relevant update on all fronts (from russian side, not too rosy, nevertheless)
An article outlining the extensive wargaming done jointly by Ukraine, the US and the UK in advance of the north-east offensive. Kherson operations were not just a feint, but it was determined that the Russian forces in Kharkiv province were “brittle”.
One other effect on Russia not being officially at war is that enlistees - during peacetime - have the option to refuse service in Ukraine if they are in Russia. This has been the main reason why Russian commanders are not rotating their forces and not allowing troopers to set foot onto Russian soil, even briefly. This also partly explains why Russian troops made a beeline to retreat into Russia as fast as they could when they abandoned Kharkiv. Large numbers of enlisted are showing up at police stations and other government offices in towns across the border, telling officials they got ‘lost or separated from their units’ and now applying to refuse service in Ukraine. They can’t legally be released from service and must be sent elsewhere in Russia for duty for the remainder of their contract, but the bottom line is that those soldiers are from an operational perspective as good as KIA as they aren’t returning to the front.
Hopefully, the notion that the war was about Ukraine joining NATO can finally be put to bed:
I saw a comment yesterday that Russia can withdraw from a special conflict at any time. They can claim the objective was met.
Declaring war with a general mobilization is a much bigger commitment. It would be a political embarrassment to lose a war.
Soviet–Afghan War for example is a failure Putin didn’t want to repeat.
Preparing advances in additional areas? How much manpower and resources has Ukraine managed to accumulate for this amount of offensive action? It’s wise to keep striking one’s opponent when they are off balance, however, I wonder if the areas where they’re planning to hit are truly ‘off balance’. My best guess is they’re going to drive south towards cities like Melitopol, Berdyansk, or Mariupol and (hopefully) not towards the fortified positions in Donetsk. Up to now, the Ukraine general staff has executed things brilliantly, so I’m confident they wouldn’t throw away troops without realistic prospects of success.
That certainly sounds reasonable. By doing so their eastern flank would be on the border of Luhansk / Donetsk and the rest of Ukraine. That’s probably easier to defend than the border between Luhansk / Donetsk and Russia proper.
Armenia reportedly invokes the Russian bloc’s version of NATO’s Article 5.
Member countries of Russia’s NATO:
Armenia
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Kyrgystan
Russia
Tajikistan
Unknown. An experienced field commander would not bet against it.
The mighty, unstoppable Russian army uses fortified defensive positions just like every other army, and they’ve been planning the Ukraine invasion since at least 2017. Further, the line between Russian regulars and “separatists” is very blurred.
As I said, an experienced field commander would not bet against finding Russian or pro-Russian forces in hardened and reinforced positions in eastern Ukraine.
that does sound worrisome…
When does this kind of attack simply rise to the level of terrorism? Missile attacks on civilian infrastructure in order to cause maximum deaths is unacceptable.
It’s time we called a spade a spade, and let countries like China know that they are sponsoring terrorists.
What is Ukraine’s responsibility under international law regarding the abandoned bodies of dead Russian soldiers? Is Ukraine obligated to notify Russia of their identities (if known)? Are they required to repatriate those bodies?
I think they should be collected and processed into sausages, roasts, ground meat, etc., and then leave the meat where the hungry Russian soldiers can find it. Leave leaflets saying ‘Did you enjoy the meat? It wasn’t pork. It was your comrades. Who of your comrades will eat YOU when YOU’RE killed?’ to be found a week later.
But that would violate the Geneva Conventions, which state: Parties to the conflict must endeavour to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased upon request of the party to which they belong.
ETA cite and more text.
Rules 112 to 116 of the customary IHL study provide dispositions as to the accounting and the collection, treatment, disposal, and return of the remains of the dead.
- Rule 112 states that “whenever circumstances permit, and particularly after an engagement, each party to the conflict must, without delay, take all possible measures to search for, collect and evacuate the dead without adverse distinction.”
This rule is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The ICRC recalls that the obligation to search for and collect the dead is an obligation of means. Each party to the conflict has to take “all possible measures” to search for and collect the dead. This rule applies to all the dead without distinction, regardless of the party to which they belong and whether or not they have taken a direct part in hostilities.
- Rule 113 states that “Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.” This rule is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
- Rule 114 states that “Parties to the conflict must endeavour to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased upon request of the party to which they belong. . . . They must return their personal effects to them.” This rule is only applicable in international armed conflicts.
- Rule 115 states that “The dead must be disposed of in a respectful manner and their graves respected and properly maintained.” This rule is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The Geneva Conventions specify that the dead must be buried, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged.
- Rule 116 prescribes that “with a view to the identification of the dead, each party to the conflict must record all available information prior to disposal and mark the location of the graves.”
Is there any rule against giving them regular pork sausage and then saying it’s their ground-up comrades?
President Zelensky addressed the water and electricity shortages in a note aimed at Russia earlier this week.
Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about?
Without gas or without you? Without you.
Without light or without you? Without you.
Without water or without you? Without you.
Without food or without you? Without you.
Why on earth give that sort of propaganda to the Russians to propagate ?
I can well imagine that Russia does not want bodies of dead soldiers returned. They seem to be in the business of covering up the numbers of casualties, and this would not help them in that endeavor.
Milley’s notes on modern warfare:
Does there need to be a declared war? Possibly not, I guess the Korean Conflict wasn’t officially a war but did have UN sanction. But since the Russia is claiming it is specifically not a war, do the Conventions apply?
Note that Ukraine would be absolutely crazy to not follow them, but curious as to when they legally kick in.
The Geneva Conventions applies to any international armed conflict where at least one nation involved is a signatory regardless if war has been declared.