Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[AnimalNoodles]

I'm curious, how much territory do the Ukrainians need to regain before you will consider it a success for them, rather than another round of 'clever Russian maneuvering wears the Ukrainians down' or somesuch?

Give me an amount of territory, or name a couple of particular cities/towns. Tell me what it will take for you to think things actually aren't going as planned for the Russians.

Taking tiny scraps of territory inside what is literally no mans land is irrelevant, especially when those bits change hands frequently. They are only made important due to the the impact of social media. 25 years ago the news wouldnt have even reported on it.

For it to actually be important, they would have to breach the defense lines, and take an important center, like Tokmak, and hold it. Right now Ukraine is finding out a truth the Russians have. War now favours the defense, and all the wunderwaffles wont change that.

Unless you can find a way to break through several lines of trenches, dragons teeth, ditches and mines while being hit with air strikes and artillery.

 

[LordsFire]

Taking tiny scraps of territory inside what is literally no mans land is irrelevant, especially when those bits change hands frequently. They are only made important due to the the impact of social media. 25 years ago the news wouldnt have even reported on it.

For it to actually be important, they would have to breach the defense lines, and take an important center, like Tokmak, and hold it. Right now Ukraine is finding out a truth the Russians have. War now favours the defense, and all the wunderwaffles wont change that.

Unless you can find a way to break through several lines of trenches, dragons teeth, ditches and mines while being hit with air strikes and artillery.

Okay, so if the Ukrainians get to Tokmak, you will actually admit that things have turned against the Russians then?

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Okay, so if the Ukrainians get to Tokmak, you will actually admit that things have turned against the Russians then?

yes, they will have actually made a very tangible gain.

 

[Zachowon]

Well, think a new ad for Ford just dropped; did not expect to see F350's hauling M777s around Ukraine.

Don't think a Hilux would be able to do the same.

Ford needs to use this as an ad

 

[Scottty]

Okay, so if the Ukrainians get to Tokmak, you will actually admit that things have turned against the Russians then?

yes, they will have actually made a very tangible gain.

Somewhere else on the net, someone has the interpretation that the reason that the Ukrainian forces are attacking in the direction they are, despite the Russians having very strong defense lines there, is the same reason why the Russians have such strong defenses - it's the only direction worth attacking in, because it's the only one with a real "win" option:
Their goal is to get within missile or artillery range of the bridge that connects Crimea to the mainland. That's the "exhaust port on the Death Star", so to speak. Anything else is just spending men and equipment to no purpose.

 

[Zachowon]

Somewhere else on the net, someone has the interpretation that the reason that the Ukrainian forces are attacking in the direction they are, despite the Russians having very strong defense lines there, is the same reason why the Russians have such strong defenses - it's the only direction worth attacking in, because it's the only one with a real "win" option:
Their goal is to get within missile or artillery range of the bridge that connects Crimea to the mainland. That's the "exhaust port on the Death Star", so to speak. Anything else is just spending men and equipment to no purpose.

Gaining land back is very good.
It also allows you to open up should a breakthrough happen and push them out from there.
Say they breakout somewhere besides the south, they can then use that momentum to push the south from the flank

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Gaining land back is very good.
It also allows you to open up should a breakthrough happen and push them out from there.
Say they breakout somewhere besides the south, they can then use that momentum to push the south from the flank

You are still thinking in terms of vast mechanised advances. Its not going to happen any time soon. I realised this during the winter. This was will be a terrible grind until one side grows exhausted, and then you will see the big arrows.

They wont be breaking those defenses in the south with what they have. They will only be breaking their teeth. They wont be rolling the flank from anywhere else. The only place ATM I see Ukraine with any possibility of an actual gain is in the bakmut area, and that wont result in a general breakthough.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm gonna choose C, "The thing we couldn't see from our viewpoint."

 

[mrttao]

The fact that all this has happened without that declaration is mind boggling to me.
How many dead Russians do we think now?

Nobody declares war anymore.
Russia does not.
Western powers don't either.
It is all "special operations" nowadays.

USA has troops and drone strikes in over 10 countries. no war though.

Rand paul has been trying to push lately a bill that requires congressional approval for each individual conflict. But nobody is supporting him on that. All of the congressmen are content to abrogate their power on that regard to the president and just let him attack whomever at will without even consulting congress or informing anyone.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Nobody declares war anymore.
Russia does not.
Western powers don't either.
It is all "special operations" nowadays.

USA has troops and drone strikes in over 10 countries. no war though.

Rand paul has been trying to push lately a bill that requires congressional approval for each individual conflict. But nobody is supporting him on that. All of the congressmen are content to abrogate their power on that regard to the president and just let him attack whomever at will without even consulting congress or informing anyone.

It's arguably unconstitutional in the case of the US. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the US military and is obligated to defend the US against all enemies foreign and domestic.

If the President determines that some military action is necessary to the defense of the US then he has the Constitutional obligation to order it carried out; regardless of Congress's opinion on the matter.

Congress can refuse to appropriate funds for a specific military operation (or in general) and can choose to Impeach the President if they disagree with his actions but Congress has very minimal oversight on US military operations in general.

There are other powers that the President gains via legislative grant in a declared war and the Presidents ability to use the military domestically runs into other constitutional issues; but for foreign military operations Congress has basically zero Constitutional authority to restrict the Presidents ability to order those in basically any respect.

 

[mrttao]

It's arguably unconstitutional in the case of the US. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the US military and is obligated to defend the US against all enemies foreign and domestic.

If the President determines that some military action is necessary to the defense of the US then he has the Constitutional obligation to order it carried out; regardless of Congress's opinion on the matter.

Congress can refuse to appropriate funds for a specific military operation (or in general) and can choose to Impeach the President if they disagree with his actions but Congress has very minimal oversight on US military operations in general.

There are other powers that the President gains via legislative grant in a declared war and the Presidents ability to use the military domestically runs into other constitutional issues; but for foreign military operations Congress has basically zero Constitutional authority to restrict the Presidents ability to order those in basically any respect.

To clarify, the rand paul is not trying to countermand the constitution.

Rather, it is just repealing this act

Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Which congress and presidents have both held gives the president the authority to wage endless foreign wars without calling them a war.

Rand paul says that the actual wording of the AUMF 2001 bill as written doesn't actually grand that power, making those special operations illegal.

But since everyone acts as if it does actually grant the president the right to unlimited war everywhere forever, lets just repeal it. so we can return to the constitutional state where we have actual discussion and vote about each individual war.

Senators Continue Efforts to Return War Powers to Congress, Introduce the End Endless Wars Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), J.D. Vance (R-OH), and Mike Braun (R-IN) introduced the End Endless Wars Act, which would repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) 180 days after enactment. This legislation would restore the...

www.paul.senate.gov

"If there exists any desire to reclaim our Constitutional power and send a message to the world that we are nation of peace, Congress should pass this bill and repeal the 2001 Authorization for war. After all, the 2001 AUMF never intended to authorize worldwide war, all the time, everywhere, forever," said Dr. Paul.

"The 2001 AUMF was enacted in response to the brutal attacks waged on 9/11 by terrorist groups based in Afghanistan. Twenty-two years later, the 2001 AUMF is still being used but for conflicts far beyond the boundaries of Afghanistan. Today, we have a defense budget approaching a trillion dollars, we have a military-industrial complex growing richer every day that we remain at war, and we have troops deployed across the world under vague authorities like the 2001 AUMF with no defined mission or objectives set by Congress. The 2001 AUMF has become one of the many instruments of misuse, and it is time for members of Congress to end this authority that keeps us in endless wars," said Sen. Lee.

"No president should have the authority to singlehandedly wage war. We need to return this power to the people and repeal this authorization that has far outlived its' purpose," said Sen. Braun.

 

[mrttao]

Incidentally. unlike those 5000 page bills.
The bill rand paul is proposing is 11 lines long

https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/DAV2348752.pdf

To repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ''End Endless Wars
5 Act''.
6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILI
7 TARY FORCE.
8 The Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
9 Law 107–40; 115 Stat. 224; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is re
10 pealed effective 180 days after the date of the enactment
11 of this Act.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Congress has the power to declare war. They do not have any authority to order, or prohibit, the use of military force outside of the US's borders.

The President is Commander-In-Chief and has, independent of Congress or the Courts, a duty to protect and defend the US against foreign enemies.

So yes, if the President determines that the defense of the US demands that Navy Seals invade a US ally to assassinate an enemy of the US then he has the Constitutional duty, and authority, to order that use of force. Despite the fact that it would be an act of war against a US ally.

The US Constitution also fails to define what a War is and what (if anything) a state of war triggers.

The AUMF is a farcical declaration but it does nothing to actually justify or prohibit whatever orders the President decides to give to the US military.

At the end of the day Congress has basically three powers vis a vi the military. They can chose to refuse to fund some or all of a given military operation. They can choose to Impeach the President over a given military operation. Or they can choose to disband/downsize/demobilize the US military (except for the US Navy).

Even their authority to demand the President inform them when he orders military operations is, legally speaking, extremely dubious. Presidents have chosen to do so but every single one of them has also explicitly said that they reject the Constitutionality of the law that claims to compel them to do so and the opinion of Constitutional scholars is, generally, that the President is in the right and Congress does not have that authority.

Where things get hazier is in the ancillary things. Like paying a foreign nation to allow a US military base in their nation, or cutting a deal with them for joint operations.

 

[Scottty]

The US Constitution also fails to define what a War is and what (if anything) a state of war triggers.

I'd imagine that the people who wrote that document would have assumed it was obvious. They failed to anticipate the government system they were setting up falling under the control of people who pretended not to understand the accepted meaning of plain English words, redefined them to mean whatever they wanted them to, and if given a precise definition, would simply play the same game with the words of that definition.

To quote John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

 

[Marduk]

I'd imagine that the people who wrote that document would have assumed it was obvious. They failed to anticipate the government system they were setting up falling under the control of people who pretended not to understand the accepted meaning of plain English words, redefined them to mean whatever they wanted them to, and if given a precise definition, would simply play the same game with the words of that definition.

To quote John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Nah. This was already being done when John Adams was still alive.

Second Barbary War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Following the War of 1812, Algiers sided with the British (although the British Atlantic blockade had limited US trade in the Mediterranean region). President Madison recommended that Congress declare the "existence of a state of war between the United States and the Dey and Regency of Algiers."[9] While Congress did not formally declare a state of war, they did pass legislation, enacted on March 3, 1815, that authorized the president to use the U.S. Navy, "as judged requisite by the President" to protect the "commerce and seamen" of the United States on the "Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[9] Congress also authorized the president to grant the U.S. Navy the ability to seize all vessels and goods belonging to Algiers. The legislation also authorized the president to commission privateers for the same purpose. [9]

So no, the people who wrote the constitution didn't share the modern pacifist\isolationist gripe about US government using military force without declaring war.

 

[Scottty]

Nah. This was already being done when John Adams was still alive.

Second Barbary War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So no, the people who wrote the constitution didn't share the modern pacifist\isolationist gripe about US government using military force without declaring war.

Smacking down pirates when they start attacking your shipping is something any government should consider part of its responsibilities.

 

[Zachowon]

The president of the United States can deploy US troops without warning for up to...iirc 90 days.
Which is nit very long I'm terms of conflict, in the sense that only Airborn and quick reaction forces would be sent.

 

[Bassoe]

Senators propose resolution threatening war with Russia if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine

“The threat of a use of a nuclear device by Russia is real,” Graham said.

www.wfla.com

 

[Zachowon]

I mean, it would be.
Because the Fallout knows no national borders. It could spread into Poland and that would allow Poland to do what they truly want.
To Kurwa to the Ukrainian border

 

[Bacle]

Senators propose resolution threatening war with Russia if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine

“The threat of a use of a nuclear device by Russia is real,” Graham said.

www.wfla.com

Good.

Because nuclear fallout would go with the prevailing winds, and that means blowing onto NATO countries.

It makes clear that we know the game they are trying to play by mining/booby trapping the ZNPP's cooling system and blowing the dam.