Traffic on the single bridge that links Russia to Moscow-annexed Crimea and serves as a key supply route for the Kremlin’s forces in the war with Ukraine came to a standstill on Monday after one of its sections was blown up, killing a couple and wounding their daughter.
The RBC Ukraine news agency reported that explosions were heard on the bridge, with Russian military bloggers reporting two strikes.
RBC Ukraine and another Ukrainian news outlet Ukrainska Pravda said the attack was planned jointly by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Ukrainian navy, and involved sea drones.
I never said Russia didn’t operate the checkpoints. But prior to 2014, Crimea was indisputably Ukrainian territory, and Russia operated security checkpoints inside Ukraine at Ukraine’s discretion.
No one is claiming that the annexation of Crimea involved violence at the scale of the current war, but it was not non-violent, either. Characterizing it as just “signing of papers” is false.
What other lens should we look at the annexation through? It was clearly the early stages of this war.
I’m not saying it wasn’t Ukrainian territory. I’m saying that the presence there was 100% russian military because it was functionally operated as their military port.
This is precisely why there was no battle over it, no deaths, no nothing. Just “this is russia now” and continued operation of it as they always had but with different flags.
I’d much prefer a non-war lens of the place and how cool it is. Most people in america hadn’t even heard of it until the annexation, it’s very unfortunate.
I don’t think calling it the early stages of this war is quite accurate but it’s not really that important and kinda gets into unnecessary semantics. The war probably wouldn’t be happening if the Minsk agreement had been kept. Russia were never going to let Crimea go because they needed it as a military port but they avoided Donetsk and Luhansk up until the Minsk agreement failed. If they had taken these regions in 2014 it would have been a breeze for them as Ukraine had no military to speak of, which is why the civil war was fought by the nazi volunteer batallions (azov, right sector, etc etc). Ukraine’s military was ramped up between 2014 and 2021. They did not really have much of anything until the 2016 Stategic Defense Bulletin followed by the State Program for the Development of the Armed Forces (2017-2020). In 2014 the military was only 90k active personnel with over half being civilian staff.
We’d all prefer a non-war lens of Crimea. You’re right, it was a cool and interesting place, and hopefully still will be when the war is over.
But Russia has no say over whether another country’s territory will be used as Russia’s military port. The fact is, Ukraine was amenable to hosting Russia’s military there, so long as Russia didn’t try to actually own the land, but they’ve forfeited their right to use it now.
Ultimately, Russia’s military will be ousted from Crimea along with the rest of Ukraine, and that will be that. Had they never annexed it or escalated to open warfare, they would still be operating there freely today, with a much friendlier Ukraine happily hosting them.
I uhh. Don’t share your optimism or actually care who runs it, I only really care that the people I know there remain safe. For them and for myself the flag be waved around is somewhat meaningless compared to the human impact of all this nonsense, particularly because some of my socialist friends are gone now. With that said I don’t see Crimea changing hands again, nor does anyone I have spoken to currently in Crimea. I might change that assessment if the counteroffensive ever actually sees the first line of dragon’s teeth but so far it’s been completely underwhelming. Everyone also sees the deployment of clusterbombs as a “let’s salt the earth so it’s worthless to them” move rather than anything that will change the counteroffensive’s prospects.
There is an easy way to end the war: Russian withdrawal. It really is as simple as that.
At any point in history Russian Federation had no right or business to occupy any part of Ukraine. It was up to Ukraine to decide what to do with those areas.
While we all want the war to stop, it cannot be done at any price. Ukraine must be allowed to return the areas stolen from it and Russia must return to pre 2014 borders. Either they do it willingly or with force. No one likes it, but it’s Russia that chose to attack, not Ukraine.
I hope your friends are safe, but at the same time I hope they have the sense to leave Crimea until things settle.
And let’s hope for peace, but recognize that it cannot be achieved by giving into the offender’s demands.
Not physically possible under russian law.
Again, this is not possible under Russian law. The notion that it’ll be done with force is similarly unrealistic, nukes would fly before these were taken by force. But before that happens you’d have to see the removal of the Russian warships off the coast which will be obliterating anything that comes near Crimea. It just isn’t ever happening without a navy or an airforce.
They’re fine for now. It’s relatively quiet there because the defensive line is so far away, barring these bridge incidents.
We’d be there already if not for boris fucking johnson. I really don’t know why you care about the “offender’s demands” either. Are you a nationalist? People are what matter. I could not give a shit about what flag exists between the two, right now it’s just a situation where two extremely shit sides throw thousands of lives into a meatgrinder and all I want to see is the meatgrinder stop.
You are awfully considerate of the Russian law. I suppose it was okay for them to start the war because the law permitted it (did it?)? Annexation of Ukrainian land became okay too, because they made a law that permitted it, right? No matter what the Ukrainian or international law says, right? Please elaborate on how it’s the Russian law that we need to take into consideration and not the others.
This reminded me that, thank God Russia was able to use Wagner troops, because the Russian law recognizes independent military organis…wait a minute, it doesn’t. My point: Russia can and will interpret and implement it’s laws however the guy on the top wishes. Law there has nothing to do with regulated and supervised legislature most of the so called western countries have.
Trying to take Crimea by force is not optimal, but if it is the only way to do it, and the Ukraisinian’s decide to try it, it’s their decision because it is their territory. Might succeed, might fail, might escalate, might not…we don’t get to decide that, however terrifying the outcome might be. That’s the sad truth, but Ukraine has the right to decide.
The reason I care for “offenders demands” is that if you give into them, they start demanding more and more and more. Putin’s Russia is on a path of escalation and it has shown that it cannot be trusted to participate in the international community. The more they get out of Ukraine, the more they emboldened to makes demands and take aggressive steps towards their neighbors. This has been the trajectory since Russo-Georgian war in 2008 and it is not going to stop until they hit a brick wall. And currently the wall they are hitting is Ukraine. Also note that this is a historical phenomenon and the way Russia has operated at least since Soviet Union and a case could be made for even earlier than that.
If you must know, I’d probably be what most people call a socialist and a pacifist. I hate war and want nothing to do with weapons or the army. I don’t care for flags or national symbols and I despise imperialism ND colonialism. However, I do care for the letter of law and a rules based international system. Currently Russia is wiping it’s arse on these and that must be stopped, otherwise it’ll just continue and get worse.
It’s not about being “considerate” of the Russian law it’s about recognising what is and is not possible for the Russians to do, under their law. If the law disallows it they literally can’t do it.
Put it another way, you could say that america should allow states to secede because that’s morally right if the people want to. But, it’s literally not possible within american law. You need to change the law to do it, and I have no idea whether you can get that to happen in congress. I am certain that you can not get this change to happen in Russian law. And herein lies the problem. Even if the negotiating teams WANTED to give up the region they can not.
You are mistaking my observance of the reality of the situation for a value judgement.
The “international community” is just code that the anglo american empire uses to refer to the west and its interests. Africa, the Middle East and Asia are not included in it.
This is just the soft wording that the west uses for their own international hegemony.
I personally don’t give a shit that it doesn’t observe western hegemony or the “international community” (the west), but I agree that it needs to be stopped. What this entails is sitting around a negotiating table though and both sides giving something up to come away with narratives to look like winners to their people. This results in the political stability of both states afterwards. And is the only realistic way that you get both sides to agree to something. Otherwise this war will go on forever until either Ukraine runs out of men or nukes fly.
Now we are getting somewhere. 🙂
Pray tell then, if the law is the main factor here, how it was possible for Russia to use Wagner forces in Ukraine? I sincerely wish to know, because independent militias are illegal in Russia, yet they were able to operate there for over a year. If they were able to do that despite it being against the law, howcome they are not able to return occupied territories, even if it was agains their law? You surely don’t mean they just choose to obey laws they deem beneficial at any given point in time, cause that would be shocking😮.
This is a false equivalence. Contemporary United States has not invaded those states and annexed them to the Union. Russia has.
You could argue that the US has annexed territories in the past and that the American civil war was fought to keep the Union togerther, but even then that was the matter of states attempting to cede from the Union they were part of, which in turn led to the war.
Ukraine’s relation to Russian Federation is not the same, as it is an independent country, not part of the federation. Ukraine ceded from Soviet Union in 1991 and was recognized by the international community as well as the contemporary Russian state. In 2014 Russia broke that recognition and in 2022 it openly attacked it’s sovereign neighbour.
Maybe up to a point, but the fact is that current regime in Russia can do whatever it wants, including giving up the occupied areas. Law in Russia is subjugate to its rulers. Just like they were able to craft these particular laws in a few weeks, they are able to overturn them if need be or the situation forces them to. If a law is used as a talking point, then the law must also be able to bare scrutiny. Using Russian law to justify occupation does not do this, even if you and 99% of Russians believed it did.
Maybe in your bubble, but for most of us it means sovereign countries conducting diplomacy, trade, co-operation and (up-to-a point) war/conflict, in commonly agreed framework of rules and practices. These include African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries too. Now you can argue wether the current international order is fair and benefits everyone equally, but it does not change the fact that we have commonly agreed upon international framework and organizations for conducting international affairs. Members of those organizations have agreed to commit to those rules. That system has kept the world relatively peaceful for around 80 years.
UN alone has over 193 member states that have agreed to shared rules for conducting foreign affairs. Another example is the Geneva Convention or the OSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which by the way states, that there is a agreement on respect for territorial integrity, meaning that nation states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states, nor impose a border change through the use of force. Russia has signed these and many more agreements and many more, yet here we are.
See above.
From your perspective the international community/law is just a synonym for western hegemony. You base you arguments on terms like “the West” and “western hegemony” as if they were some sort of monolithic actors in international affairs, set out to destroy or dominate the world. Usually this type of mindset stems from either ideological or conspiratorial background (or both). Judging by your name, I presume the the first hits the mark?
While I agree that the relations between the more developed countries (or “the West”) and the BRICS countries or the global south have their frictions and tensions, the global affairs is much more complicated and nuanced than what the type of explanation you are offering here, can explain.
I am amazed how some people still parrot the idea that the “Anglo-Americans” are pulling the strings and even forcibly keeping rest of the west in their sphere (suggesting that those countries are really not independent). Hate to break the news to you but, there is no such individual political actor as “the West”. What there is, is a set of countries that share enough common values and political capital that it makes sense for them to co-operate. Each of them have their own aims and concerns, in fact so much so that, quite often it is difficult for them to even makes common decisions. Just look at the EU for example and the ways that it is constantly at odds with itself and the United States on many topics. Yet everyone that is part of that co-operative network realizes that it is the best and the safest option currently available to them. And again, there are many changes I wished to happen within “the west”, but none of those would be achieved by tearing everything down and starting from scratch. Also, the other options (like Russia’s return to 19th and 20th century imperialism) or the totalitarian capitalism of China are even scarier options.
If you use terms like “the west”, please atleast try to define what you mean by them, otherwise it’s just going to sound like repeating talking points you’ve adopted somewhere along the way. I mean, this stuff originates in the early 2000s and has not really developed after that.
And more importantly: what would be a valid option for the contemporary rules based system? Seriously, the whole point the post WW2 international system was to avoid major conflicts and later on, to protect sovereignity of nation states despite their size. Sure, it has had a lot of problems, yet it kept us from the Cold War turning into WW3. How does Russia’s breach of those rules contribute in building anything better? How would you restructure this system to make it more fair while at the same time protecting nations from each other?
I am all-in for refroming UN and other international institutions, but tearing them down and disregarding agreed-upon rules is a certain way for more war and chaos. This is unfortunately exactly what is happening in Ukraine right now. And ofcourse other countries like the US have broken those rules, but what Russia has been doing since 2008 is directly and openly aimed towards tearing down that system.
Yes, there has to be discussion at some point and probably both sides will have to give up on something. The real point though is to end the hostilities for good. And that’s the problem. All signs point to that Russia will just use peace to rearm itself and have another go at Ukraine or Nato in a few years time. The more Ukraine is able to get their land back (especially Crimea), the more unlikely another conflict will be. For Putin, losing Crimea would be a catastrophic outcome, but it would not be the end of Russia. In fact, it might be even better for them to suffer a defeat now and bury their imperialist dreams for good.
Even at the cost of Ukrainian territorial integrity? That’s for the Ukrainians to decide, and so far they’re picking the meat grinder. More power to them.
Yes. I could not give a shit about “territorial integrity”. This is nationalism. I’m not a nationalist, I don’t like states especially bourgeoise states.
You are putting nationalism ahead of people’s lives.
No it isn’t. It’s for the Ukrainian rulers to decide. The people don’t get any choice in it, that’s the problem. And everyone that opposed this war was rounded up and arrested, every left wing party in the country was shut down, and the left wing tv channels were also shut down, all under the “they’re pro russia” excuse simply for being against the war. There is no “let the ukrainians decide” under that environment.
You really seem to enjoy crafting strawman arguments.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war. Boosting nationalism is a way to cope with that and survive. I hate that nationalistic shit myself, but in their situation Ukrainians are both allowed to express themselves in a nationalistic way as well as fight back. And from the viewpoint of opposing nationalism: the fact that Ukrainians are more nationalistic, was mostly caused by drum roll Russia.
Ukrainian rulers appointed by the Ukrainians in free and increasingly transparent elections. In representative democracy, it’s the representatives job to decide on behalf of the pople. Also, Zelensky is hugely popular president with support from the opposition too. Most of Ukraine support their leaders and they have a mandate from the people (especially the president).
You seem to confuse being leftist and a pro russian. The way I see it, they closed pro-Russian stations, some of which claimed themselves to be leftist. During a war, anti-war channels usually tend to go silent too (wonder why).
As a person many would call a left leaning socialist myself, I find it astonishing how some self-proclaimed leftists are hell bent on claiming that Russian Federation was somehow a champion of socialist values. In fact, it’s pretty much the exact opposite of those and has nothing to do with leftist or socialist values.
Also, if you identify as a leftist and support Russia to oppose the US or “the West”, you really need to:
Support for the war is high in Ukraine. Where did you get your sources for freedom of speech being suspended in Ukraine and people with anti war sentiments getting arrested?
It’s ironic, you claim to care about the people, but you don’t care about what the people of Ukraine actually want.
Russia chose all of this.
No one else. Russia.
And?
And so it is on Russia to leave. You bring up Russian laws like the Ukrainians are not sovereign. They gave their own laws. You know what else was legal? The Holocaust was legal under German law. That didn’t make it right. I hope you can understand that this is why people consider Russia a fascist state right now and yes, it does matter. Your arguments are textbook fascist and you should take that into serious consideration.
You’ve missed the point. They can’t, because the law prevents it.
Don’t mistake that for a value judgement about those laws because it’s not. I am just acknowledging the political reality, which is something you categorically have to do in order to reach a conclusion in these matters.
You can call me a fascist all you want but the only person between the two of us that is supporting more bloodshed is you and your nationalism. I’m not a nationalist.
You literally don’t know what fascism is and I challenge you to define it. Then we can determine if I’ve missed the point. Fascism is always legal. It is always backed by law. It must be by definition or it seeks to be. If your society cannot stop an ethically motivated war that you started because the law prevents it, that is fascism.