Ukraine invasion

[Zardnaar]

One of our colleagues from Ukraine shared this with us. They are cleaning landmines on the highway to Kyiv by pushing them aside with their feet.

These are probably landmines that only trigger at the weight of a heavy vehicle, but this hasn't stopped some civilians from Yolo-ing their vehicle through the minefield.

Also, despite warning signs at the beaches, some people choose to ignore those warnings, with deadly results.

Those are anti tank mines.

Early in war Ukraine civilian moved one dressed like a gopnik in adidas smoking a cigarette.

Found it.

 

[Umbran]

Point taken of course, but one does not usually measure an army's effectiveness against innocent civilians.

The fact that we tend to separate "military effectiveness" from the impact upon civilians is a problem. War is not an abstract game of chess, folks, and if you just sweep the impacts under the rug as "war is hell" you are dismissing the actual long term costs.

Sure. Paper tiger. Mariupol is still flattened, and war crimes are going on, but sure, that tiger isn't a threat. No teeth.

I guess that tiger is gumming people to death and leaving them in mass graves.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The fact that we tend to separate "military effectiveness" from the impact upon civilians is a problem. War is not an abstract game of chess, folks, and if you just sweep the impacts under the rug as "war is hell" you are dismissing the actual long term costs.

Sure. Paper tiger. Mariupol is still flattened, and war crimes are going on, but sure, that tiger isn't a threat. No teeth.

I guess that tiger is gumming people to death and leaving them in mass graves.

I think that is reasonable to discuss the military capabilities of an army versus other armies with out having to acknowledge that any armed mob can murder a lot of civilians.
I am not saying this to dismiss the gravity of the murders in Ukraine but a discussion about military capabilities is not unreasonable?

 

[Rabulias]

The fact that we tend to separate "military effectiveness" from the impact upon civilians is a problem. War is not an abstract game of chess, folks, and if you just sweep the impacts under the rug as "war is hell" you are dismissing the actual long term costs.

Sure. Paper tiger. Mariupol is still flattened, and war crimes are going on, but sure, that tiger isn't a threat. No teeth.

I guess that tiger is gumming people to death and leaving them in mass graves.

I don't think we are dismissing the atrocities in Ukraine in any way. "War is hell" is a significant statement. Think about what it is saying: war is a form of ultimate eternal suffering; there is nothing worse. It only sounds trite because it has, sadly, needed to be used far too often in the past (and the present).

The assessment of the Russian army's capabilities was weighed against other armies in the world in a tactical and strategic sense. No one expects civilians to fare well against an armed force, much less repel/defeat an army. It often takes another army to do that. This reputation has deterred other nations from engaging militarily with Russia, almost as much as their chemical weapon and nuclear weapon capacity.

And consider how much worse the civilian casualties and destruction would be if the Russian army was the efficient, top-tier fighting force it was thought to be.

 

[Ryujin]

To paraphrase Hawkeye Pearce: War is war and Hell is Hell. Of the two war is worse, because there are no innocents in Hell.

 

[Ulfgeir]

The UN has kicked Russia of the Humans Rights commitee.
United Nations suspends Russia from human rights body over Ukraine

 

[Guest 7034872]

The UN has kicked Russia of the Humans Rights commitee.
United Nations suspends Russia from human rights body over Ukraine

Overdue, but good.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What meaning does that have, besides "we don't like you"?

 

[Rabulias]

What meaning does that have, besides "we don't like you"?

It seems to be a bit of a contradiction to have a country doing what Russia is doing being on a "Human Rights Council." Admittedly they are not the only contradictory HRC membership (which we will not go into here), but it is the most egregious one at the moment.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I was just thinking that.

Russia has a lot of business, and no small amount of leverage with energy supply.

Invading Ukraine to rebuild empire? Maybe.
To obtain a buffer state? Okay.
To gain access / control of the Black Sea? Sure.
To control wheat / grain supply? Reasonable.
To eliminate an energy rival / gain an energy monopoly? Bingo.

Here's a map of Ukraine's natural gas reserves: