Global War Roundup: Ukraine And China Fronts
The talk today is still largely about the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine. While many analysts that I follow believe that the balance of probabilities point towards Ukraine as the perpetrator, even pro-Russian analysts—including Simplicius the Thinker—acknowledge that complicating factors prevent drawing any firm conclusion.
Not so with regard to the bombing of the ammonia pipeline near Kuyansk, in the direction of Kharkov (so, NE, roughly speaking). The Russians have been on the advance in this region and are credibly blaming the Ukrainians for this terrible event:
'A Real Horror Movie' - Ukraine Blow Ammonia Pipeline to Slow
Troops Kupyansk in the Kharkov region saw caustic ammonia vapours fill forests after Kiev military blew up a section of the Togliatti-Odessa pipeline.
Russian troops had been advancing in the area and analysts believe the pipe was blown to halt them. Oleg Sinegubov, Ukraine's head of the local emergency agency, said all is ok. Ammonia gas in such volumes can be fatal.
Will Schryver comments:
Will Schryver
@imetatronink
We have officially arrived at the scorched-earth stage of the defeat of the empire's #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine.
12:46 PM · Jun 7, 2023
The Ukrainians know that the local populations in these areas are largely pro-Russian, so they feel no compunction about committing war crimes against them.
Meanwhile, it looks like the Russians may retaliate. Continued strategic bombing is a given, but regular observers state that this could be an unprecedentedly large strike. We shall see:
All of Ukraine has been placed under an Air Raid Alert due to the launch of at least 7 MiG-31Ks which are capable of carrying Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” Hypersonic Missiles; I have never seen this many MiG-31Ks Airborne at once, this is Extremely Unusual and Worrying and indicates that a Mass Attack utilizing Kh-47s may be Imminent.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s kinda offensive—or maybe probing attacks—continues, with predictable results being reported. Over the past several days Russia has been reporting extremely heavy Ukrainian casualties. Big Serge comments:
Another poorly supported Ukrainian assault is being annihilated near Orikhiv. Again, maneuver elements get pushed forward into kill zones without even marginal fire support.
Kill ratios in these “probing” attacks are probably well north of 8-1. It’s just insanity.
Official Russian sources are calling these attacks a “huge failure”. Trollstoy, a pro-Russian commenter, writes:
AFU offensive on Zaporozhye front: Ukrainian tanks are on fire en masse near Orekhov. After combat reconnaissance and artillery preparation, the enemy led several armored groups along the route near the city of Orekhov towards Tokmak. Attacks in Rabotino and Belogorye areas.
Armored vehicles started exploding on mines and came under heavy artillery fire. 70 and 291 regiments welcomed them, the special forces and reconnaissance of the Southern Military District also releasing fire on the equipment with ATGMs.
The army aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces has entered the battle, combat helicopters are burning the armor of the AFU. The exact composition of the Ukrainian forces involved is still unknown.
We’ll leave it there and turn to China.
I came across some tweets that shed some interesting light on the provocative Anglosphere—mostly US, but also Canadian now—passages of warships through the Taiwan strait. I freely admit that I have no deep knowledge of international law, beyond being aware that international navigation is subject to complex agreements. I’ll begin with general talking points from the Chinese perspective. As usual, bear in mind that the US One China Policy recognizes that Taiwan is part of China. No significant government in the world recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign nation. So:
A US destroyer traveled 6,896 miles, all the way across the Pacific, the widest ocean in the world, to intimidate China in the latest act of gunboat diplomacy by Washington in waters around China. FYI: China was not intimidated.
HMCS Montreal Commander, Captain Paul Mountford believes that a Chinese Warship coming within 150 yards of hitting an American destroyer was ”clearly instigated by the Chinese.”
Why the hell is the United States Coast Guard [sic!] and the United States Navy traveling 6,896 miles across the Pacific Ocean just to pass through this narrow 81-mile wide strait? Are they lost?
I guess we all know that the ship in question may have sailed from Hawai’i or some Pacific base of the US Navy that’s closer to China than the mainlaind US. Still, I think the point made is legitimate, which another tweeter underlines:
ctto
Close encounters of the naval kind could easily be avoided if non-Chinese navies refrained from sailing their ships through the Taiwan straits. After all, China does not, to my knowledge, reciprocate by sailing into waters that the US regards as US territorial waters. I’ve never heard of China neighbors Japan or South Korea engaging in such provocative action. The US position—and presumably that of its poodle, Canada (who thinks Canada is acting on its own when it sends its warships across the Pacific—no Canadian bases outside Canada?)—is that the strait is international water and the US is defending the high principle of “freedom of navigation”. However, this is not exactly the case.
Again, I’m not an expert on international law, but there’s a clear, common sense difference between sailing on the high seas and sailing between two parts of the same country in a warship. China has repeatedly protested these acts, which it regards as an affront to its sovereignty—as well, of course, as its claim of sovereignty over Taiwan (recognized in principle by all international law). It happens that there is an international agreement that appears to cover the case:
Know Both Sides
@KnowBothSides
Everyone overlooks Article 38 of UNCLOS, which is specifically for the type of strait like the Taiwan Strait, where "transit passage shall not apply".
Here’s the Wikipedia description of the Taiwan Strait, which takes no side:
The Taiwan Strait is itself a subject of an international dispute over its political status. As the People's Republic of China claims to enjoy "sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the Taiwan Strait" and regards the waterway as "internal territorial waters" instead of being international waters, this means that the Chinese government denies any foreign vessel having the freedom of navigation to cross the strait without Chinese official consent. This position has drawn strong objections from the United States, Australia, France and Taiwan.
I suppose the argument could be made that the One China Policy doesn’t necessarily lead to application of this agreement, but that would, IMO, require a pretty technical and difficult argument. For practical purposes, and in the interests of international peace and comity, the easy solution is for the US to refrain from sailing warships through the straits. No other nation in the world feels it necessary to yank China’s chain in this way. Consider:
China doesn’t, to my knowledge, interfere with the passage of commercial shipping;
Transiting naval ships through the straits serves no real military purpose—in the event of war no sane military would attempt such a suicidal stunt.
So what’s the point, except to provoke China? Why would we want to do that?
Will Schryver offers a prediction in the regard:
Will Schryver
@imetatronink
I predict it will not be long now before the Chinese formally decree that transit through the Taiwan Straits will be "By Permission Only".
They have clearly signaled that they will no longer abide by the arbitrary edicts of the empire's "rules-based order".
8:00 PM · Jun 5, 2023
If the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same things over and over but expecting a different result, then this push toward China certainly fits.
Multiple U.S. administrations have committed virtually the same disastrous miscalculations - really starting with Vietnam. The same set of mistakes carry through Kosovo, Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine (Russia).
The U.S. has repeatedly* overestimated the effectiveness of their air power, underestimated the willingness of the targeted governments - and their populations - to fight for their homelands and have routinely demonized opposing political leaders making negotiated settlements more difficult if not impossible.
Their playbook is sadly predictable and tired yet still lethal.
Someone should ask Greta how she feeeelz about the ecological destruction of Ukraine. And then compare it to the use of fossil fuels, which has lately been proven to be almost a non-factor with regard to global climate. Does she love the planet or not? Curious to know.