New video from @anderspuck about #Wagner forces in #Belarus & the chances they might attack #Poland & #HybridWar
And here I was half expecting a(nother) video from him about #Ukraine hitting the #Russia'n #Navy in the#BlackSea (again). Things are happening so fast #YouTube'rs can hardly keep up! 😄
Good point, @darthstar . I suppose we'll have to wait & see. Did you see @anderspuck 's video about Russian False flags? This wouldn't seem to fit the mold from what I recall, but I'm not an expert.
@DeeGLloyd@anderspuck
Ukraine has been very selective in their targeting for over 525 days of war. I don't see them changing now. For example, they've attacked storage and transfer facilities. Oil in a tanker doesn't do anyone any good.
The initial reports I saw said that the tanker was returning from Syria. I assume that tankers generally leave Russia full and return empty. I'm curious what the ecological dangers posed by an empty oil tanker are, compared to any other type of ship - is whatever oil remains in the cargo holds significantly worse than any ship would carry for fuel?
@Acies@darthstar@DeeGLloyd@anderspuck
The load of the ship is questionable to me, given the current situation of the war. Perhaps an oil and gas person out there can give better insight. As far as the ecological concerns, this whole war is a disaster six ways of Sunday. Everything from spilling diesel in sunk-ass ships to burning fields to decomm mines.
@eva_chaos@Acies@darthstar@DeeGLloyd If the tanker was delivering fuel for the war, then it definitely would be a legitimate target. I haven’t seen information about the destination and use yet. Only that at some point it played a role in Syria.
@anderspuck@eva_chaos@Acies@darthstar@DeeGLloyd Would a truck, a ship or whatever delivering only food for soldiers (and not weapons or fuel), specifically not intended for civilians, be a legitimate target?
@VikingChieftain@sarahbeck@eva_chaos@Acies@darthstar@DeeGLloyd Yes, that's why it's complicated. It's a niche case, and I don’t think there are any such installations in Ukraine. Another way it's complicated is that it is legal to destroy dams that are under your own control, so you can use the water to create obstacles.
@VikingChieftain@sarahbeck@eva_chaos@Acies@darthstar@DeeGLloyd Yes, the Nova Kakhovka dam was interesting from a legal perspective. Our IHL experts at the defense college spent a lot of time discussing it. I think the conclusion was that it was definitely illegal according to some article, but that lawyers could spend a lot of time discussing which one.
@VikingChieftain@anderspuck@eva_chaos@Acies@darthstar@DeeGLloyd I guess that applies for at weapons factory too! But hypothetically, if someone attacked a drone company on US soil, that were making drones used by one's enemy to attack one's army, infrastructure, or civilians, would that be a legitimate target, even if the US is not officielly at war?
@VikingChieftain@anderspuck@eva_chaos@Acies@darthstar@DeeGLloyd I know it would be a declaration of war. The US would hit back hard, and it would probably be unwise to do it. But I'm interested in the legal aspect. If they provide weapons to an active conflict, how can they not be a legitimate military target.
It's pretty clearly a legitimate military target. If someone is producing ammo and sending it to people who are shooting it at you, you're allowed to try to stop them.
I'm sure they're a signatory. If the question is if Russia's war is wrong, it clearly is, and the US and everyone else is right to oppose it.
But regardless of the legality of the war as a whole, there is a distinction between legitimate targets, like soldiers, and illegitimate targets, like kids. Weapons and ammo seems fairly clearly on the legitimate side. But I'm interested if there's a source that says otherwise.
Again, do you have something that supports that? It seems baffling.
Imagine we turn this around, and Ukraine, or some friend of Ukraine, sabotages a Shahed factory in Iran. You're saying that would also be an illegitimate target?
Yes, American factories are making Javelin AT missiles and we are sending those to Ukraine - that's military aid. But as we are not actively participating with boots on the ground we are not a party to the conflict. Just like when we supported the Taliban to defeat Russia in Afghanistan thirty years ago.
And the USSR sent planes and pilots to fight the US in Korea. I think the reasons the many proxy wars didn't turn into direct wars between the US and Russia was because neither side wanted WW3, not because you're entitled to supply one party in a war without the other side trying to do something about it.
@Acies@darthstar@VikingChieftain@sarahbeck@eva_chaos@DeeGLloyd I’m not an IHL expert, but my colleagues that are say the same as in the article above: That the old definition of neutrality meaning no involvement at all is no longer considered valid. In an illegal war, the world can support the part that was attacked. Ironically some Western countries stuck to the old definition during this war for some time.
That part makes sense to me - that international law allows a country to support another country involved in a war, and that seems especially appropriate when it's helping someone unjustly invaded.
It's the expectation that the other country involved isn't allowed to respond militarily that I'm extremely suspicious of. Certainly if I was leading a country supporting another, I wouldn't rely on it for my protection.
I'd add that part of the issue here is that the aggressor state is never going to admit that they are waging an illegal war. They'll concoct some excuse, as Russia did here, and then act as if they have every right to start the war. So whether something is a target or not probably doesn't rely on how ethical the war is.
@anderspuck@DeeGLloyd i was thinking the sound was really good despite the location. As an old radio veteran i think it's important to prioritise sound quality even at the expense of speed (for analysis spots, at least)
Add comment