Megathread for news/updates/discussion of Russian invasion of Ukraine - May 6-8
This thread is posted Monday/Wednesday/Friday - please try to post relevant content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Especially significant updates may warrant a separate topic, but most should be posted here.
If you'd like to help support Ukraine, please visit the official site at https://help.gov.ua/ - an official portal for those who want to provide humanitarian or financial assistance to people of Ukraine, businesses or the government at the times of resistance against the Russian aggression.
More detail and closer to confirmation of news reported yesterday.
Russian frigate may have been hit by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles
EDIT: replaced mobile site link with normal link.
To be clear, this is a second ship, the Admiral Makarov. The previous ship they hit was the Moskva.
Has the Moskva hit ever been properly confirmed? If so, who reported on it that's worth a damn?
I think ships at sea are this kind of thing where secondary reporting by news agencies isn't going to do much good. Ukraine said they hit it, I think western agencies have kind of confirmed it, meanwhile Russia denies it in a implausible fashion.
There really isn't too much Reuters and AP can do for you here except report those statements. Eyewitness accounts are all going to be armed forces from one or the other side of the conflict, and they're going to be hard to get by and harder to corroborate.
Let's put it like this: She's definitely a submarine now. And whether it was a bunch of missiles or the freak combination of a ammunition fire and a storm that no weather report can verify... well, there's not much doubt left in my mind what happened. But I wouldn't expect reputable news services to confirm that, seeing as trustworthy parties (or those with evidence) are probably keeping it rather tight lipped right now.
That's what I'm getting it: what's the line beyond which we can be relatively assured of a hit being real?
Not trying to dig into the "what is real" aspect of reporting in news around an active military conflict. But like, how much confirmation would be enough here for us to switch language from "it's unconfirmed yet but" to "so it has happened that"?
Well, Wikipedia lists it as "Sunk by Ukraine[disputed by Russia]", quoting the Washington Post.
That's good enough for me, but your standards may vary.
So then, would a similar quote be enough for you for the second ship?
For me, yeah. Give it a few days maybe for the Russians to prove the opposite (lol) but otherwise, yeah.
For now I'm sticking with Admiral Makarov being hit. It's rumored to be abandoned or sunk, but I haven't heard that from anyone credible. If the people calling it sunk also call it a cruiser, I choose to ignore, ya know?
The US also says it was hit by Ukrainian missiles.
There was also this from a few days ago: U.S. Intelligence Helped Ukraine Strike Russian Flagship, Officials Say
Russia Just Lost Its Most Advanced Operational Tank In Ukraine (TheDrive)
Adding to this, another article mentions that "The Defense Ministry said the tank was hit by Ukrainian forces with an American Javelin anti-tank missile system near Izyum."
of course they mention it's American
I don't understand. Why wouldn't they mention it?
Nevermind, I misread. I thought the MoD in question was Russian, and so were the reports.
Ukrainians mentioning it's American is okay: they raise morale, ever so slightly, among their people by indicating the West supports their war efforts. Russians mentioning it's American would just be stoking anti-Western sentiment among the populace.
Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, it was the Ukranian MoD that made the statement.
It's funny how differently the same fact is interpreted depending on who is saying it? Some sources are more credible than others, but I don't think it's wrong to say things that are true, regardless of who says them.
Ehhh... Grices Third Maxim alone gives plenty of reasons to think about what true things are said, because even truth can mislead or direct people to believe an untruth. It's not like truth alone is the useful arbiter of whether it's wrong to say something in a particular situation.
Sure, context matters. I don't think anything put out by the Russian government is trustworthy or much worth spending time on.
However, more generally, I still think an argument that's careful about its facts (and ideally, sourcing) can be worth reading, even when it's in support of a conclusion you reject.
Absolutely. Unpleasant truths are important to consider, even when they're offered by unpleasant people. I'm just hesitant about the idea that speaking the truth is inherently right.
After Merz' visit to Ukraine (opposition leader), which didn't kick up a lot of dust(E: although, Zelenskyy did meet with Merz), a whole host of government officials have announced plans to go to Ukraine:
Steinmeier (president) and Scholz (chancellor) are invited for the 9th of May, which is the day of German capitulation. I imagine that date was deliberately chosen, probably with consent from Germany. I expect this visit to kick up a lot more dust. It happened after a phone call between Steinmeier and Zelenskyy to sort out the butthurt. (E: To clarify, Scholz and Steinmeier have not announced plans. I wouldn't expect them to until they're back.)
Also, Foreign Minister Baerbock has announced plans to go.
The president of the German parliament has announced similar plans as well.
Also, 7 German PzH2000 will be sent, along with training.
Italy impounds $700 million megayacht linked to Putin (WaPo)
So my question is:
Even after all the FBK analysis (I've watched the video and found the proof compelling, if in some ways driven by wishful thinking)... Is Vladimir Putin not under sanctions yet? That seems like quite an oversight by the EU.
Putin's riches belonging to someone else on paper is par for the course. His mansion, not too recently also uncovered by the FBK, on paper belonged to an oligarch. His off-shore cash uncovered by the Panama Papers belonged to his friend. Apartments for his daughters belonged, if I recall correctly, to his then-wife. And so on and so forth. Putin's all about plausible deniability.
So it could technically belong to a billionaire friend of his. Doesn't mean it's not Putin's.
EDIT: apparently Putin is under EU sanctions already, from the very start of the war.
What is “ownership?” Under English law, technically everything belongs to the crown, and everyone else uses or occupies it by dispensation of the monarch.
In US, the “people” have certain “rights,” regarding property, defined and enforced by the government.
I assume in the Russian Federation they have a third view. I know there are maritime treaties regulating registration and operations. I winder how respectful they are of various theories of property.
Do you happen to have any links about this? Because I don't see any mention of that in the Wikipedia article on English property law, and TBH it sounds apocryphal.
I mean in current practice it works like the article you cited. I don’t have a source handy, but lawyers learn it while studying property law.
If you click through you can see the history of how property proceeds from the crown. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_land_law
Edit: more in this article
For American law, google “bundle of rights”
Trudeau makes surprise visit to Ukraine, meets with Zelensky (CBC)
First lady Jill Biden makes unannounced trip to Ukraine (CNN)