Started By
Message

re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Posted on 5/24/22 at 7:50 am to
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
42802 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 7:50 am to
quote:


Was Crimea not part of "sovereign" Ukraine? What happened when Russia annex it? NOTHING....


Which led to their 2022 invasion. Doing nothing led to more wars.
Obama should have given Ukraine more help while he was in office. Defensive weapons. Help to defend themselves.
This post was edited on 5/24/22 at 8:08 am
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5180 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 7:54 am to
quote:

Not to get super in depth about potential export issues of wheat,cooking oil and fertilizer thar are global issues, but you do realize that the US is a regional part of Russia overall given the proximity of Alaska right?


Increasingly worried on this subject.

quote:

ETA: and at least one Duma member has called for Russia to take Alaska back seeing as we bought it from them


After the last 3 months I’m not worried at all on this subject. Is comedic to me now.
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5180 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 7:59 am to
quote:

UK backs Lithuania’s plan to lift Russian blockade of Ukraine grain

Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.

The Lithuanian foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, proposed the plan during talks with the UK foreign secretary, Liz Truss, on Monday in London.

Landsbergis proposed that a naval escort operation – not run by Nato – could protect the grain ships as they headed through the Black Sea and past Russian warships. He suggested that, apart from Britain, countries that were affected by the potential loss of grain such as Egypt could provide the necessary protection.


Getting messy here. I get not having NATO do it, but a country like Egypt trusted to not confiscate the shipments for their own use either feeding their own or ransom to those in need? I don’t think so.
Posted by JayDeerTay84
Texas
Member since May 2013
9956 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 7:59 am to
quote:

Name them, then explain why they are not a sovereign nation.


You can google them. They come up on the 1st page results.

However, for your reference, this is where my views of sovereignty, with regards to nations, come from.

LINK


quote:

Sovereignty and international law
Although the doctrine of sovereignty has had an important impact on developments within states, its greatest influence has been in the relations between states. The difficulties here can be traced to Bodin’s statement that sovereigns who make the laws cannot be bound by the laws they make (majestas est summa in cives ac subditos legibusque soluta potestas). This statement has often been interpreted as meaning that a sovereign is not responsible to anybody and is not bound by any laws. However, a closer reading of Bodin’s writings does not support this interpretation. He emphasized that even with respect to their own citizens, sovereigns are bound to observe certain basic rules derived from the divine law, the law of nature or reason, and the law that is common to all nations (jus gentium), as well as the fundamental laws of the state that determine who is the sovereign, who succeeds to sovereignty, and what limits the sovereign power. Thus, Bodin’s sovereign was restricted by the constitutional law of the state and by the higher law that was considered as binding upon every human being. In fact, Bodin discussed as binding upon states many of those rules that were later woven into the fabric of international law. Nevertheless, his theories have been used to justify absolutism in the internal political order and anarchy in the international sphere.

This interpretation was developed to its logical conclusion by Hobbes in Leviathan (1651), in which the sovereign was identified with might rather than law. Law is what sovereigns command, and it cannot limit their power: sovereign power is absolute. In the international sphere this condition led to a perpetual state of war, as sovereigns tried to impose their will by force on all other sovereigns. This situation has changed little over time, with sovereign states continuing to claim the right to be judges in their own controversies, to enforce by war their own conception of their rights, to treat their own citizens in any way that suits them, and to regulate their economic life with complete disregard for possible repercussions in other states.

During the 20th century important restrictions on the freedom of action of states began to appear. The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 established detailed rules governing the conduct of wars on land and at sea. The Covenant of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations (UN), restricted the right to wage war, and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 condemned recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and its use as an instrument of national policy. They were followed by the UN Charter, which imposed the duty on member states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” and supplemented it with the injunction that all members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force” (Article 2). However, the Charter also stated that the UN is “based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members.”

In consequence of such developments, sovereignty ceased to be considered as synonymous with unrestricted power. States have accepted a considerable body of law limiting their sovereign right to act as they please. Those restrictions on sovereignty are usually explained as deriving from consent or autolimitation, but it can easily be demonstrated that in some cases states have been considered as bound by certain rules of international law despite the lack of satisfactory proof that these rules were expressly or implicitly accepted by them. Conversely, new rules cannot ordinarily be imposed upon a state, without its consent, by the will of other states. In this way a balance has been achieved between the needs of the international society and the desire of states to protect their sovereignty to the maximum possible extent.



and:

LINK

quote:

Sovereignty
Primary tabs
Sovereignty is a political concept that refers to dominant power or supreme authority. In a monarchy, supreme power resides in the "sovereign", or king. In modern democracies, sovereign power rests with the people and is exercised through representative bodies such as Congress or Parliament. The Sovereign is the one who exercises power without limitation. Sovereignty is essentially the power to make laws, even as Blackstone defined it. The term also carries implications of autonomy; to have sovereign power is to be beyond the power of others to interfere.

Beyond lawmaking power, two other (often contentious) aspects of sovereignty are eminent domain (the right of the sovereign to take private property for public use) and sovereign immunity(which offers the sovereign protection from lawsuits).


So to recap, you guys might think I am just pulling it out of my arse, but I am not. This is how I always understood it and merely making a claim of sovereignty, at least to me, doesn't mean much.

Even more here: (this one is good and long though)
LINK
This post was edited on 5/24/22 at 8:08 am
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5180 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:01 am to
quote:

Fewer states with nukes = Good.


MAD has worked out well all things considered. It’s using the same principle but directly deterring a historically aggressive neighbor. Should Iran have nukes? NO. Former Soviet satellites who have some degree of natural hatred for Russia with some help in security and democracy? Probably would have worked out better than current state.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
46557 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:01 am to
Yet you didn't name a single country.

How very odd.
Posted by Stidham8
Member since Aug 2018
10496 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:02 am to
You know it’s bad for Ukraine in Donbas when a Kyiv independent reporter is admitting they’re retreating.

LINK
This post was edited on 5/24/22 at 8:03 am
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
42802 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:11 am to
quote:


You know it’s bad for Ukraine in Donbas when a Kyiv independent reporter is admitting they’re retreating.


It seems like the Ukranians are doing as I suggested last week.
Pulling back, retreating, to a better defense line.

The same tactic Russia used earlier when they retreated in the North after their initial attacks failed there.

Not good news for my side, but I could see it coming last week.
Posted by JayDeerTay84
Texas
Member since May 2013
9956 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:18 am to
Anyways, back on topic.

DO you guys think Russia will go past Donbas if the end up securing the entire area?

Will Ukraine try to regain?

Posted by cypher
Member since Sep 2014
5765 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:21 am to
quote:

I get not having NATO do it, but a country like Egypt trusted to not confiscate the shipments for their own use either feeding their own or ransom to those in need? I don’t think so.


Ukraine thanks Egypt for turning away Russian ship carrying grain

Reuters
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5180 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:26 am to
quote:

Ukraine thanks Egypt for turning away Russian ship carrying grain


Interesting
Posted by Stidham8
Member since Aug 2018
10496 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:27 am to
quote:

Anyways, back on topic. DO you guys think Russia will go past Donbas if the end up securing the entire area? Will Ukraine try to regain?


It seems like they want the rest of the coast. My guess is their next target is the Odessa region. Donbas will take several more weeks or even months to fully capture but it appears they’re on their way.
This post was edited on 5/24/22 at 8:28 am
Posted by cypher
Member since Sep 2014
5765 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:29 am to
quote:


Interesting


I do agree it could get messy though.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
46557 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:30 am to
quote:

My guess is their next target is the Odessa region.


They couldn't take Kyiv or Kharkiv, yet you think they can take Odessa.

Posted by Stidham8
Member since Aug 2018
10496 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:32 am to
quote:

They couldn't take Kyiv or Kharkiv, yet you think they can take Odessa.


They took Mariupol which is a huge coastline city.
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
46557 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:34 am to
Here's a tip:

Open google maps. Click on the satellite image tile.

Look at the land around Odessa. Look how far Odessa is from current Russian troop locations.

Even a toddler can extrapolate the chance of success of taking Odessa based on previous Russian failures and inability to sustain supply lines longer than 50 miles, not to mention the terrain surrounding Odessa.
Posted by DabosDynasty
Member since Apr 2017
5180 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:40 am to
quote:

I do agree it could get messy though.


Yeah still plenty of ways to go wrong. Surprised Egypt turned the shipment away, but I also wonder if they would do so say 3-6 more months from now if we have continued disruptions and they really begin to struggle.

Also think an Egyptian escort is a lot easier to take on vs a stronger naval partner like Australia. Maybe Japan who’s defensive only in nature by rule. But both have recent heat with Russia between trade and Russo-Japanese history and claims to northern territories.
Posted by StormyMcMan
USA
Member since Oct 2016
4693 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:47 am to
quote:

Look at the land around Odessa. Look how far Odessa is from current Russian troop locations.

Even a toddler can extrapolate the chance of success of taking Odessa based on previous Russian failures and inability to sustain supply lines longer than 50 miles, not to mention the terrain surrounding Odessa.


At present, I'll agree with you. If it turns into a stalemate in the East and Russia actually mobilize reserves, they can outlast in the East and probably just throw enough bodies at Ukraine to make it happen.

Now that comes with another whole host of problems, but I wouldn't say it's impossible or even improbable in the long term especially if comes down to a war of attrition.

I think a bigger issue for Ukraine long term isn't territory. Because even if they manage to kick Russia out completely, Russia will still hold naval superiority and can maintain the blockade of the ports. This, at least to me, would be the biggest head scratcher on what the West/Ukraine/World would do at that point.

Flip of that is if Russia takes over those cities and opens the ports, because Ukraine won't want to use them to ship exports so either way it looks like the supply chain over there is going to be jacked up for a while.
Posted by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
45781 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 8:58 am to
quote:

Not to get super in depth about potential export issues of wheat,cooking oil and fertilizer thar are global issues, but you do realize that the US is a regional part of Russia overall given the proximity of Alaska right?

ETA: and at least one Duma member has called for Russia to take Alaska back seeing as we bought it from them



We ripped their arse off big time on that purchase. All Russia used Alaska for was fur trapping, but we found it to be a gold mine (literally and figuratively) and it was not just limited to gold. Oil, natural gas, timber, fishing, and it allows us to have military assets close enough to keep those commies in check but still have them on American soil.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
42802 posts
Posted on 5/24/22 at 9:05 am to
[quote]
DO you guys think Russia will go past Donbas if the end up securing the entire area?

Will Ukraine try to regain?[/quote

The next 30 days are big. Will Russia stop, dig in and regroup?
Will they exploit this gain and try and drive further west? Will Putin try fir Odessa and the entire coast?

Ukraine on the other hand can dig in on a new defense line, or will they do that and also try a counterattack from the north ?
I think if they want to win they need to bring in the reserves they have trained and hit the Russians hard before they get their act together.

I am no military guy, but if indeed the Ukranians have the numbers they need to use them now and not let the Russians lick their wounds.
first pageprev pagePage 1049 of 5046Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram