Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Russian Ukraine Invasion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk

Elona Musk?
Challenging Putin to a single combat?

Okay, we’ve either reached a maximum WTF? level or he really believes that we do live in a simulation.

How to Live in a Simulation by Robin Hanson

"If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you."

If we do, I’m screwed because I don’t even know how to play video games. Sad
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/arme...r-ukraine/

WASHINGTON: "President Joe Biden announced today that the US will provide Ukraine with an additional $800 million in weaponry, committing a total of $1 billion in military aid to Kyiv this week alone.

The latest security assistance package doubles the $1 billion in security assistance previously given by the administration.

However, the military tech that the US will provide to Ukraine — which includes anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft systems — falls short of the more sophisticated air defense systems and combat aircraft Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked for during a speech to US lawmakers earlier today.

“The American people are answering President Zelensky’s call for more help, more weapons for Ukraine to defend itself, more tools to fight Russian aggression,” Biden said during a speech at the White House announcing the new military aid.

The arms package includes 800 shoulder-mounted Stinger anti-aircraft systems and 9,000 anti-armor systems, including 2,000 Javelin systems, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons and 6,000 AT-4 antiarmor systems, according to a White House fact sheet.

For the first time, the US is providing drones to Ukraine in the form of 100 “tactical unmanned aerial systems,” the White House stated. Biden did not specify what drones will be delivered to Ukraine, but Politico reported that the drones are AeroVironment’s Switchblade system, which loiters in the sky before crashing into its target.

Drones have already played a major part in Ukraine’s defense, with the Turkish-made TB2 becoming something of a local celebrity for its ability to take out Russia armor. Unlike the TB2, however, the Switchblade is a one-time-use system, more of a loitering munition than a true UAV."
(Mar 16, 2022 08:05 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/arme...r-ukraine/

[...] For the first time, the US is providing drones to Ukraine in the form of 100 “tactical unmanned aerial systems,” the White House stated. Biden did not specify what drones will be delivered to Ukraine, but Politico reported that the drones are AeroVironment’s Switchblade system, which loiters in the sky before crashing into its target. ...

Alright! Kamikaze drones.



(Mar 16, 2022 06:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/elonmusk

Elona Musk?
Challenging Putin to a single combat?

Noticed a headline about that the other day. Thought of looking closer or dropping a post about it, but nah... Figured it was just Elon's high-functioning autism jumping the tracks.

Quote:Okay, we’ve either reached a maximum WTF? level or he really believes that we do live in a simulation.

How to Live in a Simulation by Robin Hanson

"If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you."

If we do, I’m screwed because I don’t even know how to play video games. Sad

Fear of addiction is the garlic that has warded me away from them over the years. That and what seems like wasted hours... "Game-ducks just wanna get kwakked all night, I ain't got the time."
(Mar 16, 2022 08:32 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Figured it was just Elon's high-functioning autism jumping the tracks.

That might explain Elona's behavior but how about some of the others?

Maybe we should start sleuthing for glitches, eh, C C?  Wink
Day 21 Summary. We are three weeks in.

https://militaryland.net/ukraine/invasio...1-summary/

Here's a Day 21 summary from a different source, the Institute for the Study of War. (Reputable, with several big name retired US Generals like Jack Keane and David Petraeus.) It isn't dramatically different than the ones I've been posting, but does have some additional information that's interesting.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...t-march-16

They assess the current Russian forces around Kyiv as inadaquate to take the city. Russian offensive operations northwest of Kyiv, where most of the Russian attacks have been, have so far been small scale, on the company to battalion scale. The Russians have been unable to advance effectively on Kyiv from the east because they have failed to take cities closer to Russia like Sumy and Chernihiv, so have had to devote forces to those fights in the rear that would have otherwise advanced on Kyiv.

We knew that the Russians have sent in pretty much all of the forces they had staged around Ukraine before the invasion. Those forces have proven to be insufficient, so the Russians have been pressuring Belarus to enter the war. But Belarus so far has resisted the pressure. (They've seen what's happening to the much larger Russian forces.) So the Russians have been calling up reserves from all over Russia and Russian military stationed overseas from places like Armenia. Apparently cadets from officer training are being graduated early and sent directly to the front. Other reports have the Russians bringing in thousands of Syrian fighters.

Apparently many Russian units have taken so many losses that they are combat ineffective, so the Russians are reorganizing the remains into new units along with the newly arrived reservists. The ISW believes that these new makeshift units will suffer even worse command and logistics problems than we've already seen. Several top Russian generals have been killed in battle. They might be hard to replace, but they do indicate that some Russian generals are leading from the front rather than issuing orders from the rear.

The ISW believes that the Ukrainian Air Force still has some effective punch in the southwest and is part of why the Russians seem to have stalled out in front of Mykolaiv. The recent Ukrainian attack on the Russian supply and helicopter base at the Kherson airport was conducted with Ukrainian air support.

The ISW reports satellites have seen some 13 Russian ships off the port of Odessa. Their opinion is that the Russians won't attempt an amphibious landing by naval infantry (marines) which is likely to fail unless Russian ground forces are attacking the city from the other side and drawing away defenders. There isn't any sign of that yet.

The Russians have made little or no attempt to enter the center of Ukraine's second city of Kharkiv since early in the war and attempts to encircle it have been unsuccessful so far. So they just sit in the northern industrial outskirts and shell downtown mercilessly.

But the Russians have had more success in far eastern Ukraine where they have taken most of Luhansk oblast and seem to be advancing in Donetsk oblast. The port of Mariupol remains surrounded and street fighting is underway. The Russians have reportedly taken the main hospital and the city is being pounded by artillery. Both military and civilian Ukrainian casualties are probably high. Mariupol is expected to fall in coming days.
(Mar 12, 2022 10:20 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]Putins rhetoric is Strawman at best.  He'll even change the goal posts through propaganda to get what he wants, his moaning about NATO (A non-aggressive defence pact) is just one of those points to create spin and keep people from seeing the actual objective. 

I mean how many times does he have to be told it's a Non-aggressive defence pact?  Of course he'd throw another strawman and ignore the actual point but that's what Putin does.

The main problem is he's surrounded by sycophantic Yes men.  No government can achieve balance unless there is opposition.  Opposition is healthy in the sense that it allows alternative view points to be heard and decisions to take into consideration those view points.  Having it all just one sided leads to the worst kinds of extremism and the worst kinds of mistakes.  (In governance and strategy)

In fact I'd assume Hitler worked that out when he put a bullet through his own skull.  History unfortunately repeats.

I just wanted to point out that you can’t really portray NATO as purely defensive and non-aggressive because NATO’s actions in Bosnia and Serbia were clearly offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombi...Yugoslavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_inter...erzegovina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_po...nistration
(Mar 17, 2022 05:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]
(Mar 12, 2022 10:20 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]Putins rhetoric is Strawman at best.  He'll even change the goal posts through propaganda to get what he wants, his moaning about NATO (A non-aggressive defence pact) is just one of those points to create spin and keep people from seeing the actual objective. 

I mean how many times does he have to be told it's a Non-aggressive defence pact?  Of course he'd throw another strawman and ignore the actual point but that's what Putin does.

The main problem is he's surrounded by sycophantic Yes men.  No government can achieve balance unless there is opposition.  Opposition is healthy in the sense that it allows alternative view points to be heard and decisions to take into consideration those view points.  Having it all just one sided leads to the worst kinds of extremism and the worst kinds of mistakes.  (In governance and strategy)

In fact I'd assume Hitler worked that out when he put a bullet through his own skull.  History unfortunately repeats.

I just wanted to point out that you can’t really portray NATO as purely defensive and non-aggressive because NATO’s actions in Bosnia and Serbia were clearly offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombi...Yugoslavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_inter...erzegovina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_po...nistration

25+ years ago. Global politics was a lot different back then with pre-terrorist states and the EU was in it's infancy.

The decision there seems to suggest it was concerned at the spread of various militants that had moved into neighbouring countries while fighting and that was a concern to further neighbouring countries that were NATO allies. At least thats the political spin used.
(Mar 17, 2022 05:50 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]
(Mar 17, 2022 05:37 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]
(Mar 12, 2022 10:20 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]Putins rhetoric is Strawman at best.  He'll even change the goal posts through propaganda to get what he wants, his moaning about NATO (A non-aggressive defence pact) is just one of those points to create spin and keep people from seeing the actual objective. 

I mean how many times does he have to be told it's a Non-aggressive defence pact?  Of course he'd throw another strawman and ignore the actual point but that's what Putin does.

The main problem is he's surrounded by sycophantic Yes men.  No government can achieve balance unless there is opposition.  Opposition is healthy in the sense that it allows alternative view points to be heard and decisions to take into consideration those view points.  Having it all just one sided leads to the worst kinds of extremism and the worst kinds of mistakes.  (In governance and strategy)

In fact I'd assume Hitler worked that out when he put a bullet through his own skull.  History unfortunately repeats.

I just wanted to point out that you can’t really portray NATO as purely defensive and non-aggressive because NATO’s actions in Bosnia and Serbia were clearly offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombi...Yugoslavia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_inter...erzegovina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_po...nistration

25+ years ago.  Global politics was a lot different back then with pre-terrorist states and the EU was in it's infancy. 

The decision there seems to suggest it was concerned at the spread of various militants that had moved into neighbouring countries while fighting and that was a concern to further neighbouring countries that were NATO allies.  At least that's the political spin used.

And one could argue that a leopard never changes its spots. NATO is not a purely defensive organization, no matter how you spin it. Just look at our history. It’s not NATO’s job to spread democracy. We wouldn’t be caving into Russia’s threats because Ukraine’s membership was always fictional—pure fiction and they’re paying the price. The ethical implications are tremendous. We all know that Ukraine’s accession is not in our best interest. We need to back off and stop wooing them. We (NATO/EU/U.S.), not Ukraine, need to sit down with China and Russia and solve this in a diplomatic way.

We used the same justification that Putin is using now—genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy...Yugoslavia

"Supporters of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia argued that the bombing brought to an end the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's Albanian population, and that it hastened (or caused) the downfall of Slobodan Milošević's government, which they saw as having been responsible for the international isolation of Yugoslavia, war crimes, and human rights violations."

"NATO had justified the actions in Kosovo under Article 4 of its charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, which allows involved parties to consult together whenever political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened. Because the NATO actions in Kosovo were taken after consultation with all members, were approved by a NATO vote, and were undertaken by several NATO members, NATO contends that its actions were in accordance with its charter. Article 4, however, is silent as to the use of force and does not discuss under what circumstances force may be authorized."

"Article 5 of NATO's charter calls on NATO members to respond in mutual defense when any NATO member is attacked. It is unclear whether under the NATO charter force may be used in the absence of such an attack. Article 5 has been interpreted as restricting NATO's use of force to situations where a NATO member has been attacked. It has been argued, therefore, that NATO's actions were in violation of the charter of NATO. Critics of this theory argue, however, that the purpose of Article 5 is to require all NATO members to respond when any NATO member is attacked, not to restrict the circumstances under which NATO may choose to use force."

"The bombing campaign is sometimes referred to as a "humanitarian war" or a case of "humanitarian intervention". Part of NATO's justification for the bombing was to end the humanitarian crisis involving the large outflow of Kosovar Albanian refugees caused by Yugoslav forces. In April 1999, the development of this humanitarian crisis as well as accusations of genocide were used by policy-makers in the United States and Europe to legally justify the campaign on the basis of "humanitarian law", allowing for intervention where large scale human rights violations are occurring. Human rights organizations and individuals were divided on the campaign, given that the invocation of human rights and humanitarian law was used to initiate war. Moreover, they expressed doubts about the campaign given that it worsened the violence against Kosovar Albanians. Critics of the campaign have employed the term "humanitarian bombing" in an ironic manner to demonstrate their derision."
(Mar 17, 2022 06:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]And one could argue that a leopard never changes its spots. NATO is not a purely defensive organization, no matter how you spin it. Just look at our history. It’s not NATO’s job to spread democracy. We wouldn’t be caving into Russia’s threats because Ukraine’s membership was always fictional—pure fiction and they’re paying the price. The ethical implications are tremendous. We all know that Ukraine’s accession is not in our best interest. We need to back off and stop wooing them. We (NATO/EU/U.S.), not Ukraine, need to sit down with China and Russia and solve this in a diplomatic way.

We used the same justification that Putin is using now—genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy...Yugoslavia

"Supporters of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia argued that the bombing brought to an end the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's Albanian population, and that it hastened (or caused) the downfall of Slobodan Milošević's government, which they saw as having been responsible for the international isolation of Yugoslavia, war crimes, and human rights violations."

"NATO had justified the actions in Kosovo under Article 4 of its charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, which allows involved parties to consult together whenever political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened. Because the NATO actions in Kosovo were taken after consultation with all members, were approved by a NATO vote, and were undertaken by several NATO members, NATO contends that its actions were in accordance with its charter. Article 4, however, is silent as to the use of force and does not discuss under what circumstances force may be authorized."

"Article 5 of NATO's charter calls on NATO members to respond in mutual defense when any NATO member is attacked. It is unclear whether under the NATO charter force may be used in the absence of such an attack. Article 5 has been interpreted as restricting NATO's use of force to situations where a NATO member has been attacked. It has been argued, therefore, that NATO's actions were in violation of the charter of NATO. Critics of this theory argue, however, that the purpose of Article 5 is to require all NATO members to respond when any NATO member is attacked, not to restrict the circumstances under which NATO may choose to use force."

"The bombing campaign is sometimes referred to as a "humanitarian war" or a case of "humanitarian intervention". Part of NATO's justification for the bombing was to end the humanitarian crisis involving the large outflow of Kosovar Albanian refugees caused by Yugoslav forces. In April 1999, the development of this humanitarian crisis as well as accusations of genocide were used by policy-makers in the United States and Europe to legally justify the campaign on the basis of "humanitarian law", allowing for intervention where large scale human rights violations are occurring. Human rights organizations and individuals were divided on the campaign, given that the invocation of human rights and humanitarian law was used to initiate war. Moreover, they expressed doubts about the campaign given that it worsened the violence against Kosovar Albanians. Critics of the campaign have employed the term "humanitarian bombing" in an ironic manner to demonstrate their derision."
Good points as usual. Let's not forget that Gadaffi's 2011 violent overthrow and Libya's following 'unfortunate and unplanned' descent into endless civil war was a NATO op too. Officially anyway.
Post Gadaffi Libya also becoming 'an unfortunate and unplanned' staging area/gateway for much of that mass migration into Europe.
Something Gadaffi specifically warned would happen if his checking policies were destroyed.
Wonderful. NATO - pat yourself on the back again. Even though the US State Department likely deserves most of the 'credit' for such creative planning and execution(s). You know - 'spreading Democracy'.
https://www.greydynamics.com/all-roads-to-libya/
https://www.greydynamics.com/all-roads-to-libya/