Ukraine invasion

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
I was just watching CNN, and they announced that- in a departure from their usual policy- Japan will be taking in Ukrainian refugees.

I immediately thought this is a win-win for Japan. In the short term, they’re being a good member of the international community by rendering aid. In the long term, this could help them offset their negative population growth and help repopulate some of their “ghost towns”.

(Bonus: it’s a poke in The Bear’s eye.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aeson

Legend
I wonder if there's a country in the world Russia hasn't been in some kind of war with. Japan spanked them hard in the early 20th century. lol

This is great news for all involved.
 

Hussar

Legend
I was just watching CNN, and they announced that- in a departure from their usual policy- Japan will be taking in Ukrainian refugees.

I immediately thought this is a win-win for Japan. In the short term, they’re being a good member of the international community by rendering aid. In the long term, this could help them offset their negative population growth and help repopulate some of their “ghost towns”.

(Bonus: it’s a poke in The Bear’s eye.)

There’s actually a really large Ukrainian community here. It’s one of the bigger minorities.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I wonder if there's a country in the world Russia hasn't been in some kind of war with. Japan spanked them hard in the early 20th century. lol

This is great news for all involved.

UK still holds that record iirc. There's very few they haven't fought.

For the 20th century USA wins.


It's a favourite whataboutisn online.
 
Last edited:


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
There’s actually a really large Ukrainian community here. It’s one of the bigger minorities.
That’s interesting! And it might be a major factor in why they’re opening their borders to the Ukrainian refugees. Besides the pleas fr9m those already in country, a settled Ukrainian populace will make it easier to deal with the practical matters of helping the refugees. The mere availability of native speakers- especially those with an understanding of the host nation- is going to be a HUGE asset In those efforts.
 

Hussar

Legend
Granted Japans not going to win any awards for immigration but what there is does tend to have clumps. Nepalese and Ukrainian are probably the biggest minority groups in my area other than Korean of course but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.
 

Aeson

Legend
I can't remember if this has been posted already.
Charity Navigator is a site that researches charities and rates them. It could be a good site to look at to investigate a charity before donating.

 

Just had a meeting with one of my Ukrainian colleagues in Odessa. Apparently they've destroyed another Russian warship. He says a lot of the Russians soldiers being sent to fight are just young boys who barely know how to drive a vehicle or fire a weapon, let alone hit a target. He seems optimistic about Ukraine's war efforts, with several areas of Kiev being back in Ukrainian hands. But even he realises this won't end any time soon. I cautioned him that this will get worse before it gets better. Chemical weapons might be next I fear.
 

Horwath

Hero
Just had a meeting with one of my Ukrainian colleagues in Odessa. Apparently they've destroyed another Russian warship. He says a lot of the Russians soldiers being sent to fight are just young boys who barely know how to drive a vehicle or fire a weapon, let alone hit a target. He seems optimistic about Ukraine's war efforts, with several areas of Kiev being back in Ukrainian hands. But even he realises this won't end any time soon. I cautioned him that this will get worse before it gets better. Chemical weapons might be next I fear.
In every war young and stupid are sent to die on behalf of old and rich.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
He seems optimistic about Ukraine's war efforts, with several areas of Kiev being back in Ukrainian hands.

There is reason to be optimistic, if the question is whether his country will remain occupied. The RAND corporation (who specialize in studies of military operations) has determined that, broadly speaking, if you want to hold a territory against minimal resistance, you need to have approximately 20 soldiers on the ground for every 1000 inhabitants of the region.

In Ukraine, that would mean the Russians need to have something like 800,000 troops in the area. Note: The Russian military at the moment, in total, including all branches, numbers about one million people. And the Ukrainians are putting up well more than "minimal" resistance. If the studies are correct, short of something that absolutely quells resistance, Russia can't really hope to hold the nation.

Unfortunately, they can hope to beat the crap out of Ukraine until they get some concessions.

Chemical weapons might be next I fear.

That's possible, but a risky choice for Russia. It might shock the Ukrainians into surrender, but it might not. But it would almost certainly get Russia's remaining major trade partner, China, to walk away from them. This would be damaging to Russia internally, and start a bit of a race: which comes first - surrender in Ukraine, or civil unrest in Russia?
 

NotAYakk

Legend
There are a bunch of EU/NATO/USA escalation options that have not been deployed short of attacking Russian territory directly.

Shutting off gas purchases, oil, selling jets, anti ship weapons, tanks, no fly zones (partial or full), arming other regions against Russia, moving troops into western Ukraine, blocking transit through Poland, attacking Belarus, converting frozen assets to seized assets, etc.

These are not going to be done lightly. But Russia will know escalating to NBC warfare in Ukraine may result in escalation on the part of the West.

Even without China doing anything in response.

I doubt most of the above will be deployed here. But doubt is not certainty.
 
Last edited:






To what end? It won't change Russian actions in Ukraine.



Russia's being a bully, but the UN is not built to stand up to bullies with vetoes on the Security Council.
So there is a chance they will in fact be United against the bully ( looking at you democracies in Africa, India, etc).
I can hope.

Or they sink his sitting duck Black Sea fleet.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
So there is a chance they will in fact be United against the bully ( looking at you democracies in Africa, India, etc).
I can hope.

Again, to what end? "United against the bully" doesn't really mean anything unless it changes the bully's actions.

Meanwhile, those abstaining at this point are generally doing so because Russia gives them something that they want/need, that they stand to lose if they cheese Russia off. You want them to make symbolic gestures that won't change the situation, except for their being left in the lurch for something they need?

I'm all for making some sacrifices for a cause, but only if those sacrifices are apt to be effective.

Or they sink his sitting duck Black Sea fleet.

The UN is not going to engage in direct violent action against Russian forces, because expanding the conflict is a good way to get WWIII, a thing the UN was nominally created to prevent.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top