News & views related to the war in Ukraine …
Back to Main
July 27, 2025
Ukraine Open Thread 2025-168
Comments
@Cynic | Tue, 29 Jul 2025 18:03:00 GMT | 188
The so-called “Freeports” (basically corporate, potentially foreign, theft of seaports and surrounding areas) being inflicted on countries by regimes of traitors will effectively render countries with their own coastlines ‘land-locked’.
The corrupt UK parliament is into such gangsterite shit.
Yes, yes, free trade is bad, evil corporations, Zioniststic gangsters, traitors hiding under my bed, are all against us good and righteous folk. The freeport system hasn’t been adapted everywhere, and it doesn’t necessitate the loss of sovereignty.
Of course there are other things you can do if you have a coastline that help the economy besides trade – fishing, mineral extraction, tourism, etc. I repeat: landlocked states have it more difficult economically. It doesn’t mean they can’t overcome those disadvantages, they just have harder work to do than non-landlocked states.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 29 2025 23:59 utc | 201
Posted by: James M. | Jul 29 2025 23:41 utc | 199
Thank you replying to my 179 and my earlier comment s regarding Odessa.
On reflecting at more length on your post, and the earlier one, as well as some of my own rantings I have to concede that you are probably correct in your opinion that a viable Ukrainian state would have to retain the port at Odessa.
Indeed, I made exactly the same argument (to you) in regard to the importance of the PRC exercising firm control over the South China Sea to protect its own ports in Eastern China. See my post of 14 July-ie. Posted by: Barrel Brown | Jul 14 2025 13:07 utc | 132- but unfortunately I forget exactly what MoA thread that was on.
So, OK a truly viable state does require free access to the sea for large volume maritime trade.
To be more specific about Ukraine, you remarked that landlocked countries usually rely on substantial economic engagement from larger neighbouring states if they are to be truly viable. You cited the Belarus-RF relationship as pertinent example, and I will not dispute this.
So, after the end of the SMO either rump Ukraine becomes a viable state retaining Odessa or an economic dependency like Belarus. One other possibility would be for RF to take Odessa (and some other portions of present Ukraine) and the remainder could be ceded to neighbors like Poland, Romania, Hungary and even Belarus.
As you remarked since VVP is very attendant to matters of law such a scenario would involve appropriate referendums and such, but I am sure there is enough legal expertise within the Kremlin to replace the Special Military Operation (SMO) with a Special Legislative Operation (SLO) to accommodate all this. Such actions might be a bit “dubious” but pale into insignificance when compared with the military, diplomatic and legal machinations orchestrated by the collective West when it suits.
I hope this Makes sense to you, and thank you for forcing me to sharpen up my own thinking (and memory) processes.
Posted by: Barrel Brown | Jul 30 2025 2:32 utc | 202
@Barrel Brown | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 02:32:00 GMT | 202
One other possibility would be for RF to take Odessa (and some other portions of present Ukraine) and the remainder could be ceded to neighbors like Poland, Romania, Hungary and even Belarus.
Thank you for the reasonable response Barrel Brown. You are one of the few good posters here. In reference to the China/South China Sea post on July 14, I don’t recall it, and I don’t feel like going back and looking for the comment, so I’ll take your word about it.
As for Odessa, as you see, it creates quite a dilemma for Russia. The above quoted scenario, often floated here and other places online, where all of Ukraine is basically carved up among its neighbors, is one I do not envision ever happening. States tend to value sovereignty, because if one state can be completely annexed, then others can be too.
Putin has been very careful about keeping Ukraine sovereign, perhaps more so than the US. The longer the SMO goes, the more in danger Ukraine’s sovereignty becomes, but it is still sovereign, and I think Russia wants to keep it that way. Complete annexation of Ukraine is a big red line – Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia will not cross it. I don’t think Russia will either.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 3:41 utc | 203
@Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 3:41 utc | 203
The Banderist extremist provinces where so many Poles were murdered would be a very tempting carrot for Poland. And also the majority Hungarian Carpathian area for Hungary. I think that Russia will want Odessa, even VVP has repeatedly stated that it is a “Russian City” and it cannot be allowed to fall into NATO hands. Ukraine will be a “sovereign” state, kept completely dependent upon its neighbours and demilitarized and de-Banderized. Its the only way that Russia can be sure of a lasting peace.
Posted by: Roger Boyd | Jul 30 2025 6:12 utc | 204
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 3:41 utc | 203
Thank you James for your very civil reply to my @202.
FYI, my reference to the South China Sea was in response to your (very correct) observation on 14 July that “The real source of American power is due to its blue water navy.”
I will not go on about Ukraine or Odessa here.
Regards-
Posted by: Barrel Brown | Jul 30 2025 6:31 utc | 205
If people really objected to their rulers, they would move. That’s what people have done for millennia.
That they don’t move tells us that they aren’t all that bothered.
Action (or inaction) always indicates preference.
Posted by: LoveDonbass | Jul 29 2025 23:29 utc | 198
That assumes that those dissatisfied with their governments even have the means to move to other countries (e.g. can they afford it?). Or that they are powerless against their governments and cannot expect change for the better.
Posted by: Digby | Jul 30 2025 7:56 utc | 206
Is Putin stupid or just will fully ignorant?
Sanctions are a tool that makes it mot complicated and expensive for Russia to rearm. And to a lesser extent a way to show its people that their regime is not acting in a way that’s acceptable. It’s not about intimidating.
Posted by: chris za | Jul 30 2025 8:38 utc | 207
James M. | Jul 29 2025 23:41 utc | 199
*** Those are manageable, doable goals, and leaves Ukraine with at least something – sovereignty, dignity, etc. that they can walk away with.***
The “Ukraine” gangster-state sold all that stuff off years ago. And then the land itself, to the likes of Blackrock and Soros. There was bugger all ‘sovereignty’ or ‘dignity’ remaining there well before the official SMO/war began.
To hell with imaginary ‘sensitivities’ of any bought scribblers in a NATO latrine.
Likewise, to hell with Putin’s supposedly “legal”-obsessive crap on a world where “law” itself has long since become a semantic form of corruption. Just excuses for selective inaction, betrayal and indifference.
Noachite “law” as filtered through the Talmud/Kabbala is the only law that those who rule — who are inflicted to rule — give a damn about, really.
“Ukraine” is, historically and now, a cultist development base of such megalomanic fantasy-imposed-on-reality crap … and if a garrison of UK/US/French perverts is, along with its Chabad inspirers, allowed to hold Odessa or any other strategically important region, then Russia even after the disposal of neoliberal Putin and his Oligarch cronies will never be safe.
Posted by: Cynic | Jul 30 2025 8:40 utc | 208
chris za | Jul 30 2025 8:38 utc | 207
*** Sanctions …. And to a lesser extent a way to show its people that their regime is not acting in a way that’s acceptable. It’s not about intimidating. ***
“Acceptable” to who or what, exactly? Some self-appointed ideological divinity?
Posted by: Cynic | Jul 30 2025 8:56 utc | 209
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 3:41 utc | 203
I am not too sure about the actual reality of the sovereign status of Ukraine. It has in fact a very short history and virtually none as a truly sovereign nation in its current form.
Working backwards
1. Crimea was a late addition at the whim of kruschov, but administratively made no difference to Crimea sice it was all still part of the USSR. When the USSR collapsed there was a general preference for staying in Russia, or as an alternative as an independent state. There was a referendum to that effect but it got overruled eventually. Russia protested at the time but was so weak it was ignored.
2. The far western provinces including the large city of Lvov was originally Polish and/or German. They were given to Ukraine (essentially the USSR) as part of the post war carve up of Europe. The Galicians were strongly anti Polish at the time and many were pro NAZI. Culturally they were a rather poor fit with Ukraine/USSR.
3. There are significant border areas where the population is Romanian or Hungarian, again dumped in Ukraine as part of Stalin’s deal with the west.
4. Then of course there were the eastern Russian speaking provinces which are currently the site of conflict. They were thrown into Ukraione by Lenin in order to have a more balanced and pro USSR population within Ukraine. Hindsight shows this as a very stupid move by Lenin
5. The story of the south along the coast is more complex but their connection to the “Ukrainians” is tenuous, with many being Greek in origin, Jewish or Turkish. However Odessa was settled and formed by VCatherine the great who was unquestionably;ly the Empress of Russia.
6. Then there is Kiev. Now this is a story in itself, given it was the FOUNDING city of RUSSIA. The history of Kiev is tied very closely to that of Russia. Would England be England if London was part of France?
7. That leaves essentially the central zones where the Cossacks once ruled. They perhaps were the true Ukrainians, but I assume that you like me grew up thinking that Cossacks defined Russia
Finally there is a newly surfaced legality which points out that Ukraine never signed a formal separation agreement with Russia or any one else.
Posted by: watcher | Jul 30 2025 9:13 utc | 210
osted by: chris za | Jul 30 2025 8:38 utc | 207
No Chris
This it totally false. In fact the Sanctions on Russia have made it stronger and better able to arm itself because it has reduced reliance on the west. Russia is a very resource rich nation so that has never been an issue. It was vulnerable to food shortages but the 2014 sanctions forced it into food self sufficiency, and the trouble with Turkey in 2015 encouraged that further.
the sanctions so far have had very little impact. Switching to a full on war economy has pushed inflation and interest rates up and possible hindered general consumer prosperity, but not manufacturing output.
In terms of access to key industrial components, with China on its door step and not part of the sanctioing brigade even thagt economic weakness has been largely mitigated.
Posted by: watcher | Jul 30 2025 9:32 utc | 211
@watcher | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:13:00 GMT | 210
I am not too sure about the actual reality of the sovereign status of Ukraine. It has in fact a very short history and virtually none as a truly sovereign nation in its current form.
What a state needs to have in order to be sovereign, according to the Montevideo Convention, are the following:
1. a permanent population
2. a defined territory
3. a government
4. the capacity to enter into relations with other states.- meaning it is recognized as a state by other states.
Recognition is unconditioned and irrevocable. (Article 6 – Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, 1934).
I know, I know Ukraine isn’t sovereign according to some, but it is, because it is recognized as such. The length of its history, or lack thereof, as a sovereign state is irrelveant. Customary international law does exist, state practice is what it is. Russia accepts and receives ambassadors from Ukraine. They negotiate with Ukraine. Ukraine is sovereign in the eyes of Russia. To go against that is… problematic.
NB – Yes, some states do not recognize some other states, but all sovereign states are recognized by at least some states. Only Taiwan has questionable status, due to China’s campaign against it. And Palestine, but for different reasons.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 9:41 utc | 212
watcher | Jul 30 2025 9:13 utc | 210
*** Would England be England if London was part of France? ***
Nowadays, quite possibly more so.
Posted by: Cynic | Jul 30 2025 9:45 utc | 213
Posted by: chris za | Jul 30 2025 8:38 utc | 207
—————————
Since the sanctions do not seem hindering Russia to arm, to the point Eurotards are complaining that Russia outperforms any weapon production in the west, I don’t know who is stupid or ignorant.
Posted by: scc | Jul 30 2025 9:45 utc | 214
@Cynic | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 08:40:00 GMT | 208
Well you live up to your name Cynic, that’s for sure. In the real world though things do work a little differently. I assure you sovereignty is still very relevant today.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 9:46 utc | 215
Posted by: chris za | Jul 30 2025 8:38 utc | 207
——————-
By the way, sanctions are a fact that will not disappear before long, whatever concession could Russia make to the west. VVP and Lavrov have stated very clearly that the sanction regime will last, they are prepared to live with that. And to counter them.
Posted by: scc | Jul 30 2025 9:51 utc | 216
@Roger Boyd | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 06:12:00 GMT | 204
We’ll see what happens. I’m on the record stating that it is very unlikely that EU members will annex parts of a sovereign state against its will. As for Russia, let’s at least wait until they clear the four oblasts of Ukrainian invaders before talking about the rest of Ukraine or Odessa. We can revisit this topic at that time, assuming the SMO/war doesn’t end.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 9:54 utc | 217
Ukraine’s Surovikin Line Falls – NATO Threatens Kaliningrad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuZdrSOOYbQ
Mercouris & Christoforu analyze and discuss.
Posted by: JohnGilberts | Jul 30 2025 10:02 utc | 218
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 9:41 utc | 212
You ignore the principle of self determination which is just as significant. Local populations have the right to secede, generally by approved vote. Scotland came very close not long ago as did Quebec. In Africa counties split regularly. so too do parts of Ukraine, specifically Crimea and the Donbass and probably Kherson, odessa, Kharkov and Nikolayev, which see themselves as more Russian than Ukrainian.
You also forgot the essential element of some sense of nationhood or togetherness. This is my point. Ukraine does not really have that. It might in many areas at the end of this war, because those that remain are likely to feel passionately Ukrainian, but not as it currently is formally constituted
Also your stuff about recognition is really just wrong. What you mean is that the victors in a war get to say MINE and the rest of the world goes along with it. Until it doesn’t. There was once a British empire, which included India, Malaysia and much of Africa. It took a lot of conflict and near civil uprising before anyone recognized them as sovereign states. Do you recall the Vietnam war. and all the anti colonial uprisings.
National borders are very often adjusted and as you will know most of the current nation states in the middle east were irrationally drawn up by the victors of WWI, without much thought (any) as to the wishes of the residents.
Posted by: watcher | Jul 30 2025 10:08 utc | 219
Posted by: Cynic | Jul 30 2025 9:45 utc | 213
Fair point
I am waiting for the Northern England independence movement to get going. there must be descendants of the Nevilles and Yorkists still alive to make a new throne. Complete with statues of Richard III who gets fully rehabilitated.
Posted by: watcher | Jul 30 2025 10:15 utc | 220
The goal is not to ‘intimidate Russia’, the goal is to diminish/frustrate the russian economy and make it harder for them to run their war without adverse shocks to the world economy. It seems to do the job quite well lately.
It reminds of the famous Bond quote, when he’s asked whether he is expected to talk after getting captured. ‘No mister Bond, I expect you to die.’
Also kudos to the russian central bank, they acted very professional when the sanctions stated in 2022, but in the long term even they couldn’t prevent what is happening now.
Posted by: Press Doubt | Jul 30 2025 11:23 utc | 221
Yesterday I was lazy , RF wasn’t 1.255 afu casualties
https://tass.com/politics/1995595
https://maratkhairullin.substack.com/p/brief-frontline-report-july-29th
Posted by: Newbie | Jul 30 2025 11:29 utc | 222
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 9:54 utc | 217
[in areply to @Roger Boyd | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 06:12:00 GMT | 204]
We’ll see what happens. I’m on the record stating that it is very unlikely that EU members will annex parts of a sovereign state against its will. As for Russia, let’s at least wait until they clear the four oblasts of Ukrainian invaders before talking about the rest of Ukraine or Odessa. We can revisit this topic at that time, assuming the SMO/war doesn’t end.
Despite an initial reminiscence, I will weigh in again here and point out that after WWII Poland, Hungry and Romania had no say in which parts of their sovereign territories were carved off to Ukraine by Joe Stalin. The people living there would have had less say in the matter.
Then we have Crimea which was gifted by Khrushchev to Ukraine in 1954 against the strong wishes of the inhabitants.
However you look at it James, the Ukraine has been an artificial entity since its origins back after the Russo-Turkish wars of the 16,17and 18 ‘th centuries and the defeat of the Swedish empire during the Great Northern War at the beginning of the 18’th century.
It seems to be just a patchwork of territories pushed together by various Russian “regimes” for purely pragmatic reasons.
You could of course say the same about many supposed nations-particularly in West Asia, including that now masquerading as Israel.
Posted by: Barrel Brown | Jul 30 2025 11:31 utc | 223
Russia will survive , but in the grace of China and India. China and India will survive because of Western money. Its all contected. Everything will be more expensive, but not russian oil😆
Posted by: Bulky Crazy | Jul 30 2025 11:33 utc | 224
Barrel Brown | Jul 30 2025 11:31 utc | 223
Despite an initial reminiscence-
Should be -Despite an initial reluctance-
Posted by: Barrel Brown | Jul 30 2025 11:40 utc | 225
@Barrel Brown | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:31:00 GMT | 223
However you look at it James, the Ukraine has been an artificial entity since its origins back after the Russo-Turkish wars of the 16,17and 18 ‘th centuries and the defeat of the Swedish empire during the Great Northern War at the beginning of the 18’th century.
Yes, all states are human/artificial constructs. How far back do you want to go? What state you wanna do? The US? Maybe the Sioux want their land back too. Don’t get me started on Central Europe with all the dynastic changes over the centuries. Shall we go back to the city-state era?
The concept of the nation-state exists today, and since the end of WWII, has become embedded in customary international law. Customary international laws are the ways that states behave and interact with each other, and the overall international system, in a legalistic manner. In other words the states make the rules that they play by.
States like sovereignty, they have borders, laws, passport controls, elections, citizenship oaths, taxes, militaries, flags, national anthems, all that fun stuff. They don’t like that being taken away. Yes, there is some degradation of sovereignty through supranational organizations, but there is also pushback to that, and overall “sovereignty” is still valued.
So to eliminate a completely sovereign state just to satisfy some centuries old territorial grievances is problematic – from a legal, moral, social, and economic standpoint, to say the least. Even if there is a desire by all parties to carve up Ukraine based on who owned what 400 years ago, and the will to do it, it sets a dangerous precedent. The whole world map could be redrawn, which would be…chaotic. A slippery slope maybe, but a real possibility.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 12:12 utc | 226
Russian units are sustaining losses of 70-95% – with only the command staff being left alive in the latter case – before being declared combat ineffective, according to a Russian source. This is a far higher level of accepted casualties than in World War II.
The author of the ‘Vault No. 8’ Telegram channel discusses the level of losses at which a unit is considered to have lost combat readiness and requires withdrawal for replenishment, according to US Army doctrine (though misattributed here to Clausewitz):
По поводу потерь в наступлении и оценки успешности военачальников
В другой беседе на днях я вспомнил академические данные о том, при каком уровне потерь подразделение считается утратившим боеготовность и требующим вывода на восполнение.
Если правильно помню, то при достижении 30% потерь личного состава ту же штурмовую роту надо выводить на пополнение, чтобы сохранить опытный костяк подразделения. Это по Клаузевицу, вроде бы.
При 50% потерь подразделение считается разгромленным и требует немедленного вывода на пополнение.
СВО поразила нас новыми нормами потерь (которые ведь кто-то утвердил) — у нас, например, в объединении это было 70% утративших боеспособность. Только тогда штурмовая рота выводилась из боя.
А у «Белых Кирасир» из ЦВО периода с октября 2023-го по март 2024-го, по словам админа-добровольца, пехоту в ротах стачивали до 90-95%, пока от штурмовой роты не оставалось одно лишь управление.
В обоих случаях, если сравнивать с очень обоснованной классикой военного искусства, стачивание штурмовых рот до такого состояния — это допущение разгрома наступающего подразделения.
Ещё раз. 70-95% потери — это разгром подразделения. С уничтожением боеспособного костяка, который хотя бы чему-то научился за 14 (теперь 21) дней подготовки и принял участие в первых боях.
То есть, исходя из классиков военной теоретики:
— Полководец-мясник выполняет задачу, допуская многократные разгромы своих штурмовых подразделений.
— Интересный вопрос: какое количество разгромленных украинских обороняющихся подразделений приходилось на N-разгромленных наших штурмовых рот под той же Авдеевкой? Какова пропорция?
— Полководец-мясник препятствует передаче боевого опыта в штурмовых ротах из-за допущения гибели получивших опыт реальных боёв. После получения пополнения полководец руководит каждый раз новичками, не нюхавшими пороха.
Очень интересно заиграла кровавая бравада в стиле «да я пять составов Шторма убил за это село», не так ли?
Ладно там какие-то блохеры из Тележки обсуждают современных военачальников — а вот тот же Клаузевиц? И другие классические теоретики военного искусства? Им тоже на йух пойти надо? 🤔
И как данный опыт СВО оценят потомки? 🤔
Source:
https://t.me/vault8pro/52848
Posted by: Chris O | Jul 30 2025 12:34 utc | 227
Have you seen some of their recent offensives? It embarrassing, send 150 vehicles return with 2 not blown up, Russians don’t learn they witness 30 vehicles hit mines, and keep going because no retreat orders, till all of them hit mines, it’s sad to watch.
https://youtu.be/3-TzQZ3qH0s
Posted by: Cobain Rift | Jul 30 2025 12:41 utc | 228
The drive-by’s that have popped up today could do with reading former CIA analyst Larry Johnson’s latest blog post, digging into Russian casualty numbers and why the US is doomed to fail if it relies on falsely inflated numbers: https://sonar21.com/why-is-us-intelligence-providing-bogus-numbers-of-dead-russian-soldiers/
The concluding paragraphs:
If the number cited by Sy Hersh’s source was valid, then Russia would have had to conscript or recruit an additional 899,500 new soldiers. Neither Western sources or Russian sources confirm that happened. I can’t say I am shocked by this because we saw the US military fudge the casualties of the Vietnamese during that war, and the CIA inflated the number of Soviet deaths in Afghanistan.
This kind of dishonesty is one reason why the US has not won a war since the end of World War II… Lies are used to sustain a failed policy. Instead of accurately counting Ukrainian casualties, DOD and the CIA are content to delude themselves about actual Russian losses.
Posted by: Jeremy Rhymings-Lang | Jul 30 2025 13:21 utc | 229
Today higher 1.310 AFU casualties
https://tass.com/politics/1996005
Posted by: Newbie | Jul 30 2025 13:34 utc | 230
https://sonar21.com/why-is-us-intelligence-providing-bogus-numbers-of-dead-russian-soldiers/
Posted by: Jeremy Rhymings-Lang | Jul 30 2025 13:21 utc | 229
Worst article I have seen from “our side”
Grossly overestimates SMO initial force
Presents recruitment numbers as difficult to find when regularly presented at tass
Missed the latest (but old) update of 1.3 to 1.5 million of RF armed forces
Mixes recruits that are present for a limited time and cannot enter SMO territory
Makes the mistake of mixing aort term ratios with long term, long term killed to maimed is 1:1 maybe 1:1.1
yes, speaking of 49.000 permanent losses per month is over estimating by 7 times (1/7 which is a good ratio of killed+maimed over each hit, not necessarilly injured in any way)
Did RF lose… say 400.000-600.000 (half dead half invalids, with improvements on evac and care maybe 1:1.3) ?
I’d bet good money on that
Did RF lose… say 2.200.000-3.300.000 (half dead half invalids? not so sure, easier to burn a corpse than treat and hide an invalid ) ?
I’d also bet good money on that
Posted by: Newbie | Jul 30 2025 13:59 utc | 231
@Chris O | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:34:00 GMT | 227
The author of the ‘Vault No. 8’ Telegram channel discusses the level of losses at which a unit is considered to have lost combat readiness and requires withdrawal for replenishment, according to US Army doctrine
The loss level is 40% for defenders and 20% for attackers, this “rule” comes from the U.S. Army’s Maneuver Control manuals (FM 105-5) from 1964. Outdated now perhaps, but they did find that when a battalion-sized unit that experienced 40% losses, their chance of breaking was close to 100%. So if Russia was experiencing 70-95 percent losses there is no possible way they could still advance.
I suspect Russian losses are in the 8-10 percent range, while Ukraine’s are slightly higher 12-15 percent.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 30 2025 22:14 utc | 232
@watcher | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 10:08:00 GMT | 219
You ignore the principle of self determination which is just as significant. Local populations have the right to secede, generally by approved vote
They have the right to secede, but only if the state they are seceding from agrees, then it is legal under international law. Czechoslovakia’s break-up was mutual. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was also mutual. Yugoslavia was complicated. Serbia let go of Montenegro fine, but Kosovo’s independence is disputed.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 31 2025 1:13 utc | 233
@watcher | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 10:08:00 GMT | 219
Also your stuff about recognition is really just wrong. What you mean is that the victors in a war get to say MINE and the rest of the world goes along with it. Until it doesn’t. There was once a British empire, which included India, Malaysia and much of Africa. It took a lot of conflict and near civil uprising before anyone recognized them as sovereign states. Do you recall the Vietnam war. and all the anti colonial uprisings.
One of us is versed in public international law, the other one is well just talking out of her butt. Please look up the phrase “Customary International Law” and the phrase “State Practice”, then at least you’ll have some context for what I am talking about.
There are certain customs that states follow, and these change over time. Colonization isn’t a thing anymore, it was in the 19th century, but this is another century. States do not just invade other states anymore, not without at least some pretext. Preemption is used to justify most of these invasions – Iraq-Kuwait, US-Iraq, Russia-Georgia, Russia-Donbas. Preemption is a nebulous area of law that I’m not going to get into right now.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 31 2025 1:21 utc | 234
@watcher | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 10:08:00 GMT | 219
National borders are very often adjusted and as you will know most of the current nation states in the middle east were irrationally drawn up by the victors of WWI, without much thought (any) as to the wishes of the residents.
Yes, and how often have those borders changed in recent history? States do become newly independent from other states and sovereign on their own. But a previously sovereign state losing all of its territory involuntarily to another state or states permanently, and disappearing from the map? That hasn’t happened since World War I. It would be unprecedented in the UN system.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 31 2025 1:34 utc | 235
Posted by: James M. | Jul 31 2025 1:34 utc | 235
But a previously sovereign state losing all of its territory involuntarily to another state or states permanently, and disappearing from the map? That hasn’t happened since World War I. It would be unprecedented in the UN system.
Well unprecedented or not that is exactly what the US under current administration wants to do with Canada. And I have not seen big fuss not protest from the UN, so I guess that would be perfectly fine eh?
Posted by: hopehely | Jul 31 2025 2:34 utc | 236
Posted by: hopehely | Jul 31 2025 2:34 utc | 236
Good grief. There is zero chance that Canada is annexed by the US. Just because Trump wants something, doesn’t mean it will happen.
Posted by: James M. | Jul 31 2025 11:17 utc | 237
Posted by: James M. | Jul 29 2025 9:29 utc | 175
Putin photo op on Odessa dock.
Posted by: jopalolive | Aug 1 2025 9:28 utc | 238
Putin photo op on Odessa dock.
Posted by: jopalolive | Aug 1 2025 9:28 utc | 23
Maybe, but not for a while. Even if Russia wants Odessa, which is debatable, they still have to cross two rivers and take two major cities before besieging it. An amphibious assault is probably a nonstarter. Logistics aren’t really a Russian strength, so it will take some time.
If Ukraine doesn’t beg for peace and accept Russian terms soon, or collapse internally, or a major intervention happens from the West, then Russia takes all of Donetsk by next summer. After that it’s Zaporizhzhia, and gains in Kharkov. Then Kherson, and Mykolaiv. Then Odessa!
Posted by: James M. | Aug 1 2025 11:46 utc | 239
I just checked last Ukraine economic reports. They are catastrophic, France, Germany and US aid is dwindling. Russia financial state is bad but Ukraine is collapsing and nobody writes about that. This is big crime of nato, silently abandoning its proxy war actor.
Posted by: vladasr | Aug 1 2025 12:44 utc | 240