland. The Russians have indeed a curious way of winning friends and influencing people.
Click to expand...

They are also very good at sacrificing their own people in the name of the Motherland.

This popped up on Twitter today:

"I thank the Swiss parliament's upper house for an important move to unblock the re-export of Swiss-made weapons. We are looking forward to the next steps. I am grateful to Switzerland for its solidarity with Ukraine while upholding its neutrality."

Did it happen?
 
Kirk said:
Did it happen?
Click to expand...
No

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/busine...roposal-to-export-weapons-to-ukraine/48560394

Personally, in the light of developments elsewhere, I think that Switzerland (Ireland too for that matter) should rethink this neutrality business. After all, Switzerland is sanctioning Russia. They need to realise that everyone is, in a sense on the front line.

I also think Switzerland should start by invading and assimilating the local bit of Russia:

https://swissfederalism.ch/en/isolated-russian-flag-on-a-remote-peak-of-the-alps/
 
Last edited:
tones said:
[QUOTE="Kirk, post: 5021123, member: 39336"
Did it happen?
Click to expand...
No

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/busine...roposal-to-export-weapons-to-ukraine/48560394

Personally, in the light of developments elsewhere, I think that Switzerland (Ireland too for that matter) should rethink this neutrality business. After all, Switzerland is sanctioning Russia. They< need to realise that everyone is, in a sense on the front line.

I also think Switzerland should start by invading and assimilating the local bit of Russia:

https://swissfederalism.ch/en/isolated-russian-flag-on-a-remote-peak-of-the-alps/[/QUOTE]

The Upper House made moves to unblock the decision today apparently. Not sure if that means anything though.
 
droodzilla said:
Would recommend the WaPo article which gets into a bit more detail:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-russia/

Not conclusive, but certainly persuasive.

What confuses me is why so many people are reluctant to believe the operation might have been carried out by Ukraine (or an ally). We all agree that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is morally wrong. Blowing up the pipeline would strike at Russia's long term strategic interests and inflict economic harm. So why wouldn't Ukraine do it (with the tacit or not so tacit approval of the US) and why would we not support them doing it?
Click to expand...
It would be so much easier if you actually said what you meant.

Destruction of a pipeline, if it's classified as a critical infrastructure for human habitation (which I think it qualifies as), would run afoul of the 1977 addendum to the GC, which declares such attacks to be a type of war crime.

Legally, it would fall into a similar status as Russian likely demolition of the Khohovka hydro power plant and flooding of the Dnieper delta.
 
droodzilla said:
I said what I meant.

Unfortunately, I am not gifted with your preternatural insight and unshakeable certainty.
Click to expand...
What insight and certainty? I simply referenced an international document that is supposed to disallow such destruction of critical civilian infrastructure objects - say hydroelectric power plants or gas pipelines, among others .

You asked "shouldn't we support such acts by Ukraine" and I answered "No" and provided a reason why we shouldn't - because all of our governments signed a binding international agreement to not do such acts or risk being guilty of war crimes. "We," in this case is taken to mean individuals, like you or me.

These acts also seem intuitively wrong, as they clearly affect large numbers of humans and have a military effect that can be described as dubious, at best. This is less so with the pipeline, since it was already dormant, but legally it's in the same bucket as the dam.

Any relevant response from you, or are you just trying to wind up the thread?

In the meantime, it's worth noting that Russian land oil and gas pipelines IN UKRAINE, continue to operate safely.
 
DimitryZ said:
What insight and certainty? I simply referenced an international document that is supposed to disallow such destruction of critical civilian infrastructure objects - say hydroelectric power plants or gas pipelines, among others .

You asked "shouldn't we support such acts by Ukraine" and I answered "No" and provided a reason why we shouldn't - because all of our governments signed a binding international agreement to not do such acts or risk being guilty of war crimes. "We," in this case is taken to mean individuals, like you or me.

These acts also seem intuitively wrong, as they clearly affect large numbers of humans and have a military effect that can be described as dubious, at best. This is less so with the pipeline, since it was already dormant, but legally it's in the same bucket as the dam.

Any relevant response from you, or are you just trying to wind up the thread?

In the meantime, it's worth noting that Russian land oil and gas pipelines IN UKRAINE, continue to operate safely.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I misunderstood the intent of your previous post, so apologies for that. Now that I think of it, you have been consistent in your condemnation of war crimes, and I am happy to stand with you on that.
 
I agree with some of that but have three comments: 1. The West (largely US) will always be reactive in this and don't really care what happens to Ukraine but would obviously prefer it not to be Russian. 2. No mention of China, their continued tacit support of Russia keeps this war going indefinitely. If they tell Russia to stop, they'll stop. 3. WW3/Nuclear war is off the table regardless of how deranged Putin is.
 
Regarding your point 3, nuclear risk is not the same as nuclear war. I think he means that Putin will raise tensions and wave his nuclear stick around at some point or other and we have to be able to cope with this.
 
why a comparison when it is always russians.

even when they could create the same flooding just with opening the dam. for them a destruction was not necessary. simple, open - close.
 
Interesting WSJ documentary on Wagner - especially it's model of providing 'security' in exchange for taking control of oil, gas and gold rights in Syria, African states and elsewhere.

 
As has been pointed out numerous places elsewhere. The British shouting the odds about blowing up dams is irony on a different level. The Ukrainians seems to have adopted the "million nibbles" strategy knowing full well the Russian lines are spread thinly. Keep them guessing and moving troops to places where there's not really a proper attack until, they just give up and sit in their trenches. How ironic that, in a few months time, Russia could face controlling less territory in Ukraine than they did before the invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top