International relations thread

[Phil Sayers]

When a Government tell you not to "Panic about Petrol supplies" you know exactly what will happen.

Yep - rumours of petrol shortages become a self-fulfilling prophecy when everyone panic buys.

The Ukrainians are absolutely loving this:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578636142055870464

 

[Mr Jinx]

Lol - the road bridge has collapsed and the rail bridge is badly damaged. Aside from the vast propaganda victory (Ukrainian officials have said all along that the bridge is a target) this also seriously hamstrings Russian logistics. Gives them a major headache because previously they have been devoting their efforts to bringing supplies out of Crimea to their forces in the Kherson area and now they need to focus on keeping Crimea itself supplied with the essentials of life with support to their forces probably having to take a back seat for the time being.

I would not be surprised if Ukraine conducts another offensive southwards in the direction of Mariupol with the aim of ideally severing the land bridge but if that is not possible at this stage bringing the whole of the land bridge within artillery range.

What I don't get is if Ukraine has a significant air force, why didn't they just bomb it from the air some time ago, instead of IRA stylee?

 

[Phil Sayers]

What I don't get is if Ukraine has a significant air force, why didn't they just bomb it from the air some time ago, instead of IRA stylee?

A few reasons I suspect:

1. It would be a very high risk sortie deep into theoretically heavily defended airspace. Big risk of losing valuable pilots and aircraft, whether on the way there or the way back.
2. Even if they can make it there they probably don't have bombs / missiles which are both accurate enough to be confident of hitting the target and have big enough warheads to do sufficient damage.
3. They wouldn't know how many vehicles would be on the bridge when the aircraft arrived over target, although obviously 4AM would have lighter traffic than 4PM. Could easily kill 50+ civilians in circumstances where they cannot be coy about responsibility.

 

[Phil Sayers]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578699612734787584

 

[Mr Jinx]

A few reasons I suspect:

1. It would be a very high risk sortie deep into theoretically heavily defended airspace. Big risk of losing valuable pilots and aircraft, whether on the way there or the way back.
2. Even if they can make it there they probably don't have bombs / missiles which are both accurate enough to be confident of hitting the target and have big enough warheads to do sufficient damage.
3. They wouldn't know how many vehicles would be on the bridge when the aircraft arrived over target, although obviously 4AM would have lighter traffic than 4PM. Could easily kill 50+ civilians in circumstances where they cannot be coy about responsibility.

Either way, Vlad is going to mightily píssed. That's effectively his bridge and it cost a bomb, pardon the pun.

 

[DB9]

Either way, Vlad is going to mightily píssed. That's effectively his bridge and it cost a bomb, pardon the pun.

Apparently its been partially reopened now but still it shows that even in the "North" of Crimea the Ukranians can hit the Russians, I road in and one road out is not exactly a good idea and now proves easy to bomb etc

 

[Phil Sayers]

There is 'reopening' and there is 'reopening.' Having one of the two road spans in the sea automatically halves the amount of road traffic that can use the bridge even if the other road span is completely undamaged. With regards that other road span - being passable by cars does not necessarily mean it can be traversed by heavily laden lorries which is what Crimea needs to happen in the daily hundreds.

The rail bridge will likely reopen as well but again the issue is whether that means just light passenger trains or whether it means freight trains loaded with tanks; each of which weighing over 30 tons and generally transported a dozen or so at a time.

Some stats on just how reliant Crimea is / was on that bridge (and keep in mind these are pre-war stats, now they also need to bring military equipment and supplies across it as well):

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1578681974973403137

 

[lamrobhero]

Is Iran bombarding Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel (directly themselves from their own soil in the first two instances as well as by proxy and in Israel's instance by proxy from both Syria and Lebanon) as fundamentally wrong, more fundamentally wrong because it targets more complete innocents than attacking a covert nuclear facility or less fundamentally wrong?

I thought that we were discussing policy and its future consequences. It is in that context that I used the phrase fundamentally wrong. But if you want to broaden the discusion, great. Is the following fundamentally wrong?

Link to Amnesty International Report 2022:
Israel's apartheid against Palestinians - Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity

From the report:
Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued a policy of establishing and maintaining a Jewish demographic hegemony and maximizing its control over land to benefit Jewish Israelis while restricting the rights of Palestinians and preventing Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes. In 1967, Israel extended this policy to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it has occupied ever since. Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and examined its key components: territorial fragmentation; segregation and control; dispossession of land and property; and denial of economic and social rights. It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid. It has also documented unlawful acts committed by Israel against Palestinians with the intent to maintain this system, including forcible transfers, administrative detention and torture, unlawful killings, denial of basic rights and freedoms and persecution. It has concluded that such acts form part of a systematic as well as widespread attack directed against the Palestinian population and amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid.

*Given the widely used definition of anti-semitism mentions the State of Israel and rights of self determination (without mentioning the rights of self determination of Palestinians) I am only comfortable quoting the opinions of others.

 

[Phil Sayers]

To be clear I do not in any way condone, defend, ignore, seek to minimise etc Israel's disgraceful treatment of the Palestinians and firmly believe a Palestinian State should be created in the entirety (potentially save for a few land swaps to make the territory more contiguous) of the 1967 borders. However, that situation is something crying out for a long term lasting resolution just as it has for many decades.

Iran's malign regional conduct and nuclear programme are far more likely to spark a major regional war or nuclear arms race in the near future than that long running and tragic saga.

 

[Alistair20000]

To be clear I do not in any way condone, defend, ignore, seek to minimise etc Israel's disgraceful treatment of the Palestinians and firmly believe a Palestinian State should be created in the entirety (potentially save for a few land swaps to make the territory more contiguous) of the 1967 borders. However, that situation is something crying out for a long term lasting resolution just as it has for many decades.

Iran's malign regional conduct and nuclear programme are far more likely to spark a major regional war or nuclear arms race in the near future than that long running and tragic saga.

Correct. It is Iran rather than Israel that poses the greatest threat to peace in that part of the world.