NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Basically I should have repeat my question in reply - if everything is so bad and corrupt anyway, why go with trouble of implementing any laws, why drag Navalny through courts for years and years, why even try to poison him with Novichok? Blow him up with RPG or something, then say it was gas explosion and be done with it.
This is your argument? Really? Navalny is in jail right now because of 3 simple reasons: 1) he survived the poisoning 2) he was either too brave or too dumb to return to Russia after that 3) kremlin want's Navalny to suffer in a jail in a horrible conditions, so he would serve as a "lesson" to every last opposition figure in Russia
Should I drop a dozen of examples of assassinations of the oppositions starting from mid 90? No even counting Litvanenko case. Remember Vlad Listyev? Or maybe Anna Politkovska? Or maybe what happened to Nemstov in 2015? It's not about political opposition only. Do you really believe that the people who's willing & capable of shooting civilian airplanes, sometimes even with foreign leaders on the board (president of Poland), doing proxy wars on the perimeter, are the same noble people? Don't be that naive, this is clearly a repressive & criminal system which is targeted on the people who generally would be net positive for any country, except in Russia (because of an ancient regime) :D
There is no proof the russians shot down the presidential plane in Smolensk. All investigations by the Polish side concluded it was caused by human error. there have been some conspiracy theories but no one has so far been able to produce any proof the plane was destroyed purposefully. Was the crash used by Putin to disrupt Polish politics for years? Of course. but even the comission established by Kaczyński's government hasnt been able to produce proof, hell, PiS hasnt been able to even bring the remains of the plane to Poland (not that they even tried very hard, they talked a lot but did nothing).
Ma bad, should've been describe this incident with the president of Poland as an assumption which is not confirmed officially. It just fits in the same puzzle overall. Maybe it was an accident indeed.
On December 01 2022 21:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Talking about troop morale is now illegal for russians. This will certainly be a motivator for those mobilized freezing in trenches without gear, warmth and food.
Russian authorities have banned public discussions of a wide range of non-classified military subjects that activists say will effectively prevent the public from learning crucial information about the Armed Forces.
The 60-point Federal Security Service (FSB) order, which enters into force Dec. 1, lists information that is not classified as a state secret, but which “can be used by foreign states, organizations and citizens against Russia’s security.”
Among the subjects banned from discussion are the structure and size of the Russian Armed Forces.
Other off-limits areas include weapons, troop deployments and training, as well as troop morale and crimes committed by members of the Armed Forces.
Mobilization and civil defense topics are also barred from being openly discussed, as are assessments and forecasts of Russia’s military and strategic situation
*Sigh* Hype headlines, bad journalism and intentional informational warfare do wonders when combined.
Now, you can take the list in this new FSB order: https://rg.ru/documents/2022/11/18/fsb-prikaz547-site-dok.html and compare it with the one that was issued on 01.10.2021 https://rg.ru/documents/2021/10/01/fsb-prikaz379-site-dok.html Try to find the differences in points (hint, there are 8 out of 60 articles). And most of those just added some new definitions and clarifications. Like in Article 31 there was one definition "state information system" before, now there is two "state information system and object of critical infrastracture". Or Article 4: "information about dislocation, purpose, construction, readiness level, use and protection of the objects of the military forces, units and bodies". New order just added: "Same applies to the objects of the military forces, units and bodies that are being constructed". Also, the "morale" thing you mention is Article 14. Compare old one and new one to see if there are any differences.
And FSB order isn't law per se, you don't get a case started on you based just on it. So it needs a law to work. And if you check preamble, it says exactly to which law it is tied to: "According to the Point 1 Part 6 Article 4 of the Federal Law of 14.07.2022 № 255 "On control of the activity on the bodies under foreign influence". Before it was tied to the infamous "Dima Yakovlev law" - Federal Law of 28.12.2012 № 272 "On measures of actions on bodies involved in violations of basic rights and freedoms of a person, rights and freedoms of citizens of the Russian Federation".
So the FSB order is applied to the bodies and entities which are subjects to the aforementioned law. In this case - organizations and people considered "foreign agents". Ordinary Russians on forums and social networks do not fall in that category. Not that you couldn't be apprehended for something bad posted, but it will be done based on something like article 280.3 of a Criminal Code, which came into force 8 month ago. Both today's law and FSB order changed nothing in that regard.
So it's jab at the opposition and foreign press, yes, but not at the regular Ivan.
Edit: to be fair, I didn't read the article, assuming that what you wrote in the post and what is in the article are the same. So basically article says the same that I did, but with a definitive premise that "law on foreign agents" would not only be used on opposition press, but on everyone else as well. Though since it comes from the people who are actual targets of the said law, their concern is understandable. And the question remains, if police would want to jail regular Ivan for badmouthing Russian Army, what prevents it from using the 280.3 article right there?
1. Is it simply illegal in Russia under certain circumstances to have an opinion one way or another, or is this guy opposition press, a potential "foreign agent" or otherwise lacking basic rights and freedoms of an ordinary citizen which is why he's being extra careful?
Federal Law of 28.12.2012 № 272 "On measures of actions on bodies involved in violations of basic rights and freedoms of a person, rights and freedoms of citizens of the Russian Federation".
So the FSB order is applied to the bodies and entities which are subjects to the aforementioned law. In this case - organizations and people considered "foreign agents".
2. Is it legal for bodies and entities who aren't foreign agents to violate people's basic rights and freedoms? I mean, dragging people from their homes at random and telling them "you're going to jail or you're going to go die in a hole" sounds exactly that. What are the legal grounds for this? Russia's not even at war, right?
3. Also, where exactly does Russia border Ukraine? Is there a map available somewhere? This is pretty important when it comes to Russian jurisdiction.
1. Didn't completely understand your question. If you are talking about people speaking in the article from Moscow Times - they are from Radio Liberty and some Moscow non-government organization (these are often in some form of partnership with US/European entities), so their concern is understandable, since they could be pressured even more now. To answer about ability to voice opinions from general public - despite the war dragging for 9 months already, I see a lot of harsh vocal opposition still living and doing business freely in Russia. Makes a lot of patriots upset. Though if you are actively and offensively slandering and bashing Russian government and/or military - yes, comrade major can pay you a visit.
My bad, in case twitter is blocked for you, then never mind. It's a clip of TV host Andrei Norkin citing certain laws explaining why he doesn't have an opinion on Russian withdrawal from Kherson as that could make him guilty of either not supporting Russia's territorial integrity or discrediting the armed forces.
2. Legal grounds - laws on mobilisation and military service from the 90's with legal additions in this year. About "jail" part - seems I have to retract my statements from September about that, since after the start of mobilization there was only one criminal case filed (AFAIK), and it was turned down by the prosecution office in 48 hours. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5605488 And yes, there is no official war declared. But neither was between US and North Vietnam (only South Vietnam and North Vietnam were at state of war officialy). Still, US sent their conscripts to fight there, and it was perfectly legal at that time. Same goes for UK. Falklands war was undeclared one, yet it didn't stop Royal Navy to order a requisition of the ships of the UK merchant fleet along with their crews. https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/merchant-navys-role-falklands-conflict
Not all of the ships that sailed south were part of the Royal Navy however. Merchant ships including cargo vessels, tankers and cruise liners were requisitioned to support the operation. These were quickly transformed into everything from supply ships and troop carriers to floating hospitals – and their crews suddenly found themselves part of a major military operation.
So either US and UK also violated basic human rights by this, or sending drafted/mobilized civilians on undeclared wars is a common world practice.
What, exactly one criminal case so far? Seems highly unlikely. The article is from 7th of October, seems to talk about the the "first criminal case on evasion from appearing under a mobilization summons" in Penza.
It's interesting though. Here's what this guy's lawyer says according to Novaya Gazeta.
Chikov says that Russia’s Criminal Code Article 328 cannot be used to file criminal charges against men dodging mobilisation. “As per the Supreme Court’s ruling, this article may only be used against men avoiding regular, non-mobilisation conscription,” he says.
This almost sounds like they either completely fumbled the case or that the mobilization is in fact illegal and the however many thousands of unwilling mobilized soldiers freezing in mud pits have just been tricked into thinking they had no choice and hundreds of thousands fled the country for no reason.
As for the Vietnam war etc., violating human rights is common world practice, yes. "The US also did it" is certainly not a justification or legal grounds for anything. Let me be clear, I'm not going to defend US imperialism or drafting people to go pointlessly kill and die in Vietnam, UK imperialism (not talking about the Falklands), German or French imperialism, the Crusades, you get the idea. I'll simply say that this type of genocidal Anschluss is something most of the world has moved on from.
3. If you mean border according to Russian legislation - it's pre 24.02 borders, plus Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhie regions in their Ukrainian administrative borders.
Are you sure? I recall that the Russian government couldn't tell you where their western borders are. Perhaps they figured it out eventually.
Russia acknowledged on Monday it didn't know exactly where the borders were for the Ukrainian regions it annexed following referendums widely condemned as sham votes.
In a call with reporters, the Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Moscow would need to "consult" with the local populations in Ukraine's southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions to determine where their borders were, according to state media.
Just annex something and figure out what was annexed later. Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics ended up being recognized (by Russia) sovereign states for about half a year. Seems legitimate.
Basically I should have repeat my question in reply - if everything is so bad and corrupt anyway, why go with trouble of implementing any laws, why drag Navalny through courts for years and years, why even try to poison him with Novichok? Blow him up with RPG or something, then say it was gas explosion and be done with it.
This is your argument? Really? Navalny is in jail right now because of 3 simple reasons: 1) he survived the poisoning 2) he was either too brave or too dumb to return to Russia after that 3) kremlin want's Navalny to suffer in a jail in a horrible conditions, so he would serve as a "lesson" to every last opposition figure in Russia
Should I drop a dozen of examples of assassinations of the oppositions starting from mid 90? No even counting Litvanenko case. Remember Vlad Listyev? Or maybe Anna Politkovska? Or maybe what happened to Nemstov in 2015? It's not about political opposition only. Do you really believe that the people who's willing & capable of shooting civilian airplanes, sometimes even with foreign leaders on the board (president of Poland), doing proxy wars on the perimeter, are the same noble people? Don't be that naive, this is clearly a repressive & criminal system which is targeted on the people who generally would be net positive for any country, except in Russia (because of an ancient regime) :D
There is no proof the russians shot down the presidential plane in Smolensk. All investigations by the Polish side concluded it was caused by human error. there have been some conspiracy theories but no one has so far been able to produce any proof the plane was destroyed purposefully. Was the crash used by Putin to disrupt Polish politics for years? Of course. but even the comission established by Kaczyński's government hasnt been able to produce proof, hell, PiS hasnt been able to even bring the remains of the plane to Poland (not that they even tried very hard, they talked a lot but did nothing).
Ma bad, should've been describe this incident with the president of Poland as an assumption which is not confirmed officially. It just fits in the same puzzle overall. Maybe it was an accident indeed.
The rest of the cases - clearly not
There is zero evidence that it was anything other than a crash.
Some interesting updates:
Someone (presumably Russia) is sending eyes of dead animals to Ukrainian embassies across Europe to intimidate them.
Anchor of Russian opposition (?) TV channel that fled to Latvia was calling for donations to the Russian troops and said they helped with the supplies themselves. Got fired afterwards, probably in damage control mode. They had a history of doing things like showing the map of Ukraine without Crimea (while already in exile) etc.
Executive summary of a report by RUSI analysing Russia's initial plans for the invasion and why it went sideways (found on Reddit). An interesting bit:
Russia planned to invade Ukraine over a 10-day period and thereafter occupy the country to enable annexation by August 2022. The Russian plan presupposed that speed, and the use of deception to keep Ukrainian forces away from Kyiv, could enable the rapid seizure of the capital. The Russian deception plan largely succeeded, and the Russians achieved a 12:1 force ratio advantage north of Kyiv. The very operational security that enabled the successful deception, however, also led Russian forces to be unprepared at the tactical level to execute the plan effectively.
After D+10, the role of Russia’s conventional forces was to transition to a supporting function to Russia’s special services, responsible for establishing occupation administrations on the territories. Since these activities were critical to the Russian theory of victory in the operation, it is important to outline these plans to appropriately contextualise the role of the conventional force. The assumption appears to have been that Ukrainian government officials would either flee or be captured as a result of the speed of the invasion. It was also anticipated that shock would prevent the immediate mobilisation of the population, and that protests and other civil resistance could be managed through the targeted disintegration of Ukrainian civil society. To manage these protests Russian forces would be supported by Rosgvardia (Russian National Guard) and riot control units. Meanwhile the FSB was tasked with capturing local officials. The Russian counterintelligence regime on the occupied territories had compiled lists that divided Ukrainians into four categories:
• Those to be physically liquidated. • Those in need of suppression and intimidation. • Those considered neutral who could be induced to collaborate. • Those prepared to collaborate.
This wasn't the first time Russia gathered lots of troops at the Ukrainian border. The Ukrainian government didn't believe Russia would invade and neither did most European intelligence services - because it was such an idiotic idea.
On December 03 2022 05:41 Magic Powers wrote: Anders Puck Nielsen explains why he believes that Putin is aiming for a quick victory (within 6 months) rather than a long war (up to several years).
I don't think Russia has any coherent strategy at this point. The Kremlin had no plan B to their mad dash to Kyiv. Now they're just plugging holes in a sinking ship in a desperate attempt to get to the shore. Except that they don't even know where the shore is.
The reason why he sees Russia seemingly going for both strategies is because they seem to be doing just that. On the one hand, they're desperately throwing conscripts to the meatgrinder to keep the frontline from collapsing and they're using terror tactics to force the Ukrainians to sue for peace. On the other hand, there are indications that they are planning to mobilise even a few million people in successive waves, in hope of winning the war of attrition.
On December 03 2022 05:29 maybenexttime wrote: This wasn't the first time Russia gathered lots of troops at the Ukrainian border. The Ukrainian government didn't believe Russia would invade and neither did most European intelligence services - because it was such an idiotic idea.
US intelligence practically had the Russian attack orders before the generals did. The surprise wasn't the attack itself, it was that Putin was willing to go through with it after the US publicly stated the order to invade had been sent out.
And yes I only skimmed through that video but the conclusion seems to be that because Russia is not doing the thing you normally do to prepare for a long war they must be going for a quick one, while not considering the notion that Russia has no real plan beyond hoping Ukraine or the West gives up during the winter.
And even there I question if Russia isn't being dumb by starting these large scale infrastructure attacks early, making it obvious what they are doing and allowing the West to gather and send aid before the real cold hits.
I don't really know what's going on with Russia. It's like media keeps making these plans and strategies to explain what Russia could be doing next but ever since they retreated from Kyiv they haven't employed any thought or reasoning behind what they're going to do next. Charitably their pivot to the east has resulted in the bold plan of fighting the enemy head on in the middle of their defences while they slowly retreat. The karkhiv counter attack hasn't been responded to and losing kherson now looks like the thing they were suppose to do months ago.
Good article about how the U.S. and China navigated diplomatically regarding Russia since the war, which is a revealing read. It explains why there was this back and forth about sending Ukraine MiGs and other strategic weapons in exchange for China wielding its heft over Russia to stop nukes from being a real threat and recognizing that the West is the market it sells to, not Russia.
On December 03 2022 05:41 Magic Powers wrote: Anders Puck Nielsen explains why he believes that Putin is aiming for a quick victory (within 6 months) rather than a long war (up to several years).
I don't think Russia has any coherent strategy at this point. The Kremlin had no plan B to their mad dash to Kyiv. Now they're just plugging holes in a sinking ship in a desperate attempt to get to the shore. Except that they don't even know where the shore is.
The reason why he sees Russia seemingly going for both strategies is because they seem to be doing just that. On the one hand, they're desperately throwing conscripts to the meatgrinder to keep the frontline from collapsing and they're using terror tactics to force the Ukrainians to sue for peace. On the other hand, there are indications that they are planning to mobilise even a few million people in successive waves, in hope of winning the war of attrition.
What it looks like now, is that Russia is just trying to keep the pressure up to force the Ukrainians to come to a ceasefire agreement that doesn't end with Russia giving up Crimea.
They're just trying to prolong the war at this point, hoping that Ukraine runs out of manpower or that international support dies out.
They're all in. They cannot afford to lose the war it will mean the end of the regime. They all know this.
What's unclear is just how vile and disgusting do they want to get before they admit that this war isn't one they can win anymore. They seem willing to cross every line except the Nuclear one.
On December 03 2022 05:41 Magic Powers wrote: Anders Puck Nielsen explains why he believes that Putin is aiming for a quick victory (within 6 months) rather than a long war (up to several years).
I don't think Russia has any coherent strategy at this point. The Kremlin had no plan B to their mad dash to Kyiv. Now they're just plugging holes in a sinking ship in a desperate attempt to get to the shore. Except that they don't even know where the shore is.
The reason why he sees Russia seemingly going for both strategies is because they seem to be doing just that. On the one hand, they're desperately throwing conscripts to the meatgrinder to keep the frontline from collapsing and they're using terror tactics to force the Ukrainians to sue for peace. On the other hand, there are indications that they are planning to mobilise even a few million people in successive waves, in hope of winning the war of attrition.
What it looks like now, is that Russia is just trying to keep the pressure up to force the Ukrainians to come to a ceasefire agreement that doesn't end with Russia giving up Crimea.
They're just trying to prolong the war at this point, hoping that Ukraine runs out of manpower or that international support dies out.
They're all in. They cannot afford to lose the war it will mean the end of the regime. They all know this.
What's unclear is just how vile and disgusting do they want to get before they admit that this war isn't one they can win anymore. They seem willing to cross every line except the Nuclear one.
The question is how many body bags Russian mothers and girlfriends are willing to accept. This has been an issue before. The main win condition for the Ukrainians could be killing as many Russian soldiers as possible.
Silly thing is that Bakhmut as an objective was a relic of a much older phase of the war when Russian strategy was different. It doesn’t actually matter anymore.
EPT
