I think this is the third time you’ve brought this up in this thread and I’m genuinely curious as to why? The whole “state sponsor of terror” label was one we invented in the past to give us a reason to sanction nations that were coyly hiding behind a facade of peaceful neutrality while slyly funding terror groups.
I don’t see that as necessary or applicable in the case of Russia, because they aren’t being sly and aren’t using deniable third party groups. They outright invaded a neighbor with their military. They are not trying to deny responsibility for any of the strikes. It’s horrible and they are already under super heavy sanctions. What would be accomplished by adding the sponsor-o-terrorism label?
Also it’s a war crime, not terrorism. Not that semantics really matter here.
60 Minutes pretty much already has. One of the things I was most wrong about is that western media would tire of the story after 6 months. This is the second 60 Minutes story in less than month, and around 6 they’ve done since the start of the war. This one and previous ones were designed specifically to portray the Russians as senseless murdering thugs and empathize with the Ukrainian people. It worked on me.
Grifman
19261
The noise from Belarus is a feint:
KevinC
19262
Because that’s what we do with states that engage in terrorism and I’m reminded of it every time they blow up a pregnant woman in a wine cellar?
I’m hardly alone in that.
I think we may be differing on the definition of “terrorism” here. I’m firmly in the camp of saying Russia isn’t doing terrorism, they are doing war crimes. But if we use the post 9/11 American definition of terrorism as foreign people doing violent things we don’t like then yeah I can see the appeal. It just strikes me, personally, as kind of pointless. Like tacking on a misdemeanor trespassing charge or two to someone already facing trial for first degree murder.
KevinC
19264
Wouldn’t it be the other way around? Upgrading a misdemeanor to a felony.
KevinC
19265
Ultimately, though, just read it as my angrily asking “When are we going to call a spade a spade?” as opposed to espousing a detailed policy approach.
I don’t see it that way, but I suspect that’s why your position confused me. I’m not saying you are wrong, just suggesting that I see state sponsors of terrorism as little-leaguers compared to outright warmongering nations.
KevinC
19267
Well, semantically it’s a special military operation so how can we have a war crime without a war? ;)
KevinC
19268
Like I clarified after, it’s not really a position and rather me just reacting in an angry and emotional way. I do feel (word used specifically and with intent) that Russia deserves to be made a pariah state and I don’t want to see US companies trying to skirt sanctions or getting back to business as usual ASAP. My understanding (which is admittedly slight!) is that there are additional hurdles and the sanctions are wider in the case of a designated terrorist state, but that was just my understanding. I haven’t done any deep investigation on the topic.
In any case, you’ll likely see me say the same thing a fourth or fifth time down the road the way things are going. Sorry in advance for any annoyance it might cause. :)
Oh no annoyance at all, I only remarked on it out of confusion since I generally get where you are coming from (and agree with you) but in this case I was sort of scratching my head.
The State Sponsor of Terrorism designation requires sanctions not just against the state, but also third-party states engaged in some types of trade. It seems likely that the hesitation to use this label is not about Russia, but rather China/ India or others.
schurem
19272
Damn this thing moves. I’m not going to scroll up and dig out everything I comment on.
OK.
So Perun on Air Defences. Nice one. Notice the huge disparity in range between the S300 family and whatever we have. Notice the price disparity between an S300 (or patriot) missile and a shahed-16. Interesting problem, but one that can be managed.
In the meantime, while that problem is looking for a solution, fuck those fucking fuckers. The wine lady. Bucha (again, still!). Fuck. And they call the ones they invade nazis. Gah.
The plane crash then. A Su-34 I believe? That’s the bomber version of the flanker. Bit more fuel (and that’s a fuckton of fuel, even the basic flanker has huge tanks), some fucking armor and a 2nd cockpit. That’s a big ol’ bomber that just crashed. No wonder the appartment block blew way the fuck up.
Russia terrorists? Eh whatever. They are state agressors, in my book that is as bad, if not worse that regular terrorism.
abrandt
19273
The news that tanks from Belarus were on their way to Russia was enough to convince me there was no way Belarus was going to invade. That thread provides a bunch more reasons why, so thank you. Most interesting to me was the info about how Ukraine has fortified the border crossings to Belarus since February. Makes sense, but wasn’t something I’d seen covered anywhere.
It was an interesting talk. He did say that the effective range of Patriots was similar to S-300 in the 10s of KM rather than 100s for many target types. (e.g modern jet fighter). He also pointed out that not all S-300 are created equal the ones built in the last decade are a lot more capable than the ones that say Saddam had in the 1990s. The same thing is true for Patriots the first generation are far less accurate than the 3rd generation system.
It seems really important that we start sending F16/18 to Ukraine along with training their pilots on SEAD. If tUkraine can use HiMARS to destroy the SAMs near the front line, and then use F16 with HARMs to destroy the SAM further from front-line. They could achieve local air superiority which will make offensive operations so much easier. I got to imagine that if Russian troops start getting air strikes their morale will break pretty easily.
schurem
19276
Saddam never had S300. He had things like Buk’s predecessor, the SA-6. Early model S300 is about equal to patriot. Western datalinks have always been better, but the russian air defence stuff is really good if operated and maintained correctly.
I completely agree with you on the way a wing or two of vipers would turn that shit around. Do SEAD, interdiction, strike, OCA, all the things. But that takes a fuckton of training. Weaseling (sead) is about the hardest, coolest thing you can do with a jet. These guys are the best of the best. There’s a reason only the USAF has these specialists in their ranks. It is not something you learn in two weeks. We could however send some mercs…
What should we call our wagner group? Schostakovich group!
jsnell
19277
It being in Norwegian shouldn’t be a problem, I know that a bunch of us can read Norwegian. If all reporting on these polls is behind paywalls, maybe you could take a screenshot? Or if you’re not willing to screenshot paywalled content, then could you at least tell us which polling organization did these polls and when at least provide the URLs for some of these?
