Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Gusington]

Does 'Special Military Operation' = 'Invasion' = 'War'?

[Jarhead0331]

Does 'Special Military Operation' = 'Invasion' = 'War'?

I believe as a matter of international law, the semantics are irrelevant. It is the content of the official proclamation that is controlling.

[MengJiao]

  And, it might be worth pointing out that since no war has been declared, Russia can't claim some kind of exclusion of weapons to a belligerent ( which is in fact perfectly legal, ie the old law of war did not exclude neutrals from supplying belligerents anyway), and I guess if Russia declared war on Ukraine, it would be equivalent to recognizing Ukraine as a legitimate state -- which actually -- Putin more or less accidently did in 2014 by siezing only a few regions of Ukraine.  Why not the rest?  Isn't that a de facto recognition?  On the other hand, Turkey has already said the invasion of Ukraine is a war ("technically") so look out for some strait closure action maybe.

You've made this statement a couple times, about there having been no formal declaration of war, but I'm not sure of the relevance. The 1949 Geneva Convention applies with or without a formal declaration. Indeed, the Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war.  Furthermore, although Putin has described the invasion as a "special Military Operation", I believe it is arguable that his statement as to the cause, intent and grounds for stopping it, might saitsfy the criteria for a formal declaration.

  Putin seems a little reluctant to accept it as a formal war.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe because declaring war on a state implies accepting it as a legitimate state?  As I keep mentioning, Turkey says it is a war which is a circumstance that might trigger closing the straits, which seems to imply a limited time period of some kind in the back of Putin's mind, ie that the war (or whatever) would be "over" (or whatever) before there are problems for the Russian Navy taking the Straits to the Aegean.  Even if there is a war, the ships can go back to the Black Sea.  As non-belligerents the ships should be able to go back via some other route, but a state of war could limit a lot of things for the Russian Navy.
   Anyway, the rather strange implication might be that this "operation" has only a few more weeks to run at least in Putin's original scheme.  So maybe his original guess was that the whole thing would be over and he would start negotiating in late March.  Of course, now the operation might be set to go on indefinitely.

[ArizonaTank]

dont know if Ive mentioned it before but check out warontherocks.com

Great link, thanks!

[Gusington]

I haven't seen any new reports on any of Turkey's plans for the straits in a few days at least.

[Pete Dero]

In Russia you can end up in jail for 5 to 15 years if you mention the words war of invasion.  In that context a formal declaration of war is out of the question.  You have to be consistent in Newspeak to your population.

[ArizonaTank]

  And, it might be worth pointing out that since no war has been declared, Russia can't claim some kind of exclusion of weapons to a belligerent ( which is in fact perfectly legal, ie the old law of war did not exclude neutrals from supplying belligerents anyway), and I guess if Russia declared war on Ukraine, it would be equivalent to recognizing Ukraine as a legitimate state -- which actually -- Putin more or less accidently did in 2014 by siezing only a few regions of Ukraine.  Why not the rest?  Isn't that a de facto recognition?  On the other hand, Turkey has already said the invasion of Ukraine is a war ("technically") so look out for some strait closure action maybe.

You've made this statement a couple times, about there having been no formal declaration of war, but I'm not sure of the relevance. The 1949 Geneva Convention applies with or without a formal declaration. Indeed, the Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war.  Furthermore, although Putin has described the invasion as a "special Military Operation", I believe it is arguable that his statement as to the cause, intent and grounds for stopping it, might saitsfy the criteria for a formal declaration.

I am almost wondering if the whole idea of a formal DOW was abandoned in the last century. I believe the last US DOW was against the minor Axis countries in 1942 for example. So yes, any armed conflict has to apply.

[solops]

Well, the Ukranians are our buddies and have invited us over. So if special military operations is not nasty war, we could go over and have special military operations along with our friends! No foul!

[Anguille]

Well, the Ukranians are our buddies and have invited us over. So if special military operations is not nasty war, we could go over and have special military operations along with our friends! No foul!

I was thinking the same. A special military operation in the west of the country.

[Jarhead0331]

Well, the Ukranians are our buddies and have invited us over. So if special military operations is not nasty war, we could go over and have special military operations along with our friends! No foul!

Why are the Ukrainians "our buddies"?  Who do you mean by "our" and how exactly are they "buddies"?  Assuming you are referring to the United States, what strategic advantage does close alignment with Ukraine give and what strategic benefit would the US achieve by engaging in an armed conflict with Russia?

[Con]

dont know if Ive mentioned it before but check out warontherocks.com

Great link, thanks!

Been a fan of Warontherocks for a while
good link on the back of the envelop calculations for the logistics quagmire the Russians are facing and why the Ukranians are eating the bear in a 1000 bites.  This was written prior to the invasion and was a look at how NATO would respond with an attack but the logistics lesson is mirroring the debacle the Russians are now facing
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/

[bobarossa]

I thought this cartoon about the war was hilarious.  Trying not to infringe on copywrites so here's a link.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/cartoons/2022/feb/28/bear/5308/

[MengJiao]

I haven't seen any new reports on any of Turkey's plans for the straits in a few days at least.

  The Turks are now suggesting that now might be a good time for a ceasefire.  That might relieve them of the problem of what to do "technically" with the straits since I would think that
technically a ceasefire is not an active war so Turkey won't have to worry about ships passing the straits in and out of the Black Sea.  The US has a carrier group in the Aegean so things might
get testy in a week or two if there's no ceasefire.

[solops]

Well, the Ukrainians are our buddies and have invited us over. So if special military operations is not nasty war, we could go over and have special military operations along with our friends! No foul!

Why are the Ukrainians "our buddies"?  Who do you mean by "our" and how exactly are they "buddies"?  Assuming you are referring to the United States, what strategic advantage does close alignment with Ukraine give and what strategic benefit would the US achieve by engaging in an armed conflict with Russia?

This is easy, given the world today. I consider them buddies because: They trade with us and our allies in a civilized fashion ( any predatory industrial espionage in kept to a civilized level, unlike China). They conduct themselves in a more or less civilized fashion, compared to so many holes in Asia and Africa. They share more of our historical and cultural values than many countries in other parts of the world. They do not crowd the streets and chant "Death to America". They side with us on most geopolitical issues rather than our enemies and or rivals (Think "Russia" and "China"). While they have been accused of being corrupt, I would, after looking at Washington, blush and reply that they are not THAT bad. They do not challenge us all over the world. And we have made multiple promises to them, both specific and implied that we are their friends and will help them. And lastly, THEY ARE FIGHTING FRIGGING PUTIN, and they need our help. I do not need a formal treaty of buddyship to know if someone is deserving of help or a boot to the rear. I do NOT believe that cold political or economic advantage should be the sole guide as to who or when we give our aid. And I have lost more than one multi-player game to prove it. And I think it is in our best interest to stop Putin. Now.

[Jarhead0331]

Well, the Ukrainians are our buddies and have invited us over. So if special military operations is not nasty war, we could go over and have special military operations along with our friends! No foul!

Why are the Ukrainians "our buddies"?  Who do you mean by "our" and how exactly are they "buddies"?  Assuming you are referring to the United States, what strategic advantage does close alignment with Ukraine give and what strategic benefit would the US achieve by engaging in an armed conflict with Russia?

This is easy, given the world today. I consider them buddies because: They trade with us and our allies in a civilized fashion ( any predatory industrial espionage in kept to a civilized level, unlike China). They conduct themselves in a more or less civilized fashion, compared to so many holes in Asia and Africa. They share more of our historical and cultural values than many countries in other parts of the world. They do not crowd the streets and chant "Death to America". They side with us on most geopolitical issues rather than our enemies and or rivals (Think "Russia" and "China"). While they have been accused of being corrupt, I would, after looking at Washington, blush and reply that they are not THAT bad. They do not challenge us all over the world. And we have made multiple promises to them, both specific and implied that we are their friends and will help them. And lastly, THEY ARE FIGHTING FRIGGING PUTIN, and they need our help. I do not need a formal treaty of buddyship to know if someone is deserving of help or a boot to the rear. I do NOT believe that cold political or economic advantage should be the sole guide as to who or when we give our aid. And I have lost more than one multi-player game to prove it. And I think it is in our best interest to stop Putin. Now.

Thank God you aren't the one making the decisions whether we go to war or not. You're basically willing to start World War III in order to "get" Putin and support a group of people who loosely share your values. By your own admission, you care not that there is no formal defensive alliance, only that it "seems" like the right thing to do. 

Just brilliant. 

Miraculously, there is still no general state of war in Europe or across the globe and we should be doing EVERYTHING to make sure it stays that way.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/ukraine-and-a-guide-to-avoiding-world-war-iii/