Ukraine Crisis
The situation in Ukraine is becoming more dire by the minute. NATO is implying Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, whereas Russia denies this. Russia claims it will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, as this would effectively put a hostile military alliance - NATO - right at the borders of Russia.
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
Comments (18084)
Who knows. I assume at least securing a land bridge to Crimea and at least getting the parts of Donbas that are now "independent states". He cannot retreat now from assisting the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, that likely later will join the Russian Federation afterwards. And if Ukraine opts for peace and accepts that they are now Russia, that would be a victory for him. A Pyrrhic, quite meaningless victory, but still a victory.
The maps like the ones under here may hint at the objectives that Russia has or might have. These kind of maps showing a Novorossiya became popular after 2014:
Of course there are the Ukrainians here too. They might be not so "Finnish" and give large chunks of their territory just to preserve their independence. People consisting only a few million know they are quite expendable, replaceable and can be forgotten just like the Armenians. But when there are 44 million Ukrainians, that makes it different. Zelensky and Ukrainians in general can continue this war for a long, long time if they wish. And that's the really ugly part. Now the casualties are in the thousands, but the death count can easily be in the tens of thousands, and can climb to the hundreds of thousands. The worst thing is if this become the "Great Patriotic War II" for Ukaine. Or Russia. In a way this war is like a civil war between close Slavic people and has civil wars often are, can turn very bloody.
Quoting Benkei
They are smart and learn a lot from their parents. I haven't talked about the war with my daughter. But she came next to me and drew a heart with an Ukrainian flag. Her best friend has close family in Ukraine.
> You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table.
Because I don’t know how the negotiation demands will be specifically formulated by the Russians wrt to the alleged Ukrainian "neo-nazi problem". We are hypothetically reasoning based on the available evidences, and all I can say is that there is no neo-nazi political majority, nor a neo-nazi regime, besides anti-semitism is banned in Ukraine, the president and prime minister of Ukraine are jewish, and Ukrainian Jews reject Putin’s claims. On the other side Russia is also affected by neo-nazi and anti-semitic propaganda and activities (russian neo-nazi are also involved in military operations against Ukraine). If these are the premises, I don’t see how the “denazification” claims can play any relevant role on the negotiation table.
Putin probably wants to keep Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk, under Russian control and formulate his demands accordingly on a negotiation table. But all this can be formulated in a way that is perfectly understandable without being based on "neo-nazi" or "denazification" claims.
> You admit that the propaganda plays well in Russia, them claim that it's of no use in negotiations. If it plays well in Russia, then it's relevant to Putin's hold on power which makes it relevant negotiation position.
I don’t get your line of reasoning. The opinion of the Russian population is relevant to Putin for keeping his authoritarian power, not for Ukraine, EU or NATO. He needs excuses to justify the costs of his “special military operation” in Ukraine before the Russian population. And nobody is expecting Putin to put on the negation table whatever limits his authoritarian power in the interest of the Russian population. Besides Ukraine, EU or NATO are not primarily worried about freeing the Russian population from Putin’s authoritarian regime. But to free Ukraine from Russian invasion.
Always good to know as a parent that you can't have gone too far wrong when they come out with stuff like that.
Indeed. I'm disturbed by the crass jingoism I read here and in the media, I just can't get my head around people lamenting the tragedy or war in one breath and then actively pursuing it as their number one response with the next.
I think the ploemicising effect of social media has had some part to play in this. We see, even here, how anyone not sabre-rattling for 'the west' must be an apologist for Putin, like those are the only two possibilities. Politicians know this and so have to be seen to be aligning themselves clearly. Thus, petty social media tribalism ends up having tragic real world effects.
I think, potentially (in my most pessimistic moments) that it doesn't even matter if we do learn from our mistakes here. Politician's interests are better served adhering to social media tropes than listening to a range of experts. It's not as if they weren't warned about what was likely to happen as a result of their continued provocation (without, as you say, any intent to back it up). They were warned, but it played better to a polarized public to go all out anti-russia bluff and hope it never got called. Well...
Quoting Christoffer
And by what are you measuring 'understood'? It seems you're using it as simply synonymous with 'agrees with me'.
Quoting ssu
You've not taken into account the element I asked you to consider. I asked how it would affect Putin if he lost, but could blame that loss on NATO/US/Europe meddling.
Quoting ssu
This is a description, not an answer. Why does Putin need the humanitarian sounding rhetoric? Who does he need to convince of the morality of his actions and why does he have that need?
Guy, this is Putin's stated justification of the war.
A response at the negotiation table can be be "we don't believe it" or "here's proof there's no neo-Nazi's" or "it doesn't matter" or then "we also don't like Nazi's and would agree to policies that reduce their numbers and influence, however bit it is, after a peace is achieved."
Are you basically suggesting that if Russian diplomats bring up the Nazi justification that Ukrainian and / or Western diplomats just say nothing?
And therefore is our most powerful bargaining tool. It's that simple.
Russia wasn't broken up. The Soviet Union, the successor to the Russian Empire collapsed. Ukrainians aren't Russians, Lithuanians are not Russians, Estonians are not Russians, Kazakhs are not Russian, Uzbeks are not Russian and so on...
The Cold War wasn't won by anybody by the normal definition of winning and losing. There were no American tanks on the Red Square when the Soviet flag was hoisted down and the new Russian flag took it's place at the Kremlin. The Soviet union collapsed because the Soviet experiment utterly failed.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Would he? If he is surrounded by generals promising that Ukraine will fall in days, that Kiev will be conquered in hours, and that the armed forces that he has been uprgrading and improving since 2008 is totally ready, he might think the gamble is worth it. He might think that Ukraine will just improve it's defenses as time goes on, that the US is in dissarray with a weak President who just unceremoniously withdrew from Afghanistan when the Pro-US government had already collapsed.
Just think of the gambles he has done and been victorious. He annexed Crimea without a similar war like now starting. It was a brilliant campaign which gained strategic surprise. Then he went to Syria. It wasn't a quagmire. He could train his air force pilots there. Then he actively and openly influenced the American elections. Many could have said that this would be dangerous, that the American gorilla would become angry as hell and respond with severe sanctions. That didn't happen. The gamble paid off! He had agent Trumpov in the White House.
If you are a gambler, then you gamble. So why not start a massive invasion against a huge nation?
Quoting FreeEmotion
I don't think so.
First I think you should define just what Putin losing would mean.
Quoting Isaac
Why do leaders need this? Simply to portray to their own people that they are doing the right thing. Or in this case, all the other options have been used and they cannot do anything else than a "special military operation" against neo-nazis.
Why was the US invasion of Iraq called Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Iraqi Liberation? Why did George Bush link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11?
> Yes, the message about neo-Nazis is not a reference to antisemitism.
Well Putin expressly talked about antisemitism too in denouncing the Ukrainian government. But even if we ignore the accusations of antisemitism against the Ukrainian government, Putin is clearly misusing the expression "neo-nazi" and "denazification" [1] to justify his special military operation for his own personal and geopolitical ambitions. Concerning the neo-nazi problem, what we can more prudently claim is that this conflict involves anti-Russian Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (which include some Ukrainian neo-nazi militants) as well as anti-Ukrainian Russian ultra-nationalists (which include some Russian neo-nazi militants)
[1]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-calls-on-ukraines-jewish-president-to-halt-frenzy-of-neo-nazism/
I already addressed this:
Quoting neomac
> Guy, this is Putin's stated justification of the war.
To justify the costs of the war before the Russian population. But the Ukrainian Jews find this justification preposterous.
> A response at the negotiation table can be be "we don't believe it" or "here's proof there's no neo-Nazi's" or "it doesn't matter" or then "we also don't like Nazi's and would agree to policies that reduce their numbers and influence, however bit it is, after a peace is achieved."
I have reasons to doubt it: Putin probably wants to keep Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk, under Russian control and formulate his demands accordingly on a negotiation table. But all this can be formulated in a way that is perfectly understandable without being based on "neo-nazi" or "denazification" claims.
To which I would add: Concerning the neo-nazi problem, what we can more prudently claim is that this conflict involves anti-Russian Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (which include some Ukrainian neo-nazi militants) as well as anti-Ukrainian Russian ultra-nationalists (which include some Russian neo-nazi militants). In other words, whatever requests Putin makes about Ukrainian neo-nazi problem can be easily retorted to him (so he could not even claim of himself to be an anti-neo-nazi hero).
> Are you basically suggesting that if Russian diplomats bring up the Nazi justification that Ukrainian and / or Western diplomats just say nothing?
I guess they could say something like what I've just said.
I think (I'm not sure) they got one seat in the Parliament.
Yet as nearly in every Western country, radical elements can pose a threat, but when Ukraine is under such fierce attack from Russia, this hardly should be the most important issue about Ukraine. It is obvious that the military actions of Russia will understandably increase anti-Russian feelings, but everything should be put into the correct context. The exteme right always tries to act as it would represent the "true" patriots of any country, but this is as a whimsical ploy like the some radical group in the extreme left saying that they represent the workers.
Those that worry about the extreme right should note that Russia has been an active supporter of extreme right movements in Europe. Here it has been Russia that has supported the extreme right and hate groups. Which is a bit amusing given our history.
Yeah, sure, explain the position of Ukrainian Jews to Putin as a diplomatic response if you want.
Or then ignore anything Putin says as your negotiation strategy ... but then why go speak about anything if the plan is just to simply ignore the points of the counter-party?
Or go fight in Ukraine and defend it from Russian aggression.
People seem to be debating based on the premise that keeping social media momentum that any act of defiance no matter how irrelevant militarily speaking (such as just "defying" Putin on this philosophy forum), is going to save Ukrainian lives.
It won't. Russia can't just be cancelled due to social media momentum like some talking head who said the wrong thing on a podcast.
Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that.
Effective diplomacy can save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives, and arguably millions due to energy price increases and food shortages by actively making this war more disastrous than it is.
Maintaining a stale-mate by flooding in arms can force an adversary to the negotiation table.
But there is no stale mate, Russia couldn't take all of Ukraine in a week because it's so big ... but for the same reason there is no practical way for Ukrainians to defend all of Ukraine. As long as Russian army is steadily advancing, then it is winning and will simply continue to do so until it has "clearly won", and then will negotiate.
Russia certainly had a very soft invasion to start the war to give the Ukrainians the chance to accept the demands of being a neutral country. For the sake of "having the right to join NATO" which NATO isn't offering, those demands are refused and civilians armed to demonstrate a existential battle to the death and call Putin's bluff.
Well, Putin wasn't bluffing about invading Ukraine in the first place, and isn't bluffing about doing things the hard way (relentless heavy artillery bombardment that javelines and manpads can't do much about, only equally heavy counter battery and the logistics to continuously supply shells and fuel, which Ukraine doesn't have).
It's common sense. If NATO isn't actually letting Ukraine in the club (which, to be clear, they could have done anytime) then if you call Putin's bluff about invading, rather than conceding something you don't even have (being in NATO), you better be right or you've wrecked your country and traumatized every citizen and gotten many killed.
If you stage a media campaign of "existential resistance" and passing out riffles to civilians (who will have no effect in a modern battle field and Russia being "less modern" than the US doesn't change that, and get sent a flood of small arms like javelines and manpads from sympathetic countries), to call Putin's bluff about willingness to use tactics that are effective against small arms (big arms), then, again, you better be right about Putin's bluff otherwise your cities get leveled under relentless heavy artillery bombardment and your small arms tactics are of no use.
If the outcome of the war is the same, Russia wins, what was the point of calling Putin's bluffs, which obviously weren't bluffs? Just to prove that Putin was willing to "do what it takes"?
Ukrainian government has had a "Putin defiance, zero compromises" policy since 2014, and goaded on in the West ... and, sadly it seems, truly believed the West was a friend and not just egging them on. Seems to me real tears over the no-fly zone and real frustration with NATO for not actually helping (small arms are effective against US ... because US is unwilling to level cities to the ground and US, at least pretends, to be occupying places for the citizens own good; and, even then, small arms tactics don't actually push US front lines back or overrun US bases, just harasses US patrols until the will to continue occupying the territory, more importantly the strategic purpose, is reduced to zero and then the American's leave ... and even then takes decades of small arms tactics to get to that result).
Yes, Russia does not have as many smart munitions ... but you don't need smart munitions if sending tens of thousands of incredibly cheap shells to obliterate the entire enemy position from tens of kilometres away, gets the job done.
Effective resistance can, in some cases, encourage a settlement on better terms.
Ineffective resistance is A. ineffective and B. likely just angers the counter-party more inviting harsher tactics and worse terms of a negotiated settlement.
And pretty much every military analysist interviewed on TV says the same things (including the former director of the CIA): Ukrainians are fighting so bravely, we got to support them with arms, punish Russia with sanctions so "they learn", blah, blah, blah, but obviously Russia is going to win and Ukraine can't do anything to change that outcome. Why the small arms then? Just virtue signaling that "we tried ... but not really cause you totally not welcome in our little NATO club"?
Sending someone to die should at least serve some strategic purpose, not simply play well on TikToc.
It's relevant because that's Putin's stated justification for the war.
There are lot's more issues we could discuss. There are two sides of a discussion, if people against "discussing neo-Nazi's in Ukraine" followed that principle and didn't discuss it, then the points would be noted (obviously Putin's saying it's the justification, etc.) and the conversation would then move on.
The conversation stays on this point because people insist on trying to prove it shouldn't be discussed!
But I agree that it's not the most relevant issue, nor the most important justification for the war: which is Ukraine not joining NATO (which Putin also talks about and demands). The neo-Nazi's, from my point of view, is more an example of how simply ignoring legitimate grievances, painting Putin as "a monster tyrant" (which we both agree is a caricature), backfires diplomatically. So, it's relevant as one of Putin's stated justifications, but also an opportunity to introspect about the EU's diplomatic process on Ukraine since 2014.
> Or then ignore anything Putin says as your negotiation strategy ... but then why go speak about anything if the plan is just to simply ignore the points of the counter-party?
On a negotiation table Putin can ask whatever he wants, the point is that a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him.
> People seem to be debating based on the premise that keeping social media momentum that any act of defiance no matter how irrelevant militarily speaking (such as just "defying" Putin on this philosophy forum), is going to save Ukrainian lives.
I’m here to debate about reasons to believe or act as a form of personal entertainment.
This is a worthy comment. Russia has gained ground, even if slowly. It's all too early to say that Russia has failed. What only can be said that they've had some troubles at the start. When Ukrainians are dominating the discourse in the West (a job well done), it doesn't give a clear view on what is happening. There still is a fog of war, which should be obvious to everyone.
Quoting boethius
True, but we aren't discussing the portrayed genocide that Ukrainian government according to Putin was doing in the Donbas. No evidence of that has been even given (or fabricated) from the Russian side I think. We did have the OSCE monitoring the line dividing the two sides. There's a long logbook at the shellings that have happened. When you look at earlier footage from Donetsk and Luhansk, life was going on fairly normally.
Quoting boethius
If you insist.
I mean withdrawing his troops prior to meeting his objectives (whatever they are). I mean the thing we're trying to get done - an end to the war.
Quoting ssu
I wasn't asking about my understanding of the reasons (I already know them), I'm asking about yours. It's like wading through treacle talking to you, why can't you just answer the questions? Discuss the meta-questions later by all means, but at least open with a simple answer. What do you think the reason is why Putin needs a humanitarian-sounding gloss over his invasion?
I don't see how that addresses the issue at all. The point is that if Putin needs the humanitarian gloss to cover his invasion (which he evidently does) then threatening to remove that can be useful negotiation tactic. Saying "there's nothing to see here", when there's categorical evidence is not a sensible tactic. Sweeping the rug out from under him by promising to jointly investigate the problem at least has a chance of undermining some of his support in Russia if he refuses.
The point I'm making here (to @ssu as well), is that losing the war because NATO intervened doesn't harm Putin's grasp on power much. He's made a living out of playing the role of 'thorn in NATO's side', he's already played up NATO meddling as being responsible for the rise of the far-right, so I doubt he's much bothered for (eventually) losing in that way. Thus military aid is just going to worsen the situation.
How's it going to look to the average Russian if Putin says "I'm sending the military in to sort out this far-right problem that NATO have aided and abetted for too long" and we respond by saying "there's no such problem here, nothing to see, now move along or we'll bomb the shit out of you". How exactly do you see that undermining Putin's propaganda? Because to me we couldn't have done better if Putin had written the script himself.
We're literally playing the exact role of global bully ignoring the far-right to favour our economic interests, the very role Putin wants us to play for his propaganda machine.
What Putin might just be affected by is a loss of support in Russia. That he cares about (obviously so - otherwise he would have just said "I'm invading Ukraine and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off").
So the question for the negotiation strategy is - how can we threaten to reduce his support in Russia.
To answer that, we need to know how that support is maintained and what is its weakest link. Putin's own justifications are our best guide - why does he need an humanitarian gloss? Obviously he feels that there's a potential chink in his armour, a weak link in his support who might be turned off a simple war of aggression. So that's where we stick the knife in.
You might want to argue that the way we do that is to claim there's no neo-Nazi problem, but there clearly is (there's a neo-Nazi problem in many countries, Ukraine's no exception), and this plays straight into his narrative because we're seen as ignoring it, which is exactly why he's got to invade.
So a much smarter move is to agree, to posit some kind of joint exercise, to ask to share intelligence. Then if Putin refuses, that weak point, those few he though he needed the humanitarian gloss to keep on side, might well withhold their support.
I suppose China might rescue Russia, by purchasing it from Putin, they might have enough money. That's assuming Putin hasn't already sold out to the devil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he25Rl0fE1c
Demands are now for the territory they already held before the war started and a pledge not to join NATO, clearly not the original war aims, i.e. a change in government and Russian defacto control of the country.
Essentially looking for the status quo antebellum, with some (likely fairly useless) treaty assurances.
Sorry, but almost everything about this analysis is wrong. The coverage of resistance efforts by regular civilians plays an obvious military role. It is providing civilians and reservists with the small arms that they would need to conduct an insurgency against a Russian occupation.
Given resistance to date, Russia would almost certainly need a long term occupation of the country to prop up whatever puppet regime they leave in Kyiv.
The point of those videos and efforts is to signal to Russia both the likelihood of an insurgency and the Ukrainian will and ability to conduct such resistance. Because COIN operations require a high volume of troops (Russia would need to deploy about 2.6 million to match comperable levels to South Vietnam/the US when adjusting for population), Russia cannot afford to fund them. Russia has just 3.45 million men aged 20-24 total. It's economy cannot support that sort of deployment, nor would public opinion. It's air force has proven utterly incapable of complex operations, making reliance on large ground forces even more important.
Obviously Ukrainian resistance could easily fail to hit the high bar of Vietnamese communist commitment. The low birth rates and older population in Ukraine mean that, relative to population, you will probably get fewer resistors. However, even if only 3% of the population resists actively, you're looking at a 1.2 million strong insurgency. Russia will need far more than 190,000 troops to secure the country, especially if it's initial invasion suffers 10-25,000 long term casualties before the initial fighting is over, something that seems not outside the realm of possibility since the conflict will likely go on for weeks.
So, simply put, this is all about showing Russia that winning the initial conflict would still entail costs they cannot afford to pay.
> I don't see how that addresses the issue at all. The point is that if Putin needs the humanitarian gloss to cover his invasion (which he evidently does) then threatening to remove that can be useful negotiation tactic. Saying "there's nothing to see here", when there's categorical evidence is not a sensible tactic. Sweeping the rug out from under him by promising to jointly investigate the problem at least has a chance of undermining some of his support in Russia if he refuses.
I do not know how far Putin can go to support his own propaganda and censorship measures, but as we can see he can go very very very far. So I seriously doubt that even making such kind of concessions is helpful. Besides Putin is already having problems in terms of consensus despite his nasty propaganda. Therefore he will not concede anything more that will compromise his narrative for sure.
It is more reasonable to find some agreements on the status of lands (i.e. Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk) that he can always claim to have “liberated” from the neo-nazi oppressor, independently from an international acknowledgement of his propaganda. (Indeed this is what Putin is clearly looking for: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/)
> He's made a living out of playing the role of 'thorn in NATO's side', he's already played up NATO meddling as being responsible for the rise of the far-right.
This can be easily retorted. Since far-right political movements have been financially supported by Russia in the west, and they are at home in Russia. Indeed Putin himself is clearly a far-right leader.
> How exactly do you see that undermining Putin's propaganda?
For sure not by making concessions to Putin’s propaganda. Besides, concerning the Russian propaganda in their home country we can’t do much as we can’t do much about the propaganda in China or North Korea, especially in war times.
Exactly.
Putin says "The west are bullies who ignore the rise of the far-right because it suits them"
You think that not making concessions to his propaganda is - ignoring the rise of the far-right and bullying people into not mentioning it.
You'll really have to explain that.
[sub]Ukraine: what anti-war protesters in Russia risk by speaking out (Mar 1, 2022)
Russian police jail kids who took flowers and 'No to War' signs to Ukraine's embassy (Mar 2, 2022)
Human rights group: "serious crackdown" in Russia (Mar 2, 2022)
Putin's War At Home: Russian Government Pushes Hard To Enforce Total Unanimity On Ukraine War (Mar 3, 2022)
[/sub]
[sub]Quoting Joint Letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Russia (Mar 4, 2022)
[/sub]
[sub]Russia Criminalizes Independent War Reporting, Anti-War Protests (Mar 7, 2022)
[/sub]
Remove others until only the Kool-Aid is left.
> Putin says "The west are bullies who ignore the rise of the far-right because it suits them"
> You think that not making concessions to his propaganda is - ignoring the rise of the far-right and bullying people into not mentioning it.
On the negotiation table there is no Russian population nor Ukrainian population nor NATO population nor EU population, nor me nor you. On that occasion Putin can make all the demands he wants the way he wants and then sell it to the Russian population the way he wants. He can say exactly what you just wrote, word by word, as if he was your ghost writer. But he will probably and hopefully fail for the reasons I've already explained: a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him. And indeed this is not what he asked so you do no need to overthink about it any more: https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/
> You'll really have to explain that.
Sure, here you go: a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification by Ukraine, EU and/or NATO may be totally irrelevant for his own real goals, especially if we consider how easily such a demand could be easily dismissed or retorted against him.
But this makes no sense. Then why the Kool-Aid?
If you're positing an authority with unfettered powers to simply remove those who oppose them, they why bother with the Kool-Aid at all? Why not just say "we're in charge because we want to be and anyone who doesn't like it will get shot".
They need the Kool-Aid precisely because their ability to just shoot dissenters is limited.
No-one's talking about a public acknowledgement of the neo-nazi justification, so I really can't see how this is relevant.
Then what are you talking about?
Air drops require Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), otherwise they are suicidal. SAMs need to be down, along with enemy radar systems, and C3 (command, control, and comms). With an air drop, you're putting a small, vulnerable force behind enemy lines to help create breakthroughs.
Obviously the amount of soldiers you can drop by aircraft is not going to be far smaller than a ground push. The goal of these operations is to place your forces behind enemy defenses in such a way that follow up ground forces will be able to break through because your paratroopers can flank and encircle defenders.
Rotary wing aircraft delivering troops are extremely vulnerable during insertions. That's why you need SEAD. You have aircraft packed with men that need to land or get to low altitudes for insertion, and loiter there in the case of rotary wing insertions. During this time, they are very vulnerable, and a downed aircraft will result in a large number of fatalities.
What you're seeing with videos of the VDV is suicide rushes into areas with operational AA, swarming with MANPADs, and aircraft getting knocked out of the sky. Maybe this made sense on Day One, when you think the defenses might route, but they keep doing it.
You need C3 out because your airborne forces tend to use employ lighter, less well armored vehicles (the BMD-4s employed by the VDV in Ukraine raids being an obvious example, based on the video of the KIA inside the vehicle, it almost looks like the .50 BMG used in US HMGs can pierce the armor, making it a death trap, you absolutely cannot attack with an IFV that lets heavy machine gun rounds through), so you need the element of surprise. Inserting troops into an urban area your guys don't know, but the opposing force does, while the enemy has early warning radar up and knows exactly where you are inserting, is obviously going to be a major issue. The enemy can concentrate combat power around your effectively cut off forces.
These problems can be overcome with close air support and a follow up push by mechanized forces, but we haven't seen that. We've seen drops to secure airfields, followed by those forces being pushed off the objective, often in routed, because they aren't supported. No close air support, no reinforcements pushing at the same time.
Or, because the VDV tends to have more training and better morale, they are pushing in on land, without close air support, in their paper machete IFVs, which are getting absolutely chewed up.
So, you had the nighttime drop on Kharkiv and push by vaunted SOF elements, which was over by the morning with the main result being a morale blow in the form videos of burnt out Russian vehicles all over the streets and dead soldiers in SOF uniforms everywhere, since, unsupported, they ran right into ambushes.
It's tactics that are sure to result in high casualties and highly unlikely to secure lasting gains.
Ah yes, the point of handing out arms to non-uniformed civilians on live television and making them legitimate military targets and undermining the rules of war we want to accuse the Russian's about ... is so that they can wage an insurgency after the occupation.
If you want to create an insurgency, then you want to create the networks and arms smuggling routes into the country.
You think the average Ukrainian caught up in the patriotic "stand" is going to go around randomly killing Russian soldiers in an occupation with a riffle they barely know how to use ... and may not even have bullets for?
I don't think so, they'll go back to their lives (assuming they're still alive).
On-top of that, Russia may not even occupy Ukraine to begin with, and they've given no indication they even intend to.
Once they've decimated the Ukrainian military (blown up those billions of USD of arms the US has given Ukraine since 2014) and gotten the concessions they want (such as keeping their land bridge to Crimea, any province that "wants to" separate can do so--whether that's actually true or just the regions Russia expects no insurgency and can take without hassle, doesn't matter), and, most importantly, Ukraine finally surrenders on the condition of never joining NATO ... there's zero reason to believe Russia wouldn't simply go back to it's borders (it's new borders).
EU would be left with the legacy problems of cleaning up, and Russia will make clear it will just invade again if it's conditions aren't met.
So, what actual evidence is there that giving small arms to civilians who, we both seem to agree, have zero relevance in modern conventional warfare currently happening (at least by the Russians on the Ukrainians), accomplishes something other than getting those and many other civilians killed?
The duty of a soldier in the modern rules of war is to protect civilians, which does include surrender when further fighting is not justifiable ... soldiers and leaders handing out small arms to civilians to protect themselves (i.e. protect those soldiers and leaders handing out the small arms from the enemy with civilian lives ... somehow, not really clear, I guess a play for a no-fly zone) is reversing on its head literally a thousand years of diplomatic efforts to render warfare less destructive than it needs to be.
At least call it conscription with some formal process to become an identifiable combatant followed by at least some training. Handing small arms to civilians (literally calling it "handing out weapons to civilians") was a media play to garner sympathy in the West, dramatically showing the average Ukrainians "will to fight and defend their country", not a credible military strategy nor responsible or even legal under the current rules of war the West is criticizing Putin about.
Decisions to kill or not are made primarily on the basis of whether people are carrying a rifle or not (which, civilians easily get killed by those decisions anyways as the evidence bar isn't so high).
Handing out small arms to civilians and having them wander around to "insurgency" later will just get them killed. From a professional military perspective, it's outrageous.
Pray tell, what areas are those? Their best chance for hearts and minds in a major city was Kharkiv, which is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians and right across the border. They stalled there, didn't have the forces to take the city because of their ridiculous number of lines of attack, and resorted to shelling residential neighborhoods for hours on end in what looks like exactly the sort of punitive siege tactics that produce insurgencies.
If protestors drive out the new Russian backed countries Russia will just invade again? Another surprise offensive war to liberate their neighbor as their economy implodes? Yeah, that'll go over well. It's not like invasions are expensive or anything.
Armed civilians are useless? What do you think the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan were? Yeah, they'd be hopelessly outgunned against an OPFOR with air superiority, close air support for almost all engagements, rapid response teams for ambushes, e.g., the US in Iraq, and take massively disproportionate casualties, but against low morale conscripts who are running out of fuel, abandoning $13 million AA systems, and advancing without comms or support? The NATO MANPADs seem plenty effective, as do the NLAWs and Javelins, so improvised infantry seem like they could keep inflicting high costs on Russian forces, especially as they are forced to draw on more reserves and conscripts and morale falls even more.
I think there is a tendency on the pro-NATO side to argue either (a) that there are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine or (b) that the threat they pose is insufficient to justify war.
However, this deliberately ignores the wider point Putin is making, namely that the invasion or “special military operation” is a response to NATO expansionism and aggression:
Obviously, it isn’t necessary to attack Kiev in the west in order to protect the Russian minorities on two small patches of land in the east.
In contrast, if Ukraine is seen as a historical part of Russia and, especially, if it plans to join NATO against Russia, it makes sense for Russia to invade Ukraine and either reincorporate it into the Russian Federation, or install a Russian-friendly regime in Kiev.
In any case, we mustn’t forget that NATO itself has used “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” and similar claims as a justification for war, as in the 1999 bombing of Serbia. So, I think it is crucial to decide whether we want this thread to be an objective and fact-based discussion or a counterfactual exercise in pro-NATO propaganda.
It doesn’t make sense to focus exclusively on Russia when Russia is not the only actor in this conflict. Let’s not forget that NATO is participating in this conflict by arming, training, and providing intelligence to the Ukrainians, and disseminating propaganda for them. Apparently, some neighboring NATO countries are even giving safe haven to Ukrainian military aircraft. NATO was supposed to be a “defensive” alliance. So, how is it still “defensive” if it gets involved in conflicts between non-NATO countries?
IMO, for a more balanced analysis, we need to take all factors into consideration, even when they expose inconvenient truths. For example, Zelensky has been hailed as a “hero”, even though pictures of him visiting troops on the frontline have turned out to be from 2021. But could he be an oligarch puppet as some have suggested? After all, this accusation did not come from Moscow, but from Ukrainians like Petro Poroshenko, incumbent president of Ukraine and himself an oligarch and in a position to know much more about Zelensky than we do.
In order to get to the bottom of it, we need to start from the beginning, i.e., from 1991 when Ukraine became independent from Russia.
What is imperative to understand is that from inception Ukraine was ruled by oligarchs – “businessmen”, speculators, and criminal elements – that transformed the state-controlled, planned economy into oligarch capitalism by taking over state assets during the early privatization program that was implemented in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet system, on the advice of Western "experts".
The Orange Revolution of 2004 and the Maidan Revolution of 2014 aimed to bring about economic and political changes in a society controlled by oligarchs.
Instead, they brought to power oligarchs like Poroshenko who had amassed a fortune by taking over state-owned enterprises in the 1990’s.
For example, the top presidential candidates in the 2014 elections were Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, both of them oligarchs. Poroshenko was elected president. He created the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine to eradicate corruption but the head of the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office coached suspects on how to avoid corruption charges! Obviously, no one ever got charged with any serious corruption crimes.
Zelensky was elected president in 2019 on the promise to rid the country of corruption and of oligarchs. In 1921, he passed a new law intended to restrict oligarchs’ influence on politics and economy. And yet, as I demonstrated in an earlier post (here, page 64), his own party has close links to the same oligarchs who have controlled Ukraine from the start. Indeed, critics have claimed that the new restrictions were really meant to target his political opponents:
What about the charge that Zelensky is a “puppet of Kolomoyskyi”? In addition to his and his party’s links to oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Zelensky appointed Kolomoyskyi’s lawyer Andriy Bohdan as head of the presidential administration. He appointed the media and production mogul Andriy Yermak, who had assisted him in his presidential campaign, as presidential aide for foreign policy issues. He appointed a number of operatives of Kvartal 95, his production company, to government posts including the head of the national security service, etc., etc. ....
I think everyone agrees that targeting unarmed civilians is wrong. But this doesn’t mean that we should white-wash Zelensky and cover up his links to pro-Western oligarchs and US interests.
Meantime, the war propaganda and fake news go on:
TikTok Is Gripped by the Violence and Misinformation of Ukraine War – New York Times
Obviously Crimea and the separatist regions they already occupy. You may also overestimate the willingness of normal people to throw away their lives once the war is over and it's entirely possible to continue their lives normally, whether in the Ukraine whatever that ends up being, or now Russian occupied Ukrainian territory, or then in the EU somewhere.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
As I stated in one of my first comments in this thread, I believe the strategy is to cut through Ethnic Ukrainian territory to the west of the Dnieper river thus cutting off all supplies East of there and making it a matter of time for forces there to surrender or run out of bullets.
They aren't "bringing down the hammer" in ethnic Russian regions precisely for the "hearts and minds" purposes, they are punishing Ethnic Ukrainians.
Now, the exception to this general pattern is shelling Mariupol to the ground, but this I think is not simply it's strategic significance but Azov brigade is based there so collective punishment for that and fits into the narrative of "de-Nazification".
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This war was expensive because Russia was not "poised to invade" any moment. Russia needed 8 years to minimally sanctions proof itself (Russia certainly found all those sanctions threats the West constantly talked about credible as far as I can see) and to ramp up economic ties with China.
However, if Ukrainian army is decimated and Russia makes it clear it will simply invade if there's any buildup of any kind, any arms shipments from the West at all for instance (Ukraine can build it's own weapons for basic military needs), then the next invasion would be far cheaper ... and must less land to cover.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Mujahideen were not civilians.
Yes, I'm aware the situation has moved on, but the principle is still the same. whether it's the far-right, the independence of Donbas, or the activities of NATO, we get absolutely nowhere by just saying "you're wrong" and then suppressing all discussion of it, that just makes him sound right (to his population). Most of the propaganda has a grain of truth somewhere, denying that fans the flames of such propaganda, it doesn't quash it.
Quoting neomac
Christ Almighty! If you've still no idea I think it best we call it quits there. There's only so much reiteration one can sensibly assume might clarify.
I definitely agree.
I bring up the "how many is too many" as it's honestly seems to me a complicated moral and political question to answer. Are we actually comfortable with a country tolerating and supporting 1 Azov brigade? Is it "Nazi enough" etc. If it's allowable, where do we draw the line?
Not something I think we can settle now, but maybe a good debate after the war. It's relevance in the current situation is that given the difficulty in addressing this basic question, maybe some credible response (such as has already outlined a basic policy about, which seems fine) is a good diplomatic move, and also maybe (regardless of what the West thinks) Russians largely back the war and sanctions may punish them for it ... but not save a single Ukrainian life.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, this is definitely the main reason for the War, the neo-Nazi's being either a pretext (if they don't exist) or then just additionally provoking Russia and giving it excellent justifications to its population (who may not follow geopolitics as closely as we do here) to react to their longer term security concern.
Quoting Apollodorus
Definitely the more the West is hypocritical the less it's able to corral the various pseudo-liberals countries around. Ignoring something in Western media doesn't mean it's ignored elsewhere, and, for example, India media pointing out Western hypocrisy is going to significantly lesson any public concern about these Ukrainians.
In brief, completely agree with your analysis on these various points.
Quoting Apollodorus
Definitely over simplifications in Western media ... which Western politicians now seem to simply take at face value (there's even a bizarre reversal sometimes where even the mainest of the main stream journalists are like "isn't it more nuanced than that" and politicians respond basically "nope, just that simple and clear cut").
Most Europeans and Americans knew nothing about Ukraine literally 2 weeks ago, and suddenly take at face value the "consensus" that has emerged on social media.
The deaths and trauma and increase in energy and food prices globally is true historic tragedy.
But ... if we're not actually going to follow through the virtue signaling by attacking Russia (which ... isn't that the appeasement argument: we should have attacked Hitler sooner?) then the only other option is through diplomacy which requires understanding the other perspective and striking the best bargain.
People seem to genuinely believe that sacrificing Ukrainian lives without any military justification (just ... "maybe" they'll insurgency later), is, sure is maybe not justifiable, but it is justifiable to preserve our virtue signalling on social media and personal sense of righteousness from our keyboard in our living rooms thousands of miles away.
That's the way out. Did Russian forces really lose 5-10 thousand troops or was that bullshit?
My point is simply that a population, Russian or otherwise, do not believe their government en masse. This could even be a form of rebellion, or protest. Skepticism is an international thing. However, if sufficient numbers of people believe it, it could make a difference, for example, to get one additional vote. The benefit of the doubt is given and it tips the scales.
Do we understand each other here? I think we do.
I am not too worried about the existence of Neo- Nazis or racists, but the integrity and wisdom of politicians to handle them correctly.
They have mobile cremations. Scary shit that we may never know the extent of.
It reminds me of another lyric, and I can't help thinking of the innocent child who becomes a cold hearted imperialist.
There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine.
Unless Ukraine has some way to "win", then Russia will simply implement these conditions by force.
Maybe it's too expensive to send the bodies back? One thing Putin said that I sort of believe is that this was an exercise to give his military some real combat experience. Or at least that's what he seemed to be suggesting.
That's not the basis of his power. Russians aren't afraid of NATO.
The grain of truth is what I said [1]. And there is no need to fabricate any other narrative around this. Additionally, Putin wants guarantees that Russia will keep control over lands like Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk, without fearing any future demands or revenges by a Ukrainian (ultra-)nationalist government. So far all the parties involved can get it. But this has nothing to do with the label "Neo-nazi problem": Ukrainian does not need to be neo-nazi to re-claim control over Crimea, Donetsk, and Lougansk as much as the Spanish government does not need to be neo-nazi just to fight against the Catalunian separatist movement; and EU is not a neo-nazi government just because it fights against the far-right and far-left populist propaganda; and Trump is not a neo-nazi even if he flirts with neo-nazi right?
What I found dubious in your claims is that you were talking about joint investigations about the "neo-nazi problem" [2]. And this can not be since the label "neo-nazi problem" is evidently designed to support Russian propaganda to justify their expansionism and/or preventive war. We could label the same issue in many other ways: like the "anti-Russian nationalist problem" or the "Ukrainian far-right problem" or the "Russian minority oppression problem" or the "Russian separatism problem" or the "Russian expansionism problem" or the "'Ukraine belongs to Russia' problem". But probably the label "neo-nazi problem" sounds much better for the Russian propaganda inside and outside their country. So no, we shouldn't fall for this label.
[1]
Concerning the neo-nazi problem, what we can more prudently claim is that this conflict involves anti-Russian Ukrainian ultra-nationalists (which include some Ukrainian neo-nazi militants) as well as anti-Ukrainian Russian ultra-nationalists (which include some Russian neo-nazi militants).
[2]
Quoting Isaac
All the combat experience gained by his military dies inside of the body, so it seems a little short sighted, no?
True
Imagine losing (maybe just temporarily) a $30 million war ship, likely carrying a $14 million helicopter to some 1960s artillery. Someone is in trouble.
I doubt the assault on Odessa goes well, that's when the Ukrainians will pull out the Neptunes. If the Russian air force is still MIA it seems like a disaster waiting to happen. They have around 72 R-360s, possibly more now. Enough to send the Black Sea fleet to the bottom of the ocean if they're able to get them off efficiently.
Sometimes things are so stupid they have to work I suppose.
A grain of sand does not make a beach, so a grain in itself is irrelevant when defining a whole beach.
A grain of truth is also one of the most important parts of making the propaganda machine work. Build the lie on a small truth and you will make those who seek the truth have to work harder to prove that truth. And it's with small sentences like "...has a grain of truth somewhere" that propaganda thrives on.
Probably why Russia wants to end the conflict by telling them to give parts of Ukraine to Russia and lay down arms. Problem is that what's gonna happen to the people who don't want to live in Russia, are they gonna relocate to other places in Ukraine? The demands are a sham, a way to win something out of this. Russia has no rights to anything, they should just leave and go back home. Especially since Russia will have a hard time coming back from any of this, they need to rebuild things back home and just leave Ukraine alone. We're also now waiting for some word from the Hague court and there's not much telling any other narrative there than that Russia is conducting serious war crimes, which might lead to repercussions even if the war ends.
It's genuine, Peskov is Putin's man. Of course Peskov has thrown earlier wild pitches at opponents: for example he purposed to Trump "as a show of friendship" that the US would withdraw all of it's troops from the Baltics and Poland. Trump didn't even respond to the gesture.
But at least it's a start, at least.
Russia already had those areas and seems to understand that occupying larger parts of Ukraine isn't a good plan. Is this a long term salami-tactic chipping away parts of Ukraine every some years or so?
Ukraine sees what it is bargaining here for. And Ukraine can later always come to this proposal.
What makes you think that?
Putin has been saying for a long time that Ukraine cannot join/apply for NATO without serious kickback from Russia. He has been pretty consistent.
Control? Just the "crafted Kremlin line" and no others?
Quoting Isaac
Not necessarily shoot. But (authoritarian) oppression, yep. Remove the rest.
Alternatively, they need the Kool-Aid and just that, because they have no thought-control.
? or do "They"? (play theme from The Twilight Zone) ?
Quoting boethius
Better late than never I guess?
Did sanctions have an effect of sorts? Ukrainians cause difficulties?
Anyway, seems the Nazi story fell out of favor.
Perhaps when your propaganda start from "we have no intention to attack" you have to wait few days to start rallying your people for the "special military operation". Because the absence of any shown support for the mission seemed strange.
Because it nurtures the lie that muddies the waters of what is propaganda and what is not. Maybe not among people in here, but media and lots of people who never talk philosophy or politics etc. keep mentioning the grain of truth as if it validates anything of what Putin is doing.
But it's still not "we're leaving", it's "we're leaving, so long you put down your weapons first, and then we'll do it", except we'll keep some parts of Ukraine. It's arrogant to say the least, like a child who's crying over losing and wants to have a little cookie at least.
It's interesting that the "War Lord" Vladimir Zhoga, who was recently killed, was a neo-nazi criminal and that this is was supposed to be the elite who Putin sent in to "denazify" Ukraine. Now, Ukraine denazified part of the Russian army by killing him. Oh the irony :ok: :clap:
Isn't the threat of being shot control enough?
What makes you think that?
Quoting Christoffer
Do you have any examples?
It's Reuters and they're reporting as Moscow's offer.
What I mean is that there's no reason to assume if the offer was taken, that Moscow would continue military operations and not withdraw as stated.
No one now believes Ukraine will ever join Nato, nor ever get Crimea back, nor get the breakaway provinces back.
Yet, the West has been telling, and is telling Ukraine to refuse to formally accept the obvious reality.
The usual logic of refusing to accept concessions of this kind is that maybe they ask more concessions later, and then more, and more and more, and you're forced to fight at some point anyways, but have now given concessions for no reason ... but that logic doesn't hold if the fight is happening.
I honestly don't get the logic, other than use Ukrainians as cannon fodder to setup the new cold war and all the arms sales that goes with that
Quoting ssu
There's been a lot of fighting and ethnic Russians dying in Donbas since 2014 (regions no one doubts wants to break with Ukraine) and likewise language and cultural suppression of ethnic Russians generally speaking. Certainly not the level of a "genocide," but, again, if you're tolerating neo-Nazi's who are extreme anti-Russian fanatics it's an easy sell to say they have genocidal intentions to remove ethnic Russians from Ukraine (which they say they do) and the policies and things like Azov brigade are the start to that genocidal plan, which left unchecked, would be appeasement, and may not be easy to stop later etc.
Quoting jorndoe
This has more-or-less been the offer the whole time, before the war too it seemed clear to all analysts there was an agreement that Ukraine was neutral and accepting the separation of break away regions, then there would not be a war.
If Putin makes this very, very, very good offer (accept not having what one already doesn't have and can never get: NATO membership, Crimea, Donbas), and Ukraine refuses, then it's again playing into Putin's hand to sell the war to the home audience as well as other non-aligned states.
Putin can go to the Indians and when they bring up the war, he can say "hey, I made a pretty good offer, it was refused; people can't be simply unreasonable in these issues".
It definitely succeeds in flipping the moral burden and lowers the cost of continuing the war, if Ukraine refuses the deal.
Now, if Ukraine accepts the deal and Putin continues the war anyways ... well, situation hasn't changed but it's a far harder sell both to the home audience as well as other states Putin will need to deal with to re-orient Russia's economy away from the West.
If Ukraine accepts the deal and it's implemented as stated, then we'll see if international opinion views that as Russia being "defeated" by Ukrainian resistance or just stopping a war started to achieve certain reasonable objectives and then stopping the war when those reasonable objectives were achieved.
The so called "ludicrous" demand that NATO pull back it's advanced forces to around Germany ... is honestly not that ludicrous. It's NATO that insisted those advanced forces weren't to target Russia, but the stated reason for missile bases in places like Poland was to strike the middle east if I remember correctly.
As for neo-Nazi's, Azov brigade is surrounded in Mariupol and will certainly be dealt with and their entire city already collectively punished, and, more importantly if there is an end to the war, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi or "ultra nationalist" delusion that war with Russia is actually a good thing may fall out of favour and Ukrainians maybe less sympathetic to having them proudly walk around with their Nazi inspired insignia.
Putin can easily say he's dealt with the neo-Nazi problem himself by killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of "ultra nationalists" on the battle field.
Furthermore, a peace deal would certainly have a whole bunch more details than the main points, and would certainly include Russia arresting any neo-Nazi's on the territories it is currently occupying, and would then have some trials for the home audience (call them show trials if you want).
According to the New York Times:
Now 17 000 anti-tank weapons is huge amount. That it has been sent in less than a week is noteworthy: basically it means that this has been pre-planned in anticipation of a war erupting in Ukraine. Seems that NATO is really hurling everything and the kitchen sink against the Russia forces. And you can notice this, in a rare news clip showing the evacuation of civilians near Kyiv (of course) two Ukrainian soldiers briefly were in the picture. The other had and NLAW while the other one two older and lighter LAW anti-tank weapons. This can obviously change the tactics of Russia to use more indirect fire and cautiously try to advance rather than try to make dashes toward the objectives.
Also, more days go without Kyiv being surrounded and Zelensky alive means that also the Ukrainian position on the negotiations improves.
The US already gave Ukraine some 3 billion USD of weapons since 2014 ( / loaned them the money to buy them). That so far hasn't stopped the Russians.
From what I see in terms of militarily strategy--whereas the Russian build out of their logistics on 3 fronts does take time and has met some losses and setbacks--the Ukrainians logistics I don't think are going great.
Russia's strategy is to simply avoid urban combat (where these javelines would be most effective), surround cities.
If their south forces meet their North forces by simply going around urban areas and shelling to oblivion any ad hoc enemy positions along the way, then Russia can just setup a conventional defensive line North-South across the whole of Ukraine.
These anti-tank weapons have very limited use against a conventional defensive line (aka. trenches and other fortified positions supported by artillery) in flat open country.
Everyone is saying "urban combat, urban combat" ... but if Russian forces just avoid urban combat and cut the country in half it is effectively laying siege to not only Kiev but the entire East of the country.
Combat in the East after that point is simply a matter of time before ammo runs out, and mayors and commanders can only ask people to starve only so long.
In the West, assaulting a conventional battle line would require heavy artillery and tanks, anti-tank weapons would be relatively meaningless.
Notably, the only city the Russian's have so far actually done urban combat and occupied is the only city required to carry out the above plan: Kherson. Every other city the Russian's are simply laying siege at minimal risk to themselves.
The armor dashes at the start of the war make sense to simply take as much territory as possible as Ukraine didn't preemptively mobilize, also make sense in terms of public relations of starting "the soft way", and also gave the chance to Ukraine to get a "taste" of war and maybe accept the offered peace terms.
Ukrainian leadership decided that calling Russia's bluff of doing things the hard way was a better idea, and so started handing out small arms to civilians to make clear the cost of urban combat in a social media campaign the likes the world has never seen.
... Which is what Western media keeps on going on about, how it's a "second Russian Afghanistan etc." but, other than the only city Russia has taken with experienced Urban combat units, I don't see any need for Russia to do any urban combat at all.
Russia has never stated it wants to occupy and passiffy Ukraine, everyone agrees it's impossible to do with their committed troop numbers and would be a costly disaster if they did commit the troops to try to do it ... so maybe that's just not their plan, but what they can do is cut the country North-South and just wait out the Ukrainian will to fight.
Easy to be brave when your heroic and defiant statements immediately get a thousand likes on facebook. It's far harder hungry, tired, cut off from communications, running out of ammunition, and no viable pathway to victory in the face of continuous shelling.
I have actually trained to go up against conventional Russian military tactics. It's not a fucking game: it's building and sitting in multi layered networks of trenches and other fortifications for the purposes of protecting your own heavy artillery counter battery fire. Throw in a shit ton of mines, an air / anti-air game going on in parallel for control of the sky, armored offensives and counter offensives to break through enemy lines (for the purposes of destroying their slow moving heavy artillery), and you can "maybe" fight the Russians off within a days march from their own border.
I honestly don't see how javalins are going to stop the process of relentlessly removing any obstacles with a zillion heavy artillery shells.
I didn't know anything about the Maidan that happened in 2014.
The Ukrainian people had had enough of being controlled by putin; now they have to fight for that right of freedom. Poor bastards...
When Russia intervened in Syria, the "resistance" had an amazing social media campaign, took out many Russian tanks and vehicles (some of it real, some of it fake) with Western supplied anti-tank missiles, high praises from the Western media, and denigrating the Russian equipment and personnel, and predictions of the Russian's losing etc.
Russian's would respond to the social media offensive with a press conference pointing to having blown one thing up, with basically the message that "see, we blow up things too".
On the ground, Russian forces simply relentlessly took ground every day with heavy artillery clearing the way, with a few setbacks here and there.
That the exact same play book is now being used in Ukraine by the exact same people far closer the Russia's border there's little reason to expect won't work.
The argument "they didn't win in a week and therefore lost" doesn't really make sense.
Pointing to successful guerrilla tactics in a conventional war likewise doesn't point the way to victory.
For everyone of these guerrilla tactics to pick off a tank, the Russians will just shell to the ground several neighborhoods to express their frustration with that.
Setting up some sort of insurgency after the war doesn't benefit normal Ukrainians nor will it change the outcome of the war, just empowers extremists to cause mayhem for decades (which if the Russian's are too difficult to kill, they'll turn these weapons on Ukrainian "softies" trying to rebuild the country and their international relations in a common sense way).
And for everyone of these missiles that gets used against the Russians, 2, 3 maybe 10 (in the case of the manpads) will be sold on the black market. Likewise all the rest of the small arms as well.
People really want fanatics with manpads in the heart of Europe and almost zero barriers to bring them anywhere in Europe to fire at any civilian plane at any time for the next 20 years?
Abandoning conventional rules of war in favour of some sort of tictoc fueled "last stand against the galactic Empire" serves no one, least of all Ukrainians, and is simply undermining European security as a whole for decades.
Of course, American's are smiling about that, but why EU nations are going along with this madness for the "views" is truly disheartening.
If you can't win a conventional war, the duty of leaders is to surrender to avoid unnecessary loss of life. Neither Ukrainians nor Europeans will benefit from thousands of sophisticated missile systems being distributed to every extremist group in Europe that can buy them.
You think these "almost" neo-Nazi's won't sell these weapons to Jihadists?
It's true police madness.
If you don't care enough about Ukraine to send your own troops to try to win a conventional war with trained soldiers, flooding the place with sophisticated small arms changes nothing and will cause insecurity on the entire continent for decades.
I saw a video where a Ukrainian brown shirt butted a guy in the face, had him run down the street, and then shot him in the back; and this was presented as "dealing" with Russian special forces. Not official media, just the youtuber caption for what was happening, but the mass media are not pointing out that these stories have zero basis to assume these people are Russian special forces and saboteurs, and, even if they are, extrajudicial killing of an unarmed captured enemy is still a war crime; Western media just casually mention Ukrainians have been finding and killing them.
However, what I did see on a Western mass media was footage of "civilians" getting hit by mortar fire ... without pointing out they included "civilians" carrying around assault rifles that got handed out out to them.
Even more absurd, the legal rational for these executions is these "special forces" are in civilian clothing (which would still need a legal process, but who cares) at the same time as Ukrainian leaders hand out weapons to civilians to Western media fanfare!
These reports of executing special forces in civilian clothing could reach Putin's desk and his reaction could literally be right now "good thing we have zero special forces in civilian clothing in Ukraine right now."
That's one of the reasons why they're the bad guys.
Go fight them then.
And, what I describe is not unique to the Russians; if you use guerrilla tactics and arm civilians, then there's going to be more civilian casualties.
What's the American's excuse for when they're trigger happy with the drones and blow up civilians having a wedding or whatever?
Same exact thing. You kill a bunch of American soldiers with guerrilla tactics and suicide bombers and they retaliate one way or another.
It's basic psychology.
Not only does the perception of what is a legitimate threat change to encompass more things to shoot at and blow up, but empathy for the civilian population is also reduced.
The entirety of the rules of war is based on the visual distinction between soldier and civilian.
It is a "gentlemen's agreement" to not break these rules, but accept defeat rather than resort to blurring the line between civilians and soldiers, because A. if you need to resort to arming civilians you have probably already lost and B. it makes civilians legitimate targets and soldiers should protect civilians and not vice-versa (protecting civilians can include surrender).
Destroyed columns say something else. And if the vast majority of the Russian forces are engaged, then combat is obviously happening elsewhere where the media isn't present.
Besides, every day the Ukrainian Capital holds out it improves the moral and the confidence of the Ukrainian side. If they want to pressure Ukraine to peace terms, I think losing the Capital would be significant blow to the Ukrainian moral.
Quoting boethius
Not actually. The videos typically show Syrian forces and Syrian tanks. Russia has basically had in Syria a rather small contingent of aircraft, air defense to protect their base and some field units and mercenaries. I haven't seen one video of a tank of the Russian armed forces destroyed in Syria. They are Syrian tanks, even if Soviet/Russian manufactured ones.
Yes, It just has clearly stated that it wants large chunks of Ukraine to itself. :smirk:
Like Peskov has said in their peace offering, which you quoted.
How on earth are you reading...
...as "large chunks of Ukraine to itself"?
The first phase of the war was to just take as much territory unopposed (or minimal resistance) as possible and take undefended settlements. This involved small mechanized units without any sort of battalion formation, so if they did meet resistance they'd just get blown up and run away back to a battalion formation. In parallel Russian's blew up some things with cruise missiles.
I.e. take as much territory as possible with minimal civilian casualties. The reason the Eastern front didn't move is because Ukrainian army had a front setup there ... so why attack the hardest point. In particular, had Ukraine sued for peace (accepted it would not join NATO ... which NATO isn't offering as a possibility anyways) then this was a compromise between military and PR objectives (an amicable resolution could have been reached at this point with minimal trauma, deaths and bad blood; it was not "incompetent" Russian military, but common sense politics).
There's a lot of small settlements everywhere to go anywhere that the Russians do have to deal with. So there is this sort of small scale urban combat.
However, as soon as the Russians meet heavy resistance approaching a city they setup a siege and start encircling the city by demolishing the suburbs and satellite towns with artillery as they make their way around.
There's only one exception--of an urban combat operation to take a city without laying siege or demolishing large parts of it--is Kershon, which has an obvious strategic importance of being the major crossing of the Dnieper in the south, so critical if you want to then just go North to cut Ukraine in half, East of the Dnieper and East of Kiev.
All Russia has to do is simply link up in the middle of Ukraine. No one is even proposing that Ukrainian army is able to offer effective opposition in flat open spaces to major Russian battalion formations. Sure, always possible to harass supply lines as salients are pushed forward (before fanning out) and also ambush some smaller advanced units. However, I do not see how Ukrainians are going to stop the Russians simply linking up in the middle of Ukraine and just avoiding Urban combat as much as possible.
That's why they have some thousands of nuclear weapons in the event NATO attacks them.
Russians don't hold themselves to American military standards and just "give up the country" in shame if they aren't able to match a military that spends literally 10 times more.
Russians maybe appreciate their country and free health care the best they can without setting unrealistic expectations.
Nato is a defensive alliance. It has never attacked anyone.
I don't know at this point if any amount of NLAWs in the hands of Ukranians would stop the Russians from rushing at objectives. Their command seems incapable of competence.
For example, moving up troops next to a giant warehouse you could hide in, and then instead parking your vehicles all of 2 meters apart... in the open.
Yeah, the Ukranians air force is being saved and isn't doing much, but small surveillance drones can still see you, civilians can still report your location, satalites can see you, and while the Ukranians might not have aircraft up above, they have plenty artillery around Kiev...
The other trucks got shelled right after this. I do feel for all the Russians dragged into this insanity. I would be absolutely livid knowing this is how losses were occuring, parking lumped together in artillery range.
Then why does the comment I was responding to matter?
Sure, NATO could defeat Russia in conventional warfare.
How does that help Ukrainians to know?
Or then why does it matter to Russians if NATO isn't going to attack them as you say? And obviously conventional warfare doesn't matter in that scenario anyways.
Because the Baltic states and Poland, for instance, can now rest assured they can beat the Russians in a conventional war, in case the Russians would feel carried away and try to take over other countries. It deflates the threat.
This is the simply the Russian playbook. They use these puppet regimes. If you want to believe the puppetry, I don't care.
And oh...don't forget Crimea. That's Russia isn't it, Isaac?
Are you there?
I agree with your concern.
That said, executing spies and sabateurs in civilian clothes or other nation's military uniforms is not a war crime. It has always been allowed under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat are one of the only groups where it is legal to engage in summary execution.
I'm not aware of any treaties where the execution of spies isn't allowed on any conditions. It's why it's such a dangerous job.
Dressing your soldiers and operatives in the opposing forces' uniforms during military operations is, however, a war crime. It is in the Gauge, Geneva, and ICC conventions. It is a war crime for precisely the reason that it leads to civilians being targeted as potential spies, which makes it even more frustrating that Russia tried it to some degree at all.
What a daft thing to say. NATO has attacked loads of people. Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan... It's attacked them under the auspices of peacekeeping goals but it still attacked them, so Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. The fact that you personally trust their judgement of what counts as 'peacekeeping' is irrelevant in international relations.
They're all in NATO ... Russia has nuclear deterrence.
Unless you can actually stop Russian conventional battalions crossing the country North-South in mostly flat open terrain, then Russia is going to "win". That they didn't win "good enough" isn't going to be a very powerful argument for long, nor is hypothetical losses in scenarios that won't happen.
Dude, I already addressed this, you still need to have some process and some evidence they are saboteurs.
Just calling someone a saboteur and executing a prisoner of war isn't "a clever hack".
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Again, you'd need some sort of legal process to establish they are spies.
Pointing at someone, calling them a spy, and executing them is a war crime. Since I imagine most of these people are just ethnic Russian Ukrainians that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I guess it could be argued (later) that no, no, we were just murdering our own citizens based on just your regular guy paranoid vigilantism, nothing to see here.
Now, if they are spies, and they're held as prisoners, and there's some process to establish they're spies and execute them, that's another matter.
However, generally speaking, actual professionals don't execute spies so as to trade them back for your own spies.
I don't have to believe or not believe anything, it's irrelevant to me personally. The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics.
It's unclear how long Kiev will last, any info on this topic would be appreciated.
Imagine if there was video of American soldiers just pointing at people, calling them "saboteurs" and executing them on the spot.
The rules don't change just because we think Russians are being executed surreptitiously.
The whole legal framework of "war crimes," isn't relevant in what you're describing. Civilians killing civilians isn't a war crime.
If the people involved were actually Russian spies, if they were dressed in civilian clothes or Ukrainian military uniforms, and if military forces saw them engaging in sabatoge or combat within the battle space (e.g., actively destroying AA equipment during an air raid, firing on civilians or soldiers, attempting to disable military vehicles during ongoing shelling / air strikes, etc.), then, legally, you are not correct. They are not entitled to a trial in those circumstances, hence "it is one of the few areas where summary execution is allowed."
That is, if they actually were a spy, the ICC wouldn't punish an officer who ordered their immediate execution in those situations. (Note: you can't just go offing spies because they are spies, they have to be actively interfering in the battle space while presenting as part of a different military or as civilians.)
Now, that said, it clearly isn't the right thing to do, or a smart thing to do from a military perspective. It makes far more sense to bring them in for interrogation and to hold them for use in POW exchanges. Spies tend to be especially good currency for such exchanges because they lack so many legal protections, and so the opposing force has more of an incentive to try to get them back quickly.
However, I did see this morning a Western journalist reporting from Kiev that the city is currently being surrounded and the ways out are closing; that the previous day they could go a ways down the road, but now the shelling and fighting is far closer. I was also unsure until seeing this report.
Quoting Manuel
Generally speaking, very true that accurate information is sparse, but the major gains are pretty well verified.
Russia's strategy is clearly to simply siege cities and wait them out.
True that Russia would have preferred Ukraine surrender after the first days and taste of war, but their "do it the hard way" is clearly to just shell to the ground suburbs to clear a path to surround cities.
This is a slow process, hence the 30km convoy. I think the narrative that the convoy is stuck is pretty naive, they are just waiting for the front to be setup all around Kiev and also the forces from the East to arrive on that side. It's more just used as a long parking lot.
True, Ukrainian forces could hit it with a lot of air power and drones ... but that's not happening so presumably they don't have the capability.
No.
Russia has the choice.
It started this, it can surely end it.
That's why I say it can be argued later "it was civilians" all along, to make exactly that point.
However, right now the story is these people are Russian special forces just being executed on the spot without any process whatsoever.
However, if you arm civilians they are no longer quite civilians, and them going around murdering people (is maybe just murder for them, as they aren't really soldiers either) but I would still argue is a war crime of the political leaders that armed them.
And murdering your own citizens in a war is also a war crime.
Again. Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it.
That's enough, really.
Ukraine has perfectly legitimate strategic interest not to be attacked by any country.
So shut up with the legitimate strategic interests and move on...
If they take Kiev, either the West escalates even more or it will have to negotiate.
Plans to send war planes to Ukraine from the US are spine chilling.
To be crystal clear, Ukrainian's are more than justified in defending themselves and are doing so very bravely.
It's just hard to say how Russia will interpret such actions - if they are carried out. They obviously simply cannot have a conventional war in Europe, they can't handle Ukraine, so...
These aren't really the stories nor videos of these executions.
The stories are "finding" these people, holding them captive, and executing them, not :
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Which I have not seen any video nor even any story of someone actually sabotaging anything.
People, whoever they actually are, are just being straight murdered in the streets, but I guess "deputized" civilian soldiers as well as other more formal paramilitary. I would definitely argue these murders are war crimes.
Unclear what more the West can really do to escalate; Germany has already clarified it's not going to stop buying Russian natural gas (obviously). And, even if Germany did stop buying Russian gas ... they'll just start buying again after the war. Russia has gold and currency reserves and commodities to sell to China, India ... Germany.
Sanctions are disruptive to normal Russians ... but even then not necessarily even normal Russians.
For instance, Visa and MasterCard pulled out of Russia, but how many normal Russians even have a credit card to begin with?
Russia is self sufficient in terms of food and energy, so actually making normal Russians suffer economically is likely impossible to achieve through sanctions.
Upper middle class and rich Russians have their lives disrupted, for sure, but don't necessarily "suffer".
Quoting Manuel
I'm not sure how effective these planes are going to be. Russia has plenty of AA defenses and planes of their own.
It's been observed Russia hasn't used much air power ... but you don't really need air power so close to your own borders. The purpose of air power at the end of the day is basically to substitute artillery strikes; which makes sense ... if you don't have any artillery in the area.
If you do have artillery than it would be helicopters that have other uses other than artillery substitute, which we have seen a lot of use of.
I'm pretty sure any plane Ukrainians put up will just be shot down, and certainly Russians are working hard on the counter-drone warfare, and using plenty of drones themselves. The problem with posting everything to social media, is only successes, and not failures, get posted, nor any followup about whether Russian's learned to deal with the tactic.
Quoting Manuel
Certainly are justified. My major criticism of the Ukrainians is arming civilians. Had they kept to professional soldiery, and then lost conventional battles, there would be a lot less civilian deaths and, likely, the exact same chances of successfully defending their country.
Quoting Manuel
That's exactly what they are doing now, very conventional warfare tactics to just level everything with artillery wherever they go, lay siege to cities, and (likely in my opinion) just make a trench system North-South cutting the whole country in half, and just wait as long as they need to for Ukrainians to officially surrender.
Great post :up:
I'd only add that, so far Europe has said that they aren't planning to sanction energy coming from Russia, doesn't mean they won't some time down the line. Unlikely, but not impossible.
The issue is one of time: how long can Russia withstand the sanctions before Ukraine surrenders?
Also, this dragging on will kill more and more innocent civilians, which is morally corrupt and also very bad PR for Russia, as if they need any more.
Every single hawk right now is salivating at the prospects of selling more weapons and some in the US are even considering implementing a no-fly zone. Which can't happen, unless they want to die.
Anticipating perhaps reactions of some people and of Russia in the near future.
What do you mean "no"? Are you suggesting they don't have a choice? Why not?
Quoting ssu
So countries with substantial nuclear arsenals have no legitimate strategic interest in not being attacked? So the missile defense system in Poland to defend against attacks from the middle east is not legitimate? NATO has the best nuclear weapons in the world. Nobody is attacking it.
Ukraine did do two very smart moves. By not only saying that all 18 to 60 year old men have to stay in Ukraine, but that this has been at large obeyed is actually very crucial. It's crucial in that Ukraines neighbors are opening their border to refugees and for instance basically Poland doing a total 180 degree turn on it's refugee policy when we compare it's actions toward the Belarus hybrid operation using refugees at the border just short time ago. You can see from the pictures that it isn't young males that are fleeing Ukraine.
And to just give out weapons the Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country and a people ready to defend it. How much weapons have been given out and how much people actually have joined in the territorial defense forces is another matter. And from a population of 44 million there are simply millions of Ukrainian men that Ukraine simply cannot take into the army.
Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures, but that does have when nations opt to have for example universal conscription.
But...
Quoting ssu
How on earth can you weigh the 'image' of Ukraine against an increase in civilian casualties and decide the former is the 'smart move'? What the fuck?
On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it.
It's possible this is a smart move against some existential threat ... it's also possible it's a really dumb move if peace can be achieved by simply recognizing what it can't have anyways (NATO could bring Ukraine in today if it wanted to) and also Russia winning a conventional war anyways.
I have really serious doubts about the effectiveness of untrained civilians to wage the kind of war Russia is waging.
Quoting ssu
It was a good social media move, for sure, definitely galvanized the West.
However, has serious consequences of simply handing out weapons to civilians, not even pretending to conscript them into some sort of formal soldier status and chain of command. It makes Putin's statements of Ukraine using human shields completely true, and also makes any civilian just wandering around with an assault riffle a legitimate target for snipers / mortars / tanks / artillery / rockets / aircraft bombs / helicopter strafing and so on.
Quoting ssu
Certainly countries can have conscription, though that is different than handing out weapons to civilians, as discussed a lot already.
For the overall outcome on the war of all these measures, I personally don't see Russia losing.
Their strategy is pretty simple:
1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
5. Build out their logistics methodically
Once they cut the country in half I don't see any possibility of Ukrainians prevailing, and I don't see anyway Ukraine can stop Russia from simply cutting the country in half. They can just build a trench system North-South and say "you're move".
It's certainly possible some amazing Ukrainian counter offensive, rapid scale-up of effective training and logistical support for all those conscripts and likewise sanctions having the intended affect in Russia.
So, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't see, personally, how the current Russian strategy as I understand it could be defeated, and, at least according to Western press, Russians have increased their support for Putin since the war started.
Russia is shown there as being almost twice the size of China.
Will of the people to fight, to resist, is in every war essential.
Quoting boethius
Now that deterrent has failed, motivation in war is crucial. Motivation is important to endure war. And motivation is important to rebuild the country after war.
There are many examples where the best technology has been unable to achieve anything while poorly armed defenders with outdated weapons have prevailed in the end. We are seeing it quite clearly for instance in Yemen, where one of the poorest countries one group has destroyed many American Abrams tanks of the Saudis and have captured them intact as the crews have abandoned the vehicles. You didn't see that with American troops. Will to fight is simply important.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not praising anyone here. (Perhaps I ought to)
And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow.
I don't disagree. Certainly, if they win, it will be a great victory.
However, people have been surrendering since the beginning of warfare, we do not automatically condemn them as cowards.
Indeed, for WWII, we criticize the Japanese and the Germans of "fighting until the bitter end" and simply increasing deaths without any possibility of changing the outcome of the war.
Now, if the Ukrainian leaders have some brilliant plan that would be one thing, and maybe we'll see it.
However, if even Ukrainian leaders see zero way how they will win, military commanders operating with basically zero logistical network to hold positions, etc. then, considering it's not an existential war of literally Genghis Khan going to murder every last woman and child ... indeed, Russia isn't even demanding a change in leadership, then accepting Russia's current terms seems pretty reasonable.
Quoting ssu
I completely agree.
Quoting ssu
Yes, it is possible that there's some way for Ukrainians to somehow win or then get better terms (... I guess join NATO).
I just don't see exactly how Ukrainians can actually deal with heavy artillery and Russians can simply avoid urban combat.
And, I'm sure you agree that lives should not be thrown away for no reason, they do need to have some real chance of accomplishing the goals you outline.
Independent... like Belarus you mean?
Thanks for the quote. So Putin actually said it. This is what he thinks, and I agree with him. The rhetoric of NATO countries is not about the common good.
NATO is a defensive alliance, yes sure, the way nuclear weapons are a defensive measure. What strikes me about the NATO agreement is that it renders in effect, Russia's nuclear weapons and all their military might ineffective. If saboteurs render a nations nuclear weapons ineffective, would that not be an act of war? I am asking, but I think it would be pretty serious.
A Russian soldier walks into war zone with a weapon. 12 people come out of their houses and point their weapons at him, threatening to shoot if the soldier fires at any of them. Is this defensive?
A substantial majority. 84% of households have cards, which are overwhelmingly Visa or MasterCard. 21% have cards using lines of credit. Russians came out of communism with no debt, making them a hot market for creditors. Consumer debt there has exploded in recent years (in economic terms, it's not necissarily a bad thing, access to credit is generally a good thing).
However, the hit isn't quite as bad as it could be because Visa and MasterCard did this temporarily after the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula. After that, Russia made some major reforms to how they did business, which involved centralizing payments through the Russian central bank. They also have a better alternative in UnionPay than they did in 2014, but it is definitely hitting regular Russians hard in their day to day lives short term.
No modern economy is autarkic. 20.6% of Russian GDP goes to imports. By comparison, that figure for the USA is just 14.6%. Exports are 28.5% of the Russian economy; for the US it is 11.7%.
Connection to global markets is huge for Russia. China is a major trading partner, but they account for just 14.6% of Russia's exports. The EU makes up over 40% of Russian exports, the US another 4.6%. Gutting 1/7th of your economy (the amount these exports are equivalent too) is going to hurt no matter what you do to prepare.
The sanctions also give Chinese purchasers of Russia goods a lot of leverage in pricing, which will drive down profits on remaining exports. It's also going to hurt when 1:5 roubles spent in Russia was previously on imports, and they lose access to their biggest suppliers. They can substitute for domestic production in the long term, but shortages and high prices come first.
Even where Russian's can buy imported goods, the implosion of the rouble will make them far more expensive. Add in the fact that businesses weren't well prepared for a surprise war and balance sheets will look grim.
Importantly for a longer term war, China only manufactures 6% of microchips. Vehicles are going to be hit hard in Russia. Russia also has a huge arms industry that employs a lot of people, but they require chips for their weapons systems. Sanctions will definitely hurt quite a bit there.
I highly doubt that. The war is unpopular and costing them heavily. They want a quick war. This flies in the face of all their strategy to date.
Western intelligence agencies could have plenty of reasons to mislead about the situation on the ground, but so far most of their limited commentary has been borne out. Open source satellite imagery also seems to suggest this is the case. I'm not sure why else you would want to leave your supply convoy clumped together like that. To be sure, Russia surely has adequate AA along the length of the convoy, but even then, a miracle attack getting through is not something you want to risk if you don't have to.
It's also unclear why they wouldn't want to encircle Kiev as quickly as possible. You can hold most of the area around a city, and if supplies can still get through, your seige won't be effective.
For example:
Sarajevo held out for almost four years before the Siege was lifted with limited paths in for supplies. Even before modern food storage methods, cities in antiquity and the middle ages held out for months, sometimes over a year after losing all supply routes in. Hardly an ideal timeframe. Hence the heavy shelling and poorly implemented raids.
As for when Kyiv might end up cut off, a few days ago I would have said "could be next week," but open source analysis:
looks increasingly grim on that front (depending on who you are I guess.)
[quote=F.N.]'Evil men have no songs.' How is it that the Russians have songs?[/quote]
It's the same military. Or do Russia have one force for if they're attacked and a different force for if they're defending?
So explain to me the ethics. A force so mighty that "No one is attacking Russia", yet throwing 18 year old boys at it is the "smart move" because it looks good? What higher goal is being served here that young men's lives are a lesser one?
And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice?
Oh and you also dodged the question of if Russia has no legitimate fear of being attacked because it's a global nuclear superpower, then why has NATO a legitimate fear of being attacked?
If Putin is all-powerful, unstoppable, there is no way to stop him. If he is stoppable why not stop him?
Maybe they don't want him stopped?
TIME (The magazine, not TIME itself) put out some helpful suggestions on how to stop the war back in January 2022. If it could have been stopped, why was it not stopped? There has to be an answer.
Quoting TIME
Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Are these people serious?
Yes. If need be.
Belarus, ranked 53 on the United Nations Human Development Index https://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/BLR
as opposed to Ukraine, ranked 74 https://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/UKR
Terrible if those states were taken over by Russia (ranking 120 on the Global Corruption Index), as opposed to still being run by Ukraine (ranking 123). What a loss to democracy.
So explain to me again why the ethical choice is to keep encouraging young men to throw themselves at an enemy they've little hope of defeating rather than accept the terms by which the war will end?
https://truthout.org/articles/arms-industry-sees-ukraine-conflict-as-an-opportunity-not-a-crisis/
...oops, I must have pasted that completely unrelated link by mistake.
For once I agree with you. The Russians obviously can't win this one. They are being bled to death, their army is humiliated, and the country is soon going to be bankrupt. Their boys are being sent to their slaughter, or leaving the country as fast as they can, rightly so... I really feel bad for Russia. They are the aggressor but will ultimately emerge as the main victim of this war, while Ukraine will be rebuilt and integrate the EU asap.
Well that's great news! Could you link me the sources from which you got this information?
The Soviets stayed in Afghanistan for a decade, during which they incurred some 25.000 combat deaths. We're getting near that number in Ukraine after a week. Many Russian boys within draft age are fleeing their country. Soon the economy will tank. They have lost what little civil liberties they had left. It's looking rather bleak for them. It is in fact a real tragedy for Russia as well, not just for Ukraine.
This is is interesting to know, that they do have cards, but only 21% have a line of a credit. If the those other 84% only have a card for online purchases every once and a while it may not affect them all that much. Certainly annoying, but not necessarily suffering.
For as you say, "Visa and MasterCard did this temporarily after the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula," so:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Meaning it's less impact than when Visa and Mastercard did so the first time. Now, certainly I would agree this is disruptive to regular Russians, but I've been using a scale of impact of disruption, hardship and suffering, which I'll explain more clearly in response to your next comment.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I only mentioned independence in energy and food, as going without these things causes immediate suffering.
I did not intend in anyway to play down the disruptions and hardships caused by these sanctions, only to note Russians won't be cold and hungry, on the whole, anytime soon.
That the sanctions are insanely disruptive I totally accept and for certain not good for the economy, and such disruptions certainly result in real hardships. I don't minimize these things, and I went to some length to argue that this war is only happening now because the Kremlin "sanction proofed" itself "enough" for severe sanctions to not immediately collapse the entire Russian economy and bring about revolution overnight (such as through the banking reform you mention).
Likewise, in terms of longer term, the wider economic impacts only matter if Russia cannot get substitutes from China. Certainly intensely disruptive to change suppliers, but there's a big difference between that and material, components or equipment not being available at all.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Again, not denying the intense disruption and I think your word hurt would be the same as my word hardship. Definitely hurting and hardships of all this economic disruption.
My talking about suffering is that starving and being unable to heat your home, is not merely disruptive or economic hardship, but real suffering, and the West simply cannot inflict this kind of real suffering on Russians through economic sanctions in the short term.
Certainly, sanctions haven't worked so far in sparking some sort of revolution of causing Putin to withdraw his forces, and the purpose of my talking about energy and food is just that there's simply a limit to how much the West can really impact regular Russian lives.
If they think the war is justified a population will easily put up with disruption and hardships and it "brings people together" and is a patriotic experience, just as Ukrainians putting up with disruption, hardship and real suffering of being on the road or under siege. We can't underestimate the Ukrainians population willingness to support continued conflict ... nor too can we underestimate the Russians is my basic point.
However, all the additional facts you bring are certainly completely relevant. The macro economic implications are super big and there's a massive cost to switching suppliers and re-orienting the economy, but seems normal Russians are accepting this, for now at least.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Of course, they can scale up further if there's demand from Russia, but, also, there doesn't seem any way for the West to prevent China just re-selling chips to Russia anyways; they'll certainly complain, but I don't see China accepting being told what to do on this issue.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't dispute that Kremlin would have preferred a quick victory, and I'd even accept the current situation is a total surprise they didn't really plan for; but considering this has been building for 8 years, I would expect they did consider these sorts of scenarios (they did their sanction proofing and 'more than friends" with China precisely because they were considering this scenario; how likely they thought it was is another question).
But by strategy I mean their plan now, not their original plan.
And this new plan I wouldn't say is some sort of new idea: likely they're thinking is we try going in soft a few days and if Ukraine doesn't give up we'll just do what we always do.
And definitely if Russian people "rise up" then the new plan won't work, and it's also entirely possible we see some big surprise from Ukrainian army and Russia get routed; certainly not impossible, just that if there's some big secret being planned I don't know about it nor see what it could be.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This isn't really any more unusual than putting your equipment anywhere else. Once you have a front line, you need backup equipment behind said front line, and, in term of any air strike or ambush or whatever, stringing out your backup equipment over 30 km is a good thing.
Of course, you can have your equipment even farther back, but then it's not handy when you need it and when you do send it in it may run out of gas; they would certainly prioritize topping up whatever they may actually need.
The alternative to this long ass convoy and just not committing the equipment at all to the area, would be camouflaging all these vehicles under trees and stuff but there doesn't seem to be many trees and they'd all get stuck in the mud, so just staying on the highway and accepting some risk of losses isn't irrational. Of course, if the front line collapses then this entire convoy could be destroyed, but, presumably, Russian commanders are betting that won't happen.
They also seem to be setting up forward operating bases closer to Kiev.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
They certainly do want to encircle Kiev as quickly as possible, but due to the political consequence of of that (leadership also stuck and suffering) preventing encirclement of Kiev is Ukraine's top priority.
Why gains in the south are extremely rapid and Kherson was taken without prolonged urban combat resistance, is because Ukraine clearly can't fight on all fronts.
Obviously, Russia can eventually simply complete the encirclement of Ukraine by coming up from the south, but that will take time and preventing encirclement of Kiev meanwhile is their main strategy.
Once Kiev is encircled the military, social and political dynamic will completely change.
Russians are going slowly by surely around Kiev, I would guess, precisely because that's where you may get a surprise counter offensive and your forces routed if you're not careful (as you say, no easy way to skedaddle if you have a 30km convoy on the highway, and a tactical retreat to regroup would be an embarrassment anyways).
There's basically two ways to advance in conventional warfare.
What we see in movies is the armor based offensive to break through enemy lines and rout them. This has high reward, but also high risk that your armor gets isolated and destroyed.
The other way is the slow encroachment of infantry (building fortified positions as they go) following heavy artillery bombardment.
This is a really slow process: infantry advance a bit, get shot at, the enemy positions identified and shelled to oblivion until they die or then retreat (small arms purpose is basically to just protect against the sneak attack): infantry advance a bit more and the process repeats.
Of course, with equally matched forces the enemy also has heavy artillery doing the exact same thing to your infantry positions, and the lines quickly get built up until there is basically no practical way for infantry to advance without immediately all dying (WWI); hence, to try to break such a stalemate the armor offensive was developed (the original purpose of the tank was to simply drive over trenches, which was developed after the intuitive and common sense idea of just gassing the enemy to death proved less effective than people expected); the enemy must then fall back to a less fortified position and you can then immediately occupy their trench system as your new fallback point, after chasing them a bunch until they manage to regroup and/or outrun your supply lines.
Reducing buildings to rubble can make urban combat more difficult, but if the Russians are trying to avoid urban combat then it makes sense to shell buildings that are good locations for launching anti-tank rockets and sniper fire. If you hand out small arms to civilians then it's completely logical to do this preemptively than bother to wait for enemy fire from these buildings.
Can't be. All the sources I've read reveal a mixed picture that's difficult to call at this stage. Here's an example https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-27/putin-is-both-winning-and-losing-in-russia-s-ukraine-invasion
Quoting Olivier5
Fantastic, good luck to them.
Quoting Olivier5
Again, sources. Most I've read are saying it's too difficult to call. Sanctions are having an impact but the exclusions and Chinese routes are keeping it a float. Where are your sources assuring us that it will soon tank?
Quoting Olivier5
Very true - one thing we can agree on.
---
But all of this is, whilst interesting, is beside the point. There's a deal on the table which could end the war. The question is whether Ukraine should take it.
Since there's no one here suggesting that Russia should continue it's aggressive invasion, I can't see what relevance it has that Russia is losing soldiers too. If someone were to suggest Russia should press its advantage, I would say the same to them, but since no one is, I'm not. The discussion is about what Ukraine should do because that's the matter on which people seem to differ.
Everyone already agrees Russia should immediately lay down its weapons and go home so there's nothing more to say on that front. Pointless to just keep repeating it over and over...
... Pointless, that is, other than serving the modern obsession with waiving one's little virtue flag in everyone's faces every five minutes.
I don't read Bloomberg, but yeah, it's confusing. The clear thing is that Putin is not winning, whereas on paper, expectations were that he would win quickly. So it is a setback for the Russians so far, if not a total humiliation.
I think the economy will evidently tank because of the sanctions. You may disagree.
Quoting Isaac
Yet you keep repeating other pointless thing ad nauseam... If this particular truth is pointless to you, don't say it. Personally I think it makes sense to say the truth again and again in the face of all the liars, so I will keep on.
Definitely Ukrainians could keep fighting for a long time.
Russian plan seems definitely to just siege cities and basically wait.
As for poorly implemented raids, Russia has taken a lot of territory already, which is accomplished by sending people to take that territory. Insofar as Russia advances everyday ... they'll eventually get to all their objectives.
There's certainly a high short term cost and high risks; but in terms of purely resource based strategy, Ukraine has resources that will easily pay for the war and the long term increases in commodity prices will also pay for the war (to what extent sanctions impact other sectors of Russia economy, and if this is worse than commodity price increases, we could of course debate).
Oil is currently at 130 USD a barrel and natural gas 27 USD/MMBtu, this isn't "bad" for Russia. EU is still paying Russia a billion Euros a day for energy.
The purpose of "holding out" in medieval times had several practical purposes; cities also surrendered all the time to avoid a siege and, in exchange for that favour, negotiate conditions, when there was zero purpose to holding out.
Why completing the siege of Kiev will change things considerably is that Putin is not insisting on taking the city, and if Russian lines (once setup around the city) cannot be practically broken from the outside, pressure will be pretty high to accept Russia's conditions of surrender.
Which liars? Who is suggesting that Russia should not lay down arms immediately and go home? Who is arguing that their invasion is justified? Who is suggesting they're not the aggressors here? I don't know who you're arguing against. I haven't read every single post, but most of your comments seem to come after someone had been critical of Ukraine's strategy or US/NATO culpability or has been critical of 'White-Knighting' the Ukrainians. None of these comments are about Russia.
Again. No one here is supporting Putin, so there's nothing to respond to in which Putin's obvious moral bankruptcy would even crop up. No one is suggesting Russia's invasion is a good thing, so there's no situation in which the fact that it isn't need ever be mentioned... other than virtue signalling.
This is a discussion forum, not an interview for an ethics committee.
We'll definitely see in the days to come if Kiev is cut off or Ukrainians can hold their lines.
However, as I say, unless Ukrainians can rout the Russian's entire formation, it's just going to stay put and other formations will move up from the south.
The whole purpose of waging a multiple front war is that the enemy can't defend on multiple fronts.
So the whole narrative of "Russia's totally losing because of getting bogged down and setbacks on these fronts ... but, sure, totally winning on third front" doesn't really make sense; that's the entire point of such a strategy. Had Ukrainian army gone and defended Kherson to prevent a breakthrough West of the Dnieper ... maybe Kiev would be surrounded by now.
Since advantage is to the defender, if the enemy focuses on one front you can just defend your current line, and advance on some other front. Moving troops and equipment around is costly and takes time, so there's basically no way to optimally distribute forces on three fronts everyday, as long as Russia pressures Kiev then it's necessary to reinforce there and try to prevent encirclement.
Except that Belarus has just recently become a primary puppet state of Russia. That's not independent, which was the definition I asked about.
Here's US national intelligence officer Christopher Chivvis
Why then, if this is a discussion forum, maybe you need to start paying attention to what other folks say, instead of insulting them?
Quoting Isaac
Against no one in particular. I see no need to aggress you or anybody else here. I'm just discussing stuff.
Never heard of him. Any good?
Then no, I don't mean 'independent' like Belarus, but if it turns out that's what the Russians mean then I don't see how that changes things. What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently, so why anyone would cheer on the idea of continuing a bloody war just in the vain hope of avoiding such an outcome is beyond me.
That's the hard truth for sure.
And, if the West cared so much, could have let Ukraine into NATO and the EU and given them hundreds of billions of Euro's as a friendly gesture in 2014. Nothing at all stopping such deals happening between "sovereign" nations, just a few papers to sign, easy-peasy.
Any good at what? He's more qualified than you or I.
You've failed to provide any sources to back up your claim that the Russians are in the throws of a humiliating defeat.
The point I was making, into which you interjected, was that facing an enemy against whom defeat is likely, and turning down peace terms which, objectively, lose very little in terms of the welfare of the average Ukrainian is unethical.
How could you know my qualifications, or his for that matter? He could be just another clown, for all you know.
The truth is: nobody knows how it will all end. Nobody has a well functioning crystal ball. The Ukrainians have not lost yet, and they could go all the way to Moscow.
Yep. So many ways this could have been avoided, all the way from Russian appeasement one one side of the spectrum to bulwarking Ukraine on the other. It's hard to see anything other than malfeasance. Even with gross incompetence you'd expect some of their actions to have gone in Ukraine's favour.
You've told me yours before and his are written in the article, and the quote source.
Yes it is puzzling like an accident waiting to happen and someone waiting for that accident to happen.
I hope it ends soon.
By taking a bite out of Ukraine one bit at a time. But that doesn't matter I guess. Sorry for the people living in those places not being able to be the Ukrainians they want to be, but that doesn't matter to you I guess? Relocate yourself into an authoritarian regime, is that something you would like to do? And how about Russia then falling back, gathering strength, and invading again at a later date, how do we know Putin won't do that? I mean, this is literally the second invasion, even though it's bigger.
Quoting Isaac
How can you even confirm that? And do those Ukrainians not have a say in this?
Quoting Isaac
No one is cheering anything. You seem to use that argument all the time when someone stands on the side of Ukrainians fighting for their right to independence and freedom from Russia. Maybe it's easy to take freedom and independence for granted if you live in a nation where everyone takes it for granted, but for people who's just begun to feel free of the previous Soviet regime, looking to a brighter future for themselves, they might just rather die than give up that freedom to another dictator.
And if civilians are getting killed, that's pure brutal terrorism from Russia, which means you argue for giving in to demands by someone killing civilians. Why do you think police forces like SWAT don't give in to demands by a perpetrator holding people hostage? Because it tells perpetrators that it works for getting them what they want. If killing civilians gets Russia what they want, they'll will keep doing it. The only thing that helps is to have no positive outcome for Russia for doing so. That killing civilians leads to worse outcomes for Russia. It also informs Russia that any future conflict where they do the same would lead to the same bad outcomes for themselves. Imagine if they invaded another nation in the future and since they got what they wanted with Ukraine they use the same strategy of bombing civilians until they get what they want.
Avoiding bloodshed has more dimensions than just doing anything to avoid it. It's not that simple and it also doesn't mean people cheer for it.
https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/thanatos-triumphant
A fun exploration to look up the names he mentions.
Regarding the bolded bit, that's a thought I had myself - Biden should be thanking Putin for finally providing him - and the rest of the West - a good old fashioned war to take everyone's minds off the failing systematic capacities of the West.
Armchair geopoliticians and wannabe generals tend to overestimate their own capacity to predict the future and see things coming.
So true...
Quoting Olivier5
You are indeed amusing.
What evidence have you that they'd do this and is it sufficient to justify continued bloodshed?
Quoting Christoffer
I provided the latest indices of corruption. Russia scores marginally higher than Ukraine. Democracy isn't the be all and end all of human flourishing. Freedom from Russian puppet-mastery doesn't mean freedom from all forms of authoritarianism.
Quoting Christoffer
We don't. Shall we sacrifice an entire generation of young men on the off-chance?
Quoting Christoffer
It has nothing to do with average Ukrainians' wishes at this stage, there will be no referenda no election manifestos, this is about what the current sitting Ukrainian authorities should do based in the information they currently have. Continued war in the vain hope of winning, or give those regions independence and risk them coming under Russian influence. That's the choice.
Quoting Christoffer
Yep. Is it the word 'cheering' you take offense to. I might have said 'supporting'. Equally unjustified. The average Ukrainian is fucked either way. Yoke of Russian authority, yoke of Western financial indebtedness. The difference is that one way doesn't have half of them die first.
Quoting Christoffer
No, it's as much Ukrainian decisions to arm civilians, egged on by the Star Wars version of warfare painted in the media. Funny how when Israel kills civilian Palestinians its all a complex issue muddied by the blurred line between resistance fighter and civilian in Palestine, but when Russia do it the line suddenly becomes crystal clear. Where's the call for sanctions against Israel?
Quoting Christoffer
Great. How do we ensure that? And exactly how many lives is it worth in trying?
Couldn't resist. It was practically gift-wrapped.
Nobody here has said the sanctions and the cost of the war itself don't have immense economic impacts.
wrote a few key points about the economic impacts.
The question about the sanctions and economic impacts are:
1. Will they actually stop the war somehow
2. Will they be effective long term to "punish" or "weaken" Russia
3. Will increase in commodity prices and re-orienting to China / India make a neutral (or even positive) economic outcome for Russia.
True, China will be buying at a discount ... but if the prices are sky high internationally, then selling at a discount may still be far higher profit anyways.
... And, last I checked, the Germans and the entire EU are still buying Russian gas at top Euro.
Because this is what they've done since 2014. Would you give up your home and your life as you know it to bend down to authoritarian control? At what point would you fight back?
Quoting Isaac
Do you actually call Ukraine authoritarian compared to what Russia is today? The latest acts of the Russian regime against its own people just show exactly how authoritarian it actually is. And democracy, as it is normally being used as a term, is about more than just elections, it's about freedom of speech, independent media, freedom of movement etc. Neither exist in Russia and especially now, there's nothing of that. You also ignore all the work Ukraine has been doing to fight back against national corruption, compared to Russia not doing much at all to fight theirs.
What exactly is your argument here? That "because democracy doesn't mean everything is good, there's really not that different from living in an authoritarian regime without freedom of speech?" How is this in any shape or form a rational argument?
Quoting Isaac
You argue for giving into a dictator's demands to stop the current bloodshed. What about the blood under the boot of a regime? Would you have argued the same in the rise of Nazy Germany? "Give in to Hitler's demand, just stop the bloodshed for now, it's not worth your freedom. Give them your freedom so you can live". That turned out great.
Can you name any authoritarian regime that treated people well after they forced them to surrender or be killed?
You still don't understand what the Ukrainians themselves fight for, you seem to be unable to understand what fighting for freedom actually means.
Quoting Isaac
You mean that the Ukrainian authorities shouldn't do what the people want? So if the people want to fight for their freedom, defend their nation against an aggressor killing their people and threatening their independence, the authorities shouldn't represent their people's will and fight?
Maybe you want to be under the boot but they don't. That's what they're fighting for. And blaming Ukrainian authorities or the people of Ukraine for any of the civilians getting killed is fucking moronic. Russia is the aggressor, Russia holds the blame here. You cannot blame Ukraine for not stopping the war by giving in to the demands of their invaders. That's as backwards as thinking about this can possibly get.
Quoting Isaac
You still ignore what the Ukrainians want themselves. Stop thinking for them for a moment, stop speaking for them in your internet armchair and listen to what they are actually saying, what they want with their life and nation. No one is cheering for bloodshed, no one is supporting it, what we support is standing up against an aggressor taking freedom and independence away from a people who just want to be their own nation.
It's kinda disgusting that you speak "for them" in the way you do. That you know what's best for them and how they should act. You continue to criticize how the west influences the world, how the US is bad, how NATO is bad, but when the east (Russia) demands and wants to control you're like "LET THEM!" and when I say you should listen to what Ukrainians want with their own life and nation and what they feel about the situation, you ignore that and point out "what they should do", just like any other figure from the west that you complain shouldn't interfere in others business.
So what's it gonna be? Should the west tell Ukrainians what they should do? Should Russia tell them what they should do? Should they be able to decide for themselves? And if the west listens to what Ukrainians want to do and supports their choices and backs them up on their choices, how is that bad? Isn't that exactly how it should be done?
Quoting Isaac
So all the Ukrainian civilians who want to fight for their nation, even those flying home from all over the world just to fight for their nation, that's the Ukrainian authorities' fault?
Quoting Isaac
No it's not, Israel killing civilians, especially using phosphorus bombs, is a war crime. Anyone thinking that's a complex issue doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Quoting Isaac
You don't think there are sanctions? Or that people don't care? I live in one of the only countries in the world that actually acknowledges Palestine as its own state. So whatever the fuck others do I don't care. It doesn't however have anything to do with the current war in Ukraine and if you think you can use that as a sort of rhetorical trap in an idea to show some hypocritical perspective in which people support Isreal in one case and Ukraine in another, that's not gonna fly with me since I criticize Isreal in the same way I do Russia when it comes to aggressions. Isreal is long overdue for a Hague court trial.
So don't use other conflicts to back up your ill-conceived arguments about what Ukraine should do. They want freedom, independence and not what Russia and Putin stand for. They fight to protect that freedom. A fight that for some can be worth more than the lives lost since it will inform the rest of that nation's existence and the lives of everyone living in that nation for decades or centuries to come. But you seem unable to understand such things or to actually listen to Ukrainians and what they want. If Ukrainians want the war to end, they're not pleading to the authorities to give into Putin's demands, they're pleading to Russia to stop the aggression, to stop the invasion.
Stop being confused as to who's the bad apple here. Stop blaming the Ukrainians for being invaded and killed, it's a preposterous perspective.
Good to know we are all in agreement then.
Ukrainian intelligence says major general in Russia’s 41st army died outside Kharkiv along with other senior officers
Julian Borger in Washington
Mon 7 Mar 2022 20.51 EST
A Russian general has been killed in fighting around Kharkiv, Ukrainian intelligence has claimed, which would make him the second general the Russian army has lost in Ukraine in a week.
The intelligence arm of the Ukrainian defence ministry said Maj Gen Vitaly Gerasimov, chief of staff of the 41st Army, had been killed outside the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, along with other senior officers.
The ministry also broadcast what it claimed was a conversation between two Russian FSB officers discussing the death and complaining that their secure communications were no longer functioning inside Ukraine.
The investigative journalism agency Bellingcat said it had confirmed Gerasimov’s death with a Russian source. Its executive director, Christo Grozev, said they had also identified the senior FSB officer in the intercepted conversation.
Gerasimov took part in the second Chechen war, the Russian military operation in Syria, and the annexation of Crimea, winning medals from those campaigns.
If confirmed, Gerasimov would be the second Russian general from the 41st Army to die within a week in Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. At the beginning of March, its deputy commander, Major General Andrei Sukhovetsky, was confirmed by Russian media to have been killed.
The loss of top ranking officers has come at a time when much of Putin’s invasion force has become bogged down by logistical problems, poor morale and Ukrainian resistance. The failure of its encrypted communications system could be another severe blow.
Disagreeing about what?
Obviously the sanctions have an impact. But, if they won't cause Russian's to rise up nor affect the Kremlin's war policy, they are irrelevant in ending the war at hand.
Now, if you're talking long term economic impact, it easily can increase Russia's relative economic strength. It is not a foregone conclusion that sanctions will hurt Russia in the long term.
Commodity price increase is good for Russia ... they have nearly all the critical commodities which means they not only make bank on selling those commodities at historic prices, but also they can easily subsidize the consumption of those commodities for their own citizens.
Who commodity price increases isn't good for is Western nations, where key commodity price increases can easily cause inflation and recession and social discontent.
From a geo-political strategic perspective, the West's power is in decline and this war in Ukraine could easily be a brilliant geo-political strategic move (in terms of pure power politics).
The narrative that this is bad for Russia because the Western media doesn't like Putin even more than before, may not be a true narrative and things far more complex than they seem. Yes, the western media disapproves, but, no, Putin can't be cancelled like some "toxic" male executive trying to host Jeopardy .
No, what they've done since 2014 is annex Crimea and assist separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk. The rest is speculation on intent.
Quoting Christoffer
No, but as I've indicated, measures of well being in Belarus are no worse than in Ukraine. Crimea recieved s huge boost in public infrastructure investment after 2014, and reports of satisfaction are at least mixed https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2020-04-03/russia-love.
There's no indication that the Eastern regions will suffer some kind of authoritarian nightmare compared to their current situation.
Quoting Christoffer
No, I said democracy is not the only measure of human flourishing. As I've shown there aren't any conclusive indicators that life for the average Ukrainian would be overall worse as a Russian protectorate than their current state.
Quoting Christoffer
No, I mean the Ukrainian authorities will not and could not possibly assess what their people want because they lack both the time and the facility to carry out any sort of referendum or election. We are all assuming what they want because nobody can ask in any statistically robust way. A few vox pops on the street is not a mandate.
Quoting Christoffer
From what source? Which source gives me robust data on what 'the Ukrainians' are saying?
Quoting Christoffer
The question isn't one of support for the goal (which we all agree with), it's one of support for the method.
Quoting Christoffer
The dispute is over the 'if'. One could say "if Putin just wants to protect pro-Russian groups in Donetsk, and if he can't see any other way than war, then he's doing the right thing, how's that bad?". We would dispute them over the 'if'.
Quoting Christoffer
If they're encouraging it, yes. Arming civilians is fraught with legal problems in war, namely...
And...
Both from https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-rules-of-war-FAQ-Geneva-Conventions
Yes. And tragically, after some initial restraint, that is the tactic to which he has defaulted in Ukraine: heavy bombardment of cities intended to break the morale of the resistance and drive out the civilian population that might lend support to them.
But here I was thinking about Putin's domestic concerns. The real threat to his power comes not from NATO, but from his own surrounding. However cracked he might be at the moment, anyone who clawed his way to the top of the power hierarchy in Russia and stayed there for 22 years has this knowledge in his bones.
Many in Russia still don't believe what's going on and believe instead the propaganda on TV. But that can't last forever. A North Korea-like isolation cannot be instituted in days or weeks (although the authorities are taking steps in that direction). Information will filter in eventually. Perhaps more importantly, people will feel the full brunt of the sanctions within the next months (not soon enough for Ukraine though).
Putin's social contract was to deliver stability, relative prosperity, and a sense of national pride (at the expense of freedom and much else). He has tried to compensate for the gradual loss of the former by doubling down on the latter. Crimea was a major coup for him, but that has since evaporated, partly due to the sanctions. And now, in the space of just a couple of weeks, he has ruined it all. Lies about the NATO threat and the dastardly Neo-Nazis can only go so far, and the economy will soon be in ruins. So what does he have left? He will have to reformat the arrangement. His only chance to stay in power and secure a lasting legacy is to fashion himself into a new Stalin, if he can. Which is to say, terrorize the population into awe and submission. And that will go double for the occupied Ukraine. Soviet-era persecutions of "Ukrainian nationalists" come to mind...
Correct. Russia may be behind in high-tech and, apparently, in conducting large-scale military operations (which, incidentally, isn’t Putin’s fault but the fault of his lazy and unimaginative generals). But it is a big country with a wealth of natural resources and enough intelligent people to devise strategies to counteract Western sanctions.
Russia produces enough grain, meat, fruit and veg to feed its population and the government will make enough money from selling oil, gas, coal, metals, and other materials to China and others, to fund its military.
Unless US-UK stage a coup or something, the government will last for long enough to make Biden’s life difficult.
On the plus side, the sanctions will get rid of some of Russia's super-rich and put a brake on oligarch (or monopolistic) capitalism. So, that’s one development that should be welcomed by all - even though it might go against Wall Street plans. :smile:
Also, greater isolation from the West means greater economic independence from the West and less cultural and political influence from the US. Russians will be able to focus on their own cultural heritage and develop an authentic alternative to American guns-and-drugs gangsta "culture".
So, I definitely don’t think Putin should be “cancelled”. I believe that a US-dominated unipolar world order would be a disaster for humanity. The world needs Russia, India, China, and others to challenge and balance US hegemony.
Moreover, we need to remember that no US presidents were cancelled for deliberately bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. A balanced debate needs to analyze things in the right perspective, not in isolation of everything else.
Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia
Germany's forgotten victims - The Guardian
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
Which is another sign of how hypocritical and divorced from reality this Nazi rhetoric is. Just before the invasion, Dmitry Medvedev (former PM and the chairman of Putin's Security Council) gave a speech in which he disparagingly referred to Zelensky's "particular nationality." The expression doesn't translate well from the Russian, but to any Russian, particularly one who've lived in the Soviet Union, that is an immediately recognizable antisemitic dog-whistle.
But yes, let's spend 30 more pages discussing whether Putin's war propaganda has a grain of truth in it. That is obviously the most important question now.
This war will likely prove a very bad move for Russia, irrespective of the technical outcome in Kiev. In any case, that is my own prognosis, and it has little to do with the press. Rather it's based on my experience in places like Afghanistan and Kosovo. The USSR got out of Afghanistan humbled and crippled, and the same will most probably happen here.
In both cases their defeat will be because of American support.
Hmm.
And you define that as not being a bite into Ukraine?
Quoting Isaac
Should be enough as an answer.
Quoting Isaac
How do you know that people won't self censor under the boot? It happens in Russia, why not in Crimea? And why does that matter anyway? You take a bite into Ukraine, install puppets and people are "happy". And Belarus is also not trustworthy, it has a dictator that's a puppet to Russia, you don't think that Belarus has the same kind of information flow? Ukraine is the only true democracy out of these nations. You can jump back in time all you want but that's where Ukraine is now and was improving. You seem to not include progression into your calculation. Where is Russia heading? Where is Belarus heading? You think things will be better for their own people going forward? People are fleeing Russia as we speak because Russia is becoming a totalitarian state. You don't think Belarus will be affected by that, as well as Crimea and the new "bites" Russia took?
Quoting Isaac
That has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with corruption. And as mentioned numerous times, Ukraine has been fighting against corruption for a long time, they were actively moving away from that kind of post-Soviet "lifestyle". Democracy is part of being able to fight corruption and as corruption gets lowered, so does democracy's ability to improve life. I'm of course speaking of well-working democracy, that enforces laws of freedom of speech, which is needed to be able to fight corruption. You can't use indexes of how things are in nations that have JUST enforced the results of their corruptions. Do you think those indexes will show the same after 2022 is over? If Russia and Belarus keeps this up, they will fall on those indexes like the Rubel has done. Your comparisons are so flawed and your blatant strawman of the concept of democracy is extremely naive. To what point? What point are you trying to make here? That you "can be authoritarian and also have a happy population"? Sure, for everyone licking Putin's boot, everyone else will be silenced, including people under the power of Lukashenko. You think those voices will be included into the indexes?
Quoting Isaac
The people speak for themselves, you can make conclusions based on listening to the collective voices from everyone. You don't have to do a referendum for any of this. Talk to the refuges, do they complain about Zelenskyy, do they complain about the fight? What do people say in Ukraine? Also, look at the actions of the Ukrainian people, what do they do? Do they conduct demonstrations against Zelenskyy and the people in power? There are NO reports on this, nothing to support anything you say about the people of Ukraine not supporting Zelenskyy and the authorities' actions to defend against Russia. Everything points to Ukrainians being overwhelmingly united against Russia. So what in the world are you basing your conclusion on?
You're grasping at straws just to support your conclusion that Ukrainians should accept the boot, give Russia their land, give up freedom and just give in to Putin's demands because people are dying. You are unable to understand the Ukrainians because you don't actually listen to them, you just want to win an argument, whatever apologistic idea it would demand. Listen to them instead of your own words.
Quoting Isaac
Turn on the news for once! Check social media accounts from Ukraine, listen to interviews etc. etc. etc. There's basically an overwhelming 24/7 global coverage about the war, interviews being done over and over from a vast amount of sources globally. If you are unable to assess the actual situation through the collective result of that coverage, then you are unable to actually make rational conclusions in this matter. Give me any kind of source that points to anything other than overwhelming support for Zelenskyy and this fight, in and outside of Ukraine.
Quoting Isaac
Method? You mean defending against the aggressor? Your method is to kiss their boots and give up their freedom to the glory of Russia. You have zero solutions that the Ukrainians would agree with, based on everything we've seen from the people of Ukraine, outside and inside, so why are you suggesting some method that have no documented support?
Is the method of defense against invading killers a bad method? What should we do instead? Thoughts and prayers? :shade:
Quoting Isaac
You are unable to understand Putin's propaganda machine, that's for sure. The west supports Ukraine because the people ask for our help against a violent killing invader. There's little evidence to show that Putin would back down through peace talks or the west putting pressure on him to do so, therefore, defense measures for Ukraine are needed in order for them to survive against a powerful invader. That is the support from the west and beyond. That was the answer to your remarks of "support" for Ukraine. What Putin says is irrelevant, he's the aggressor, he conducts propaganda, silences his own people, do whatever it takes to control the narrative. Anyone taking him seriously have no idea how to rationally deduct valid conclusions in this.
Quoting Isaac
And they are willingly dying for their country and freedom. Are you calling the Ukrainians willing to defend their nation, stupid? That they can't think for themselves, that encouraging defense means luring them into situations they didn't choose for themselves? Are you calling them unable to decide for themselves? If so, when you talk about what the people want, you also mean they cannot decide that either? So Zelenskyy and his authorities can't assess what the people want because all it takes is a little encouragement and you have fooled the entire nation into defending the country and no single one of them can think for themselves?
What the hell are you smoking? The Ukrainians would tell you to shut up if you expressed this directly to them. But this isn't about actual Ukrainians, this is about you trying to win the argument, what is true about their wants and needs is irrelevant to the point that you portray them as unable to make their own decisions or understand the decisions they've made after being encouraged.
Quoting Isaac
It's the Ukrainian civilians' own choice to fight. No one is forcing them to fight as civilians and most civilians who choose to fight get equipment to do so. You have so little knowledge of what's actually going on in Ukraine that it becomes impossible to discuss these things.
And Putin's forces are the ones who actively shoot at civilians so how can Ukrainians defend themselves against an enemy who doesn't care if they're shooting civilians or not? Then it doesn't matter for the civilians who want to fight that they don't have the necessary gear. You don't seem to understand what a fight for survival is. You're just grasping whatever your think fits your argument without actually doing the rational work to make sense of it.
Listen to the Ukrainian people instead of speaking for them like you are an expert on what they need to do. They choose to fight for their freedom and their nation, they choose it with such overwhelming majority and collective spirit and morale that your argument that they should put down their guns just sounds like Putin apologist bullshit.
No, please don't, I'm tired of fighting that fight against people unable to rationally understand simple authoritarian politics.
In a significant manner, yes, amongst many other factors. The stingers are widely believe to have turned the tide in Afghanistan. But note that the Ukrainians are receiving far more support than the Afghans ever got...
We seem in agreement on the key points.
Certainly Russia doesn't prepare for a US style minimal casualty conflict that it conducted at the start.
In my view, for mostly PR purposes of "easing into conventional warfare"; due to failures in that kind of warfare, even Western talking heads are like "well, Russia's going to have to do better". In some strange way their the underdog in a lot of commentary.
Also easing their own population into the war was certainly a factor.
Now that they are doing what they train for, using their heavy artillery, we'll see if it's effective or not.
Quoting Apollodorus
I was going to bring this up too that there was millions of people protesting the war in Iraq before it happened, as it happened, after ... war still happened. Western media seems to suddenly think that criticism of the kind the US gets about wars is a game changer all of a sudden (how many war crimes accusations has the US faced for example). Indeed, in the US voters still tend to pick who they think will best "win" the war.
https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE
Apparently, Zelensky has said he is prepared to consider Putin’s four-point request.
Obviously, Zelensky is a professional actor, but unless this is some kind of US-UK deception, it looks like Zelensky – or the oligarchs behind him – has more sense than some “philosophers” on here .... :grin:
In nod to Russia, Ukraine says no longer insisting on NATO membership - AFP
You didn't just say 'a' bite, you said "one bit at a time" as if it were a process inevitably ending in the subsuming of all Ukraine. I'm just saying there's no evidence that's going to happen. On the table is a Russian Crimea and an independent Donetsk and Luhansk and no membership of NATO.
Quoting Christoffer
If you want to avoid the issue, yes. The point is that you simply assume the choice is between authoritarian oppression and a some kind of hippy love-in version of Enlightenment era Europe. We have nothing but your speculation to support this, you've not provided a shred of evidence, nor cited a single informed analyst.
Quoting Christoffer
The measures are calculated by the United Nations Development Program. I know it must be confusing for you, but those sections of my writing in red are called 'citations'. It's how we demonstrate that we're not just full of shit. If you click on them they take you to the source of the information. Another concept I see you struggle with, but the 'source of information' refers to some outside expert, we use rather than just making any old shit up and then posting it.
Or have the UN been fooled by Putin's propaganda too, he's crafty isn't he!
Quoting Christoffer
No, they won't. They'll get better.
See how this whole citation thing works. We could go on like this forever... or you could cite someone with actual expertise in the field to support this claim, then we've actually got something to talk about other than just pulling speculations out of our arses and expecting them to be taken seriously.
Quoting Christoffer
Yes. as I said, the indices I cited are produced by the United Nations Development Program, they've no cause to submit to dictatorial pressure.
Quoting Christoffer
There are 41 million people in Ukraine. In what sense does a chat with a specific group of half a dozen of them have any statistically robust value? Have you any idea how large a sample you'd have to take to even have a robust estimate, let alone a mandate. Seriously. Imagine if the UK went into the war in Iraq on the grounds of having chatted to some people on the street and then claiming they spoke for the whole of the UK.
Quoting Christoffer
Where have I made any such claim. This habit you have of just ascribing opinions to me is unacceptable. The site has a quote function. If you can't quote me saying the thing you're responding to that should be a good indicator that I didn't say it.
Quoting Christoffer
Seriously? Social media. 41 million people's opinions and you think a sweep of social media is going to give sufficient mandate for something as serious as war.
Quoting Christoffer
No, my method is to engage in peace talks with a view to achieving a realistic solution, the same method that's resolved hundred of conflicts.
Quoting Christoffer
Arming civilians without clearly identifying them as military targets is against the Geneva convention. It's that simple. It's against the Geneva convention for a reason, or do we just chuck that out of the window too because it complicates your hero narrative.
Quoting Christoffer
It's not about whether they're forced. It's against international law to have combatants who are not clearly uniformed or otherwise identifiable as military targets. If you're advocating breaking international law then on what grounds are you going to condemn Putin. Pick and choose which laws you want to apply as you feel like it?
Thank fuck someone even remotely professional is in charge and has the head to think above the clamour of adolescent LARPers we have the privilege of sampling here.
What makes you think I support Russia? As I said to @Christoffer, the site has a quote function for a reason. If there's something I've said that you want to ask about, find it, quote it and then ask your question. I'm not into amateur dramatics, I'm afraid.
There was no evidence for a full-scale invasion either. But I guess you trust the Russians more.
Quoting Isaac
Analysis of what? I asked if you were willing to accept that an authoritarian regime took over your nation and you accepting that without a fight.
Quoting Isaac
Speculation or analysis based on current events? How many quotations refer to the current events and the possible repercussions of it going forward? Or are the current events irrelevant to a statistic that is made before the current events? Yeah, where did you pull that logic out of?
Quoting Isaac
Based on previous data. Are you unable to change a conclusion when new data gets added? I sure am. All it takes is an ability to actually use information up to date for up-to-date conclusions.
It's like you pull out a paper on a theory disputing the Higgs boson particle AFTER it was discovered in CERN and then scream about how many quotations it has and therefore you are right. That's not how things work. This war is new data, the situation for both the Russian and Belarus people has changed.
Quoting Isaac
You just pulled a statistical analysis of people's lives in Belarus and you are now saying that it's impossible to conclude anything from the sample sizes of what we've so far heard from the people of Ukraine? What's it gonna be?
And it's not just specific voices for the defensive actions by the Ukrainian people, it's also the LACK of voices speaking against Zelenskyy and the authority of Ukraine. Right now there are over two million refugees and so far I've yet to hear reports of demonstrations against Zelenskyy or any such acts that inform of a great dislike of Zelenskyy campaign to defend Ukraine from Russia.
Can you find any single sign of anything other than the overwhelming support and unity among the Ukrainian population? Where are the witnesses, the outcries, the demonstrations, the refugees crying over Zelenskyy's bad decisions? Where the fuck is it?
Quoting Isaac
You literally make an argument against the people of Ukraine supporting the cause to defend against Russia. In an attempt to prove a point that the people of Ukraine and Zelenskyy should lay down weapons and stop the defense in order to save lives, when they actually don't want to do that. Do you want me to quote pages after page of your writing arriving at those conclusion? Stop try to spin your words. :shade:
Quoting Isaac
Social media is one part of the information flow. There's more data to draw conclusions from the hundreds of global media outlets and social media accounts from within Ukraine than any of the support you claim to have for your conclusion.
Stop trying to speak for the Ukrainian people with your delusional ideas! They don't care about you or what you think is best. Your arrogant dismissal of all the people reporting out of Ukraine, all the people speaking from within Ukraine is fucking sickening.
Quoting Isaac
And Russia won't stop shelling civilians while they try to do that. You know, you have to keep defending yourself while peace talks are happening. And Zelenskyy has asked for talks with Putin over and over and he just returns with silence.
So your method is not working, it is not realistic by evidence of how things have gone so far. Fucking get that already.
Quoting Isaac
So civilians ASKING for weapons to defend themselves is a war crime. Are you seriously speaking of war crimes while Russia is actually conducting war crimes? Why don't you report it to The Hague court then? Oh, yes, they're busy actually investigating Russia right now. You know, because if the aggressor doesn't conduct war in a way that is considered by international standards, then you as the defense, as the people defending yourself can't follow those rules either.
Stop blaming the Ukrainians for how this war is going.
At every fucking turn you spin things towards the west, towards the Ukrainians, and away from the Russians. It's actually sickening to read. The blatant arrogance of you speaking for what Ukraine "should" do while they defend themselves against a low-IQ force of Russians firing at nuclear power plants and shelling civilians in evacuation corridors.
Can anyone become more disgusting than you in this thread? I'm done answering your bullshit now, you are delusional.
Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but Sweden and Finland also have fairly close ties with Norway and Denmark.
[sup]Jan 7, 2022 • Foreign Policy • Swedish Foreign Minister: Joining NATO Is Up to Us
Mar 3, 2022 • Newsweek • NATO Issue in Sweden, Finland Pits Anxious Public Against Cautious Politicians
Mar 5, 2022 • The Brussels Times • Sweden plans to deepen ties with NATO amid Russian aggression
[/sup]
Anyway, if Putin is going to start posturing at Sweden and Finland, perhaps even invade, then things are going to take a turn for the worse (still).
I suppose it might present two separate fronts for Russia, at least in the (seemingly unlikely) event that Putin makes a move towards Sweden and Finland.
Blame is not something people deserve. It's a tool. Censure, condemnation... It's a political weapon to bring about political ends. Who I blame depends on who I'm talking to, who I think I've got most chance of influencing.
Right now, tyrannical dictators in their bomb-proof bubble of yes-men aren't very high on that list. My government and their allies are pretty near the top, so that's where I'm focused.
If you're wanting some kind of grand summing of all the actors from WWII on, I honestly haven't a clue.
Right now, for us lowly pundits, all that matters is what movements we put our support behind and the virtues and consequences of that support. I live and work in England, so the movements available to me are all English-speaking, Western world ones. Right now there seems to be a strong momentum to egg on the Ukrainians as if they were the Rebel Alliance in a terrible Star Wars remake. I think that's really dangerous, for the Ukrainians now, and because of the whitewashing of American imperialism it involves, in the long term, so I push back against it.
Sure it is. Our whole justice system depends on accurately blaming parties and meting out punishment. What kind of punishment do you think Putin deserves for his decision to invade Ukraine? If he was on trial, and you were the jury, what sentence would you give Putin for the crime of invading Ukraine?
And you believe there are no political ends there? Who makes the laws?
Quoting RogueAI
What a bizarre question. Juries rarely sentence and the ICC don't use them. The ICC has a theoretical maximum sentence of 30 years, so I guess I'd go for that, but I'm not a Judge.
BTW, Russia’s embarrassing performance on the ground in Ukraine seems to be explained by the widespread corruption that has resulted in billions invested in the military being syphoned off by oligarchs and other criminal elements who have been buying themselves yachts and villas in Cyprus and elsewhere. Hopefully, a few heads will be rolling which can only be good news for the shape of Russia’s armed forces.
Russian military’s corruption quagmire – POLITICO
IMO this shows that Putin isn’t really a dictator, because if he was like China’s Xi or North Korea’s Kim the military failures in Ukraine would never have happened.
Speaking of Cyprus, Ukrainian oligarchs in Zelenzky’s entourage have multiple nationalities. For example, Kolomoyskyi is a national of Ukraine, Israel, and Cyprus. The way I see it, Israel needs Russia on Iran and Syria, so it may put pressure on Zelensky and his oligarchs to come to some kind of agreement with Russia.
At the end of the day, Zelensky's government isn't particularly experienced in statesmanship and it needs some proper advice from someone with more experience and expertise in the field. The Israelis would be the right people for the job.
Israeli Mediation in Russia-Ukraine Conflict Stands to Help Bennett and Putin – Foreign Policy
Looks like a balanced and lucid analysis to me, coached in careful language.
I think that for all practical purposes, Finland is in NATO because the US and the EU will engage militarily with another invasion. That would be my guess, anyway.
That would make a nice movie. The title could be: Rebirth of Ashkenaz. Gal Gadot would play the lead MOSAD agent. She would meet with her grandma who stayed back in the shtetl...
Verba volant, scripta manent.
I don't think the NATO response to a second invasion would be because of some treaty. It would be because Putin would start to look like Hitler, not that he's in that category at all at the moment.
Without a NATO membership, Finland would be left alone to fight an hypothetical invader. Just like Ukraine today will have to fight all by itself. NATO's doors are open but they do exist (the doors). I.e. it does have a meaning, who is in and who is out.
:grin: Well, at this stage anything is possible. Sometimes it takes more courage to make peace than to make war.
In any case, if the conflict goes on much longer, most Ukrainian Jews (and, apparently, many non-Jews) will soon be in Israel where the weather is better and Cyprus is closer. And Kolomoyskyi will be in Miami plotting his next coup ....
How do you figure?
But, sure, not "omnipotent", there is a parliament and a few players after all.
He's up there, though.
On the mad speculative side, if things start going south for Putin, his double-double-secret operative could secretly supply al-Qaeda suicide-bombers with a tactical nuke and have it detonate strategically, with plausible deniability of course, and he might be able to spin a victory out of the rubble. Not exactly likely, rather risky, I know, but, hey, he might have gone over such a scenario with his most trusted military officer.
Exactly what location for this detonation did you have in mind, jorndoe?
If a president has no control over billions of dollars that he invests into the military and that gets stolen from under his nose by corrupt officials, then he can’t possibly be a totalitarian dictator.
Moreover, it’s important to distinguish (a) between someone being labelled “dictator” by political opponents and the media, and actually being a dictator, and (b) between a dictator in a Western context, and a dictator in a Russian context.
For example, Wikipedia describes Russia’s form of government as “federal semi-presidential republic” and North Korea’s as “one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship”.
Obviously, there is a big difference. Russia has never had anything like a Western-style liberal democracy, which means that Putin cannot be described as “dictator” in a Russian context.
Plus, Russia does have a parliament, Putin’s approval ratings went up after the annexation of Crimea and he’s still got the backing of the majority of voters. There is some opposition, but there are many who are 100% behind him on Ukraine.
The law exists for a purpose. When civilians start shooting, all civilians become suspect. In this case their lives become much more dangerous, let's say. It has happened before.
I am curious as to how you view the Battle of France.
Pillars of Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem (US Dept of State, Aug 2020)
Quoting Isaac
Quoting jorndoe
Have the Kool-Aid "crafted Kremlin lines" dominate the airways, go viral, be spread, the news du jour, and they just have to keep the rest under wraps, minimal, inconsequential. Standard procedure, propaganda, control narratives, "seed" population, much better than shooting people is to have them on their side, ... Don't know how effective some such is in Russia; others have tried, though.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1499485321448333320[/tweet]
, , hmm, the story could use some improvements, and crafting it has barely begun. Maybe a blast in Donbas could set something off.
Quote:
"perceived adversaries"
Doesn't explain the protests. Were they misinformed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PC7DzTRS7A
Partial Transcript:
18:06
INSTEAD, TWITTER AND FACEBOOK
18:08
PROUDLY CENSOR ANY INFORMATION
18:10
THAT MIGHT "UNDERMINE TRUST IN
18:12
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT."
18:13
REALLY?
18:14
SINCE WHEN ARE REQUIRED TO TRUST
18:17
THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OR ANY
18:19
GOVERNMENT?
18:20
DON’T ASK.
18:20
BY THE WAY, OVER THE WEEKEND,
18:21
BECAUSE EVERY THING IN AMERICA
18:24
IS UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS,
18:26
"NEW YORK TIMES" ATTACKED
18:28
VLADIMIR PUTIN FOR CENSORSHIP.
18:29
TRY TO CONTROL WHAT IS PEOPLE
18:33
CAN READ.
Isn't it just.
Quoting jorndoe
They have haven't they...
https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?op=1&r=US&IR=T
https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-among-the-most-concentrated-in-the-world
https://trofire.com/2017/04/11/big-pharma-owns-corporate-media-americans-waking-fighting-back/
https://www.freepress.net/issues/media-control/media-consolidation/who-owns-media
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization
... Oh, you were probably only referring to the 'bad guys'...
Had Ukraine been allowed to replace Russia as the main gaz supplier of Europe, Russia would have lost a humongous revenue, which they use to build their army...
I agree with here. You do need to track your sources back a little further
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083401220/facebook-uncovers-disinformation-and-hacking-campaigns-targeting-ukraine?t=1646811637713
Unless we're going to start speculating about deep conspiracies, those accounts were fakes and so deserved to be taken down. There's enough real information. We don't need to fake it.
You could, for example, try this, from an award-winning investigative journalist
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/war-propaganda-about-ukraine-becoming?s=r
Yeah, because only Russia are interested in hydrocarbon resources. The rest of the work have a very much more 'take it or leave it' attitude.
How do you continue to fight when you are defeated? Ukraine isn't defeated yet.
Yeah, haven't you heard? The West has never started genocidal wars for resources and are totally disinterested goodies fighting the Russian baddies.
Such low morale is obvious. Many Belarussians have feared that Russia might take over their country and basically many are now anticipating that Belarus has become an extension of the Russian state when their local dictator Lukashenko is so highly unpopular among the people.
Haven't you heard? This is not a thread about the West, nor about who is the worse baddy.
In any case, I am the worse baddy. Worse than Putin and Trump combined. Now that's settled!...
But to understand Russia's motivation is important in order to better counter them, just as understanding the US motivation in Iraq was important to better counter them.
I hope that wasn't too painful. :-)
Indeed, I heard they already have the plans showing the weak spot in Putin's death star and just need to deactivate the force field...
Oh, hang on, am I getting the plots mixed up...
Like a needle in the eye, but hey...
I think this is the likely thing that will happen. The denials of there being no marshal law have now been said so many times from the Russian regime, that something like it will likely happen. The little, but steady stream of Russians fleeing Russia shows that they are anticipating the next phase of the Sovietizing of Russia: that the borders will close. Putin now has a large conflict, he now has the hostility of the West and he now can argue that all the ways he will try to crush any opposition against him will be done in the cause to defend Russia from foreign threats.
Indeed. It is a thread about Ukraine, in which the West has been involved in for decades.
How civilized we are! All conflict should be resolved with words. We shouldn't involve in fighting. Yet there are tons of weapons. Even laws of war...
Putin:
???? ?????? ??? ?????
?????? ?????!
mama voz'mi moyu grud'
poydem domoy!
You've been reported for racism.
You mean FOX news? I provided a link to a show on an American cable news channel, FOX news, and I am sorry if it offended anybody. It is supposed to be very popular in the United States. Let's see if it going to be banned like RT and Sputnik.
For the record:
Then you will have to define 'defeated'.
It's in your own quote
Essentially, as best I can see the narrative in the chatter:
The Jewish-led (i.e., evil for them) Ukrainian Neo-Nazi (a good thing for them) government is leading Ukrainians, who are actually just the same ethnicity as Russians, to ethically cleanse their fellow Russians for being Russians. The Jewish led Neo-Nazis are doing this with the help of their now pro-Nazi radical woke BLM trans rights activist funders in the West. They are also backed by pro-Jewish radical Islamist jihadis (this las line comes from a handful of unconfirmed reports of small numbers of Central Asian mujahideen coming to fight for Ukraine, but makes sense in the context of "ISIS being funded by the Clintons," etc.)
[I]Putin, ([/I]often referred to only half ironically as "based Putin, savior of the White race,") [I] is saving and liberating the Ukrainians, who are actually Russians, but who have been killing Russians for not being Ukrainian.
He is doing so with the help of Chechen shock troops known for war crimes, and now, apparently Syrian irregulars. Thus, he is saving Europe from the ongoing Muslim migrant murder mayhem invasion of the West by sending the first Muslim army to invade Europe north of the Balkans in centuries.
Europe needs to learn to be strong and resist invasions [/I] (migration). [I] Ukraine needs to stop resisting this invasion, it's going to get people hurt.
Putin's righteous denazificafation [/I] (denazificafation is bad) [I] efforts to defeat "Globalhomo" [/I] (yes, this is really the new popular term for the evil elite kabal that runs the world...) [I] won't be hurt by Western sanctions because he has the support of the Chinese Communist Party, who are helping him save the world and thwart the plans of the Globalhomo Democrats, who are actually just puppets of the Chinese Communist Party [/I] (so, China is fighting itself now). [I]Plus, the whole time the invasion was actually about Fauci's bioweapons labs in Ukraine and evidence of Biden's pedophilia, which are in Kyiv. The God Emperor[/I] (based Trump himself)[I] was impeached over his efforts to get Zelensky to turn these over. [/I]
At a certain point, the contradictions, liberal backed Jewish Neo-Nazis, an ethnicity ethnically cleansing itself, etc. collapse under their own weight.
Quoting Isaac
I have viewed the web page in the link:
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter remove disinformation targeting Ukraine
I did not have access to the above write up at the time. The article definitely gives a different view of events than Tucker Carlson does. I have encountered falsity statements from opinion pieces on YouTube before, and have detected them.
Twitter has censored stuff before, so I think its credibility is in question. OK, so Twitter says they removed fake accounts which were spreading lies. Of course it is up to me to believe Twitter or not. In any case Twitter have to make a subjective judgement as to what is acceptable or not, what is true or false. That is understood, but I have that right as well.
It still does raise the question in my mind who is telling the truth. If always trusting Facebook, Twitter and You Tube's account of events is a requirement for discussion, then maybe that needs to be stated.
I do not trust any news site full, comparing them does yield a better view. None of us here believe everything we hear, we all believe different sources, that's the way it is.
Thank you for linking the Greenwald article. It is called jumping on the bandwagon. For political reasons.
For the record, I do not believe any of that. That is called the fringe isnt' it?
I think you might be surprised at how immense the structures supported by contradiction might be. The issue being that ideology is weightless and such metaphors are inapplicable. There is no straw that breaks the camel's back.
FAUX News is a lie machine, a dumbing-down machine. Watching them will make you stupid.
This is one of the most hilarious mental meltdowns I've ever seen :lol:
----------
But on a serious note, there's some serious Nazi-like fascist iconography being pushed in Russia that just feels like Nazi cosplay with a new logo, especially when it's being pushed from official propaganda sources. And calling Putin a new kind of Hitler was considered "extreme"? Will he put a gun to his temple and denazify Russia now?
Yeah, if people don't even know what Fox news is or how biased it is, then no wonder so many have a hard time understanding how to decypher both propaganda and what sources to use for rational and logical arguments. Everything starts with media knowledge, fact-checking, research methods that produce logical conclusions and an ability to form all that into a coherent structure as an argument. The blatant cherry-picking to fit the narrative, the Putin is right or wrong depending on the argument, or news outlets that support the narrative or research papers with no connection to the actual premises being presented just form a maelstrom of BS. It all starts with an inability to understand how media works and what to trust and what not to trust. Thank Odin I have an actual education on "media deciphering" or whatever the correct translation would be.
Note that @Isaac, @StreetlightX and others are constantly contradicting themselves, but it doesn't actually matter to them because they are simply not logical enough to notice and care about logic.
Yes, and many English-speaking media -- such as FAUX -- have been manipulated for decades. Hence Brexit, Trump, and other bizarro anglo stuff. Their public is misinformed, dumbed-down by Murdock and co.
Absolutely. I probably wouldn't trust what Twitter say either, and I don't see any problem saying as much - so long as we're clear about it. I think "Social media companies have removed pro-Russian accounts which they claim are fake" is about the surest ground we have on that particular story.
Quoting FreeEmotion
No problem. It's a good read.
Yeah, but it will take a few years even if the push for this is at a maximum level now. But I do think plenty start to back up and look at the whole picture now. When we already have a movement towards green, I think there are plenty who earlier was a little apathetic against fast change, who are now changing their minds to push for a change faster. I think that government spending and private sectors will now be much more committed to green solutions for everything, and that is a good thing. This is why I've said earlier in this thread that even if we go back to how Russia exported oil before, there will come a time when Russia has no export because there are no nations willing to spend money on oil anymore. Germany has just changed gears 180 into spending on green solution infrastructure in order to try and get rid of the dependency on Russian gas. Nordstream will be gone in a few years, even if Russias export starts up again.
Everything about this invasion has shaken up the global resource- and energy economy to the point where people are trying to move away from dependency on authoritarian nations for natural resources and other trade. No one wants to find their economy and infrastructure being under the power of another nation anymore.
What's a bit worrisome about this is that most of the world's peace relies on trade and if nations start to block trade towards authoritarian nations, they want to have power in some other way, maybe even military solutions.
But all of this will push money into green solution science and that is unquestionably a good thing.
Has the quote function broken? There seems to have been a flurry recently of posts referring to what I'm apparently saying without making use of it.
Well it seemed that way to me too at first, but I realise now I'd missed this...
Quoting Christoffer
We have an actual expert in. Someone with, like, an actual education, in media decyiphering (though one which apparently didn't stretch to the correct spelling of deciphering).
So let's take the opportunity to iron this out once and for all. We can finally learn from our resident expert how we decide what to trust and what not to trust?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/pawelwargan/status/1501271537285881856[/tweet]
You straight admitted that you don't care about the truth. Do you need that quoted back to you?
Yeah, the nihilistic Russian spirit shows itself wonderfully in that clip. All while Ukraine is urgently calling for a ceasefire in the Chernobyl region in order to repair the power plant, but so far they get nothing. Either the Russian troops are extremely uneducated, extremely stupid, or are so nihilistic that they act out like angry little children with severely lacking upbringing. Or a combination of all.
Yeah, and they're not gonna be better after killing old disabled people. Fucking hate Russia's treatment of kids like this, it produces a large generation of broken people who might never do anything good in this world. Just violence against themselves, against others, until they die. It's sickening.
It doesn't matter if I quote you or not, because your logic is as broken as your grammar. You cannot perceive your own contradictions, you 'blank'. E.g. I recently pointed at one and you ignored it. I suspect simply because you were fundamentally unable to process the info I provided to you.
Some of it sure, not all.
The bioweapons thing has been a frequent line of questioning by GOP Congressmen vis-a-vis COVID-19 and is a substantial minority belief among Republicans (the main version being that Fauci used US tax dollars to fund China's creation of the virus). We'll see if the Ukraine version gains traction.
Migrants as an invasion is common rhetoric. Trump, biggest name in the right wing game here, said Putin's invasion was smart and mused how we might invade Mexico to stop their ongoing invasion of the US. Replacement theory shows up in the mainstream, on Tucker, etc. and frames migrant flows as invasions intentionally stoked by "elites." Tucker is an elite heir as is Trump, so if they aren't elites, I wonder who is ?
The election being rigged is a majority Republican opinion in many polls and China is the number one culprit after the DNC. Trump's legal team fighting his loss claimed explicit evidence of Chinese involvement, but never added it to any court filings or produced it. Fox talking heads have mused on it quite a bit and it's all OANN talked about for a while. Then you see the same talking heads going on about how "sanctions are pointless because Putin is smart and will work with China, so why antagonize them. Xi and Putin are so clever, outsmarting the Western "elites," cheers for them."
The allegations of Nazism being a major political force at the very top of Ukrainian politics, with the country's Jewish PM and President, has shown up plenty on cable news.
The less popular stuff is the out right praise of Nazism and calling Putin "savior of the White race," although arguably talk of him as an important global force for good for "standing up against global 'elites' who want to flood the economy with migrants and tear down all traditional values," might be a dog whistle for the same sentiment.
Certainly not in all cases, or even close to a majority, but to be sure in quite a few pindits' cases the "elites" trying to ruin Western civilization and replace us are "the Jews." You know, when someone talks about elites having a close knit set of communities across the world, an oversized role in the academy, politics, Hollywood, the sciences, and finance, "them" not being part of the fabric of the "West," and then immediately segues into talk about Israel, or "just happened" to be showing a slide show of leaders and moguls who just all happen to be Jewish, I don't think I'm picking up false signals. Especially when the comments they allow are filled with people praising them for "naming the Jew."
Who said anything about truth? It's just a shit argument.
Huh?
So it seems we agree. About the Greenwald article, however, I noticed some of the images : Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones and the other guy I don't recognize are pictured in Rolling Stone magazine as "These are the guys covering for Putin...".
I lived in the U.S for several years in the 1980s and one thing that impressed me was the idea that everyone had a right to speak their mind 'free speech', including flag burning, American flag burning , Neo-Nazis parading in the streets and so on. All defensible under 'I may not like your opinion but I will defend your right to express it'
Isn't the Rolling Stone treatment about demonizing people they disagree with instead of debating their opinion? It seems that they are unclear on the concept. To quote Greenwald:
At least they are not arresting people, only publishing arresting headlines.
Wow. The Economic(s) reasons for war. "A heart-rending but necessary war" sounds as morally empty as it sounds macabre.
Before I got made stupid by Fox news, I developed a strategy for dealing with the news. I watch and read them all, CNN, FOX, RT, Sputnik and try to build a picture of what is actually happening. When they all agree on something, it is like a 3D image of the truth.
For example Sputnik:
Not very propaganda like for the man on the street is it? Is this sort of think 'critical of the government?' I would this sort of negative, demoralizing stuff would have got them all in prison not so long ago.
This is what the average Russian person must know: the war goes on, objectives have not been met, heavy sanctions have hit Russia and these things cannot be censored.
You cannot triangulate three lies to find the truth.
Therefore, the correct procedure comes from selecting generally trustworthy sources, good quality sources of data, journalists who don't make it their duty to lie to their audience but rather look for the truth and say it as they see it, with of course some perspectives and biases as we all have but genuine, and then -- only then -- triangulating these good quality sources to check for possible biases.
Well, yeah. That's the point. One cannot defend free speech with one breath and then condemn demonisation with the other. Demonisation is, after all, a form of speech (in the widest sense).
I don't think it's particularly healthy for a society to have too many barriers to the discussion of ideas, but I don't believe reasonable grounds is too high a threshold to meet, nor do I think that this freedom is top of any list of freedoms society ought to try to ensure, like freedom from oppression which some speech act might impinge on. It's a useful freedom, but it's not by any stretch the most important one.
In our recent exchange, for example, you might think those accounts that Facebook froze were not, in fact, fake at all, but just genuine Russian accounts and Facebook lied - nothing implausible about that, but you don't have reasonable grounds to say it, and that's not too restrictive a threshold to expect.
In your "Neo-Nazis parading in the streets" example, such tolerance can lead to oppression (that being the raison d'être of such groups) and I can't think of a single reason why their freedom of speech should be more important that another's freedom from fear.
It's useful, but not the be all and end all.
As far as banning RT and Sputnik, I don't know enough about those outlets to form an opinion. I've never read either and I've no idea if there's a trail of shoddy journalism in their wake or not. I can see a perfectly legitimate case for banning both in Ukraine - they're at war with Russia and enemy propaganda can be damaging in war, so even suspected sources of it are legitimate targets for suppression, but in Europe and the US, I suspect it's just virtue signalling, I can't seriously see enough people getting their news from Russian media to sway anything.
If you can find me a single person who admittedly gets their information from non-trustworthy sources, bad quality data or journalists who make it their duty to lie your comment might have been something other than vapid condescending bullshit.
Otherwise, the same arguments about the truth of some position or other simply get shifted to the trustworthiness of some source of other with no more conclusive objectivity than before.
If we can disagree about some fact then we can disagree about the trustworthiness of a source (that being a fact). It's ridiculous to suggest there's some 'correct procedure' by which one can find 'the truth'. The sources you trust will deliver the truths you prefer - that's why you chose to trust them in the first place.
But if I'm wrong, then simply explain how the trustworthiness of a source is not itself a fact - otherwise your argument is circular.
Let me get this straight: you think nobody ever lies, or that journalists never consciously lie in their reporting, or what? What is the status of 'lying' in your ontology? Does it not exist, as a behavior?
Oh, @Christoffer... in the first photo it was terminally ill children showing their support for the troops performing the Special Military Operation to free the Ukrainians from the neo-nazis!
Ah, back to the spontaneity of the Soviet times! Next surely will come the lithurgy of Soviet times.
I guess it can without regulatory protocols, as long as those don't turn authoritarian, right?
Anyway, government removal happens, scales/reasons differ, ..., and Russia sure stands out.
Some examples have already been posted, but we could include different examples while at it.
[sup]Aug 2013 • Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft
Feb 2017 • Iranian Regime Inciting Hatred, Persecuting Zoroastrian Minority
Mar 2017 • WikiLeaks publishes 'biggest ever leak of secret CIA documents'
Mar 2019 • Brunei to punish gay sex and adultery with death by stoning
Dec 2021 • Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules
Dec 2021 • China's Xi responsible for Uyghur 'genocide', unofficial tribunal says
[/sup]
Quoting frank
Word of the Year 2016 (Oxford Languages), post-truth (Lexico) — a cultural failure.
Actually just a failure.
Don't worry, if you tell us the Finnish original we'll look up the Swedish translation for you :wink:
Quoting Olivier5
Not only do they know very little (which is probably a generous assessment), but due to their unfortunate antipodean position they tend to see thing upside-down ... :grin:
How on earth did you get that from what I wrote? The issue is not whether people lie, it's that no-one is going to knowingly get their information from a liar, so there's no point saying 'make sure your source isn't a liar' as a piece of advice. In any disagreement, you'll think your source isn't a liar, I'll think your source is a liar. Establishing who's a liar is no less fraught than establishing what's a fact in the first place because "John is a liar" is a fact.
How am I going to establish whether "John is a liar" is true? I'll do as you say, and check with my non-lying source Bob - Oh no, someone said Bob's a liar, however will I check that? Not to worry Olivier's here with some useful advice, simply check with a non-liar like Jim. Thank goodness, except... John says Jim's a liar. All we have to do is verify "John's a liar"...
That there are facts is indisputable, it's establishing them that all the fuss is about.
Don't get hysterical quite yet, I was just asking for clarification.
Quoting Isaac
I think it is good advice to point out that certain sources are untruthful, such as FOX for instance. Someone who generally trusts FOX, unwittingly, could be made a little more cautious if you alert him, and even ultimately could switch to a (hopefully better) set of sources. Even someone ideologically riveted to FOX might one day realize that his trust included a lot of bad faith, that he always knew deep down that much of what they say was BS pulled out of their ideological arse but that he turned a blind eye to it, or even relayed it because it had the advantage of pissing off some liberals.
The switch from bad faith argumentation to good faith realization can be liberating.
Quoting Isaac
How do you spot a liar, usually? It's not rocket science, just check some verifiable facts mentioned in the source against the reference material you happen to accept. Wikipedia, British Encyclopedia, BBC, whatever you happen to hold as being of good general quality. Another point of comparison is your own personal experience if you have some direct exposure to a newsworthy event now and then. If you find a lot of discrepancy between a news source and your reference sources or personal experience, it's a sign there might be a problem.
Now, it might be that one of your reference source was in fact incorrect, say it could be that the BBC for instance got something wrong while our suspected liar was in fact correct. Check against the Guardian, le Monde, El Pais, Die Zeit, Aljazeera... (not too disreputable sources) and look for differences All these generally reputable sources cannot be wrong all at the same time.
To be quite honest, I think most of them still don’t know anything except what they are being fed by the media.
Opinion polls conducted by the Carnegie Center in Moscow and other organizations have found that most of the Russian people support Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine and it is generally accepted that Putin enjoys popular support for the war.
Russia appears to have no way out as Putin goes ‘all in’ – The Guardian
Unfortunately, Westerners are highly susceptible to NATO propaganda because they’re hooked on social media controlled by pro-NATO tech companies that are encouraging anti-Russian mass hysteria and hatred:
TikTok Is Gripped by the Violence and Misinformation of Ukraine War – New York Times
Western dependence on the media’s mass-produced fake news has reached the point where people believe that facts don’t matter. As one Twitter user infamously put it, “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?”
Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times
Even here some become irate when inconvenient facts are mentioned and resort to denial, evasion, diversion, and ad hominems.
The way I see it, philosophy is about looking beyond appearances and not taking things at face value. A more philosophical and rational approach needs to acknowledge the fact that there are wars going on across the globe, e.g., in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, some of which are waged by NATO members like Turkey whose neo-fascist regime has also illegally occupied North Cyprus and is involved in the brutal suppression of religious and ethnic minorities.
So, the question that needs to be asked is, what’s so special about Ukraine? Why is America suddenly so interested in that country after ignoring it since the 1920's?
From what I see, the pro-NATO narrative seems to offer no rational explanation. One way of looking at it is that Biden may be holding a grudge against Putin for allegedly interfering in US elections. In 2019, Biden said:
So this may be some kind of personal vendetta for Biden.
But another, and I think more important, reason seems to be that America sees Russia as a challenger to its global dominance.
America has got used to ruling the world ever since it became the world’s main financial center in the wake of WW1, after which it came to look on Europe as an American colony. This is why it now sees even the smallest sign of European insubordination as a direct challenge and threat to American rule.
When seen from this perspective, Ukraine becomes a small detail in a larger puzzle that only makes sense when seen against the background of a global, geopolitical picture in which America seeks to expand its power and influence and enforce a unipolar world order through a network of regional and global institutions like the UN, World Bank, IMF, NATO, etc. ….
Was this verified? I had trouble finding good sources.
Which, on a related note, if you're interested in how the conflict is going and want detailed analysis, ISW is fantastic open source material. I did some work with them a while back. They had very good coverage of Syria.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-8
The Center for Information Resilience has a very good map up and decent vetting for how it is being done if you want to get into the details.
https://maphub.net/Cen4infoRes/russian-ukraine-monitor
Or there is:
https://liveuamap.com/
Take it with a grain of salt. CIR are pretty good about verifying these types of reports, vetting and placing images and videos using satalite and aerial photography, checking metadata, checking for edits, looking up insignia and hardware models, etc. IDK about this.
For a grand strategy IR lens there is IISS:
https://www.iiss.org/regions/russia-and-eurasia/ukraine
Or for wider looking stuff from scholars there is CSIS.
I'd say definitely don't just look up random "OSINT" Twitter. Super unreliable, tons of misrepresentations. Also a lot of bias. You can't even tell what might be going on based on the weight of posts because Russians have been booted off, so it's going to be pretty one sided.
Someone was uploading maps from the Turkish General Staff that appeared to be spot on, but it's all been wiped.
Also, bear in mind that based on Russian planning, I wouldn't 100% buy into estimates based on Russian divisions starting at full strength, the organization seems pretty messy.
But for reference, each tank division is three tank regiments and a regiment of motor rifle troops. Motor rifle divisions are flipped, three motor rifle regiments and one tank regiment.
Each tank regiment is 3 battalions, 30 tanks and a command tank. There are also regimental command tanks, so roughly 90 tanks on average. Motor rifle tank regiments are 40 tanks.
Useful reference for knowing how platoons, companies, battalions, etc. are formed.
https://www.battleorder.org/military-organization
There are some translation issues though. So at first you hear "the counter offensive around Kharkiv destroyed an entire Russian regiment," and it's "oh shit," but it was a company that was routed. Still, a big win.
Has some decent info down to the squad level, even if it is dated. If you know the organization and doctrine, the scraps of OSINT can paint something of a picture.
Quoting Isaac
So with your delusional logic then I guess the Grenadians and Cubans attacked the US in 1983??? Because it's the same military. :chin:
Quoting Isaac
What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? Ask Kremlin to rule Ukraine on behalf of them through a puppet regime?
It already gave up it's nuclear deterrent and believed a piece of paper that Russia signed, so I guess those kind of mistakes it shouldn't do.
You explain me what the choice was for Ukraine, when an apparently not so well anymore Russian dictator accuses an administration made of a centrist party and lead by President of Jewish ancestry being neo-nazis, that are committing a genocide of which there isn't any trace of and then Russia is pursuing a de-nazification in the country which it has invaded.
I think more preferable would be to ask what are the choices for Russia now.
Again!? It's like he wants to purge the VDV, particularly the 76th Guards.
I think think this could easily verified, if false. As easily as the false news that Zelensky had left Kyiv. Just look if the name Viktor Gulevich pops up anymore in any news about the Belarus armed forces. If it does, obviously fake then. Of course the easiest thing would have been a direct rebuttal from Gulevich himself, which would benefit Russia and Belarus in the information war. Now you have only the Russian media referring that the Belarussian defense ministry has said that this hasn't happened.
But that's true that I didn't find many of the top news media saying this, just a few that could swallow propaganda:
Russia-Ukraine War | Belarus' Chief Of General Staff Of Armed Forces Resigns Over War On Ukraine
Belarus deputy defence minister QUITS over Ukraine war: Sanctioned general who 'agreed to Russian troops deploying on the border' signs resignation letter saying he cannot support invasion
Top Belarusian general quits over ally Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Report
'Defections and resignations in Belarusian military prevented country from joining Ukraine invasion'
If one just only waits a few months, usually 95% of fake news have been proven fake. The propaganda war and social media has long forgotten what happened two months ago, when they are interested in what is new since two minutes ago.
But anyway, Thanks for the good links, @Count Timothy von Icarus!
News of many Russian reserves being called up too. Makes sense, they clearly have a manpower problem.
Chechen units and mercenaries have been spotted all around the Kyiv front, which means they are trying to conduct a major operation with irregulars in an area that has had reported friendly fire incidents. Not generally something you'd do if you could avoid it.
The recruitment of Syrian fighters shows desperation and that was verified by US intelligence officials. I think they will eventually push the Belarusian military in, and that could blow up bad.
Allegedly they are already using their few professional forces, flagged as Russians, so they're losing the folks that could keep discipline and the Russians gaurding the coop back in Belarus are mostly logistics (some VDV). Based on the dumbass map segment that somehow got on the air, it does sound like Belarusian long range assets may have been employed across the border too, early on.
They've also been using their police, which is downright embarrassing. Their use early on at least made some sense. They were expecting a quick military victory followed by protests and riots, but using them once it became a war? That or using police equipment to gear your soldiers... either way, a fucking disaster.
To add to that...
Be aware that this is of course used as propaganda by Ukraine, but if verified, well... speaks for itself.
Well, I don't recall ever saying that I "support Russia".
The point I've been making is that Crimea is more Russian than Ukrainian. And that Europe belongs to the Europeans, therefore America should stay out of Europe.
As for Russia using nukes, that would depend on the type of nukes it uses and on whom.
Incidentally, would you still support America if they use nukes? Sorry, I mean, do you still support America after they used nukes? :wink:
NATO will not be the first one to use nuclear weapons in this conflict. It's clear the Russian army cannot go toe-to toe-against NATO. Russia would be the ones to escalate, if it becomes a nuclear conflict.
And I would not support Russia's use of nukes, except in retaliation for America's use of nukes.
Having said that, if Russia (or anyone else) dropped a small tactical nuke on dictators like Xi or Erdogan, I don't think it would be something I would object too strongly to .... :wink:
But that the war has been a gift, a total and absolute present to the Western powers, is totally true. Again, Europe and the States ought to be thanking Putin with every fibre of their being. Oh yes, and a no-fly zone would be fucking madness and anyone advocating for it ought to be thrown straight into the loony house for life with no way out, ever.
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-a-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine-could-unleash-untold-violence/
Isn’t it hard to believe that Putin and gang are such fumbling fools?
Plus this has been verified by Putin declaring that reservists (and conscripts) are not and will not be used in the "special military operation". :wink:
Russia contemplating countering the sanctions by nationalizing Western assets in Russia. Likely will happen, I guess. Because why not?
That will end up any investment into Russia for longer time than just this crisis. And as I've said, once war and serious conflict breaks out, the economy of globalization is dumped overboard immediately.
OK let's accept this as true. From experience.
We can see how that works out, with the the alleged perpetrators having veto power over UNSC decisions on their actions. It's like having the murder suspect in the jury. It will not work. The issue can be referred to the GA but then again this is done selectively.
The powerful. Who are these powerful? The American War Enterprise (AWE as I call it). Who runs the world, Professor Chomsky? :
Quoting Chomsky
I do not think a powerful United States of Europe would be welcome, as Chomsky says:
Quoting Chomsky - Who Rules the World?
There were other methods. Masses of weapons were provided to Ukraine, now it seems mainly anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, more useful as real world testing programs for the manufacturers than as a defense. There was talk of short range missiles but this would 'upset Russia' and more likely prevent the invasion, which seems to be a Saddam - Hussein type trap like the invasion of Kuwait.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/21/weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-military/
Peacekeepers - UN peacekeepers - the proposal was rejected on both sides one after another. This would have been a huge step.
China is correct I think.
So the U.S. was responsible for that crime as well.
No kidding.
It looks like a well - laid trap. Let's hope both Ukraine and Russia manage to get out of it somehow.
As longs as we have this mad scramble for power and resources we will have these conflicts while the rest of the world stands in muted shock and awe. There is no recourse but to let the cruel hand of fate meter out justice as all empires scattered and fall in less than a thousand years.
It is easier to believe that brute force prevails over intelligence, this looks like what has happened here. We only have one superpower now, remember 'unipolar'. Putin is clever, NATO is brutish.
Yeah, this is what I mean by not caring about truth.
Look at the transition from before the 'post-truth' era to after 'post-truth. Look closely. Notice the change?
No, neither did I.
So all that golden era truthiness we apparently relished in before the dreaded post-truth world achieved exactly...let me see...fuck all.
'Post-truth' is an obsession of neckbeards in coffee shops. The poor are fucked over just the same regardless of whether Fox news blames the corporations, the Democrats, the Russians or the fucking lizard men from the centre of the earth.
"If a single additional Russian force goes into Ukraine in an aggressive way, as I said, that would trigger a swift, a severe and a united response from us and from Europe," Blinken told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."
"When it comes to sanctions, the purpose of those sanctions is to deter Russian aggression," he said. "So if they're triggered now, you lose the deterrent effect.
We can see how that worked.
Constantly reminding ourselves of the power of the rich seems to be a self-defeating exercise, gloating over us. I propose Twitter remove the accounts of Billionaires.
Really? How exactly do you see that working? Take Joe Bloggs, a Fox News watching bod. "He's seen CNN say Fox are lying, he's sen his politicians say they're lying, he's seen his liberal colleagues say they're lying. Some bloke he's never met and doesn't know from Adam off of the internet say "Fox news aren't trustworthy" and he's thinking "hey, hang on - if random people of the internet think it's not trustworthy, then maybe I ought to take a step back...". Explain the psychology you imagine going on there.
Quoting Olivier5
And if I happen to accept Fox News as reference material?
Quoting Olivier5
See, all you're doing is giving me the list of sources you trust. Why would I trust the sources you trust. I don't know you.
Just to save you responding in future, other's have prepared this short video summarising your advice.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/weapons-from-the-west-vital-if-ukraine-is-to-halt-russian-advance
The Czech Republic meanwhile is delivering 30,000 pistols
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-gets-weapons-west-says-it-needs-more-2022-01-25/
I am getting the picture now. It's all a military exercise by NATO, using a fictional country called Ukraine.
I expect they did, as opposed to just let them walk in. The point isn't the word used (as you well know) the point is against whom they're fighting the Military Government in Granadia were fighting the US military. They weren't fighting some other military the US keeps only for attacking places, it's 'defending places' military being an entirely different branch.
You were on the one hand saying the Ukrainians stood a good chance of victory against the Russian military and on the other saying that the Russian military were so strong no-one would ever present a legitimate threat to them. The same military. So which is it. Are they so strong no-one presents a legitimate threat, or are they so weak the Ukrainians have a good chance of defeating them outright?
Quoting ssu
Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians.
Quoting ssu
Really? So never negotiate with enemies is your strategy - fight to the death every battle and remain armed to the teeth in case of any invasion - you think that's a route to world peace?
Quoting ssu
I've just explained what the choice is. There's a four point deal on the table right now which Zelensky is quite rightly considering. No-one's asking whether we like the choice.
Quoting ssu
Why? This is the bit that really interests me so if you answer nothing else, do me the favour of answering this. Why is it more preferable? What does it achieve that we might want as an outcome of this involvement in social media? What are we going to gain by asking what the choices are for Russia - a country run (as we're constantly reminded) by an authoritarian dictator who simply bans media unfavourable to his position and shoots dissenters - what is to be gained from discussing what choices they have?
You reach out to him, or you don't, but I think it is worth trying. It is also worth pointing put that you cannot triangulate lies into truth, that one should start with a selection of trustworthy souces. Some folks think that if you average CNN and FOX you get something close to the truth but that is baloney. The average of two lies is another lie.
Quoting Isaac
They contradict themselves constantly, so that wouldn't work very well for you. Incidentally, contradictions are a telltale sign of a lot of lying being done.
Quoting Isaac
Do you have good reasons to mistrust them? You seem to live in paranoia, I feel sorry for you.
In the end, you are right that if you rely only on secondary sources, what I describe is impossible to do well. One needs an exposure to events, a capacity to enquire by oneself, on the ground. Only then can one establish a few beacons of truth in the media, by comparing one's direct primary observations with what is reported about it. Armchair pundits are easier to fool than folks with a lot of field experience.
Because defense is much easier than attack.
The worst thing about the Ukraine war: It's not about money.
How?
Whatever happened to the long term? If Ukraine agrees to keeping the present government, staying out of NATO "forever" (who would have thought Putin would request to join NATO?) and peacekeepers to babysit the Neo-Nazis, Ukraine will be a hugely advantageous position: supported by the world, and with Russia under crippling sanctions, rocked by protests. Who could ask for more. Maybe they will
Something else is going on here, things we cannot see. Maybe it is all about the money. I saw it somewhere a human life was quantified in dollars.
You think they do. I think they do. Others don't think they do. Can you somehow demonstrate a contradiction? Do you seriously think that what seem clear to you is just how the world is, that you (and you alone) have some kind of 20/20 vision into reality that others lack? What seems like a contradiction to you, does not seem like a contradiction to others.
Quoting Olivier5
Yes. Look at their funding sources, their political agendas... Some sources are simply smart enough to conduct their propaganda by deciding what not to publish, by controlling the narrative, using context, blending opinion and fact... That doesn't make them more trustworthy, it just makes them less likely to outright lie.
All post truth blah is exactly why you're so confused all the time. That and a lack of street wisdom and exposure to the world. But I suspect you enjoy the confusion, otherwise you wouldn't wallow in it.
I grant that, but that doesn't qualify the scale of the difference.@ssu was trying to argue that Russia in 'attack mode' were so weak that the world's number 22 in army sizes (plus a few civilians) could reasonably take them on, yet no-one in the world is strong enough to present a threat to them in 'defence mode'. Notwithstanding the fact that my main point in all this (which @ssu deliberately ignored) is that if powerful nuclear nations have nothing to fear by way of attack, then how exactly is NATO a purely defensive organisation. Against whom is it defending?
https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE
Absolutely. Given the response to Russia from the West thus far, Ukraine has little to lose by the current deal. They weren't going to join NATO anyway, no way they were ever getting Crimea back and the separatists regions were locked in a bloody internal war beforehand, independence might even help.
As for being 'under the boot' of Russia - it's ridiculous to suggest that continued fighting could somehow eliminate the Russian threat on one hand, but on the other claim that their involvement in those regions would somehow result in some totalitarian dystopia.
This is a theme we see over and over in this. When talking of resistance Russia are painted as weak, about to crumble, sanctions on the verge of bankrupting them, humiliated, Putin's support crumbling... Yet when talking about how it might be for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent (but we assume influenced by Russia), Russia becomes this unstoppable behemoth, whose iron grip cannot be loosened by any force in the world.
Seems like a contradiction to me - but perhaps I simply lack the 'Street Wisdom'. Maybe @Olivier5 or @ssu could patiently explain to one so unwise in the ways of the street how sanctions might cripple Russia now, but would miraculously have no effect whatsoever if it intervened in an independent Donetsk and Luhansk with too heavy a hand?
https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE
Question unclear, please rephrase. Especially the last part. Sanctions will cripple Russia whether or not they murder or otherwise brutalize folks in Donbass.
Interesting. So what 6 and a half million strong military are America legitimately concerned about?
So what's wrong with Ukraine accepting the current deal?
Donbass regions will be independent, probably heavily influenced by Russia, but if Russia get too heavy handed in that influence we can apparently cripple them with sanctions. So it sounds like the people of that region are going to suffer a lot less under the current peace terms than under another week, month, year of war.
They also would want Crimea back. Otherwise they will always be encircled and will lose on the opportunity to compete with Russia on the gas market, since the known petroleum and gas deposits are off the coast of Crimea. Crimea is strategic. Donbass doesn't matter as much.
Then there is the issue of war reparations: how much should Russia pay for the reconstruction of what they destroyed? (assuming Russia is not back to economic stone age in 6 months).
No objective security concern would justify the current bloated US military. It is more a question of how the militaro-industrial complex is phagocytating the US budget.
Yes, in large part I agree with your assessment. Ukraine want some military security in the region, and they want control of the gas market.
What I'm not seeing is why anyone outside of Ukraine should be encouraging the pursuit of those objectives at the expense of people's lives.
Quoting Olivier5
The original issue I took up with @ssu was his argument that Russia had no legitimate security interests because they are a massive superpower. I asked, if that were the case, why a) we'd encourage Ukraine to fight them, and b) how come America has legitimate security interests in the region if Russia don't.
You've answered (a), though I disagree with it as justification (even a 4:1 Ukrainian forces are just under what's required against Russia). What I was next asking about was (b). According to @ssu's logic, and your 4:1 ratio, America, by virtue of its enormous military, should need to take no part in any military action, planning, installation, or intervention anywhere in the world. Its defensive force is so large that it has no legitimate security interests.
So why's it got a missile base in Poland?
1) Seeing NATO countries standing by and watching by while Ukraine is invaded, having the most advanced weapons in the world and not giving them to the Ukrainians. Even I could think of ways to prevent invasion. In any case why not give Ukraine the arms they wanted? I simply did not know what weapons were being provided to Ukraine did you see the the list? They are not allowed to get or to buy what they think they need. Regardless on what side you are on this, being let down by friends is a tragedy. Makes you wonder if NATO actually will rush to defend a member.
Maybe Putin is trying to break Ukraines' trust in NATO
2) The prospect of some sort of deal between Russia and Ukraine, something that will undercut the power of Western European countries. With their combined resources, they could be a very powerful trading and military block. This means more conflict.
Quoting Olivier5
I favour neither side, however I support any countries right to defend itself, that said, it has the right and the duty to obtain the weapons and training it needs to do that. Can't you see they withheld that from them? Is it any wonder Ledensy is so unhappy.
Zelenskyy says Europe and US 'did nothing'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0I-AqUEGaU
This is betray, you can expect your enemies to do you harm but not your friends. What is going on here?
Because Poland is part of NATO, of course.
That doesn't answer the question. Poland's membership of NATO doesn't somehow lead to missile bases by some law of physics. Why has America chosen to place one there?
Europeans are afraid of Putin too. They see him as unreliable, corrupt, ultra-violent and manipulative. They can see that under his rule there is no hope for democracy in Russia. And thus there is an objective need, from EU residents perspective, to scare Putin into a less bellicose posture. Putin needs to know that he can lose wars, and he needs to know how it feels, to internalize it, to learn his lesson.
Another thing is: as long as Russia controls so much of the gas trade to Central Europe, Germany and even Italy, they have a huge lever that they can use against us. They also fund their whole army and all these new weapons with the money we pay for their gas. So it is in Europe's long term interest to diversify its gas suppliers. Hence it is vital to European long term, strategic interest that Ukraine takes back Crimea.
Right. But your claim is that sanctions can cripple Russia. So why do we need Ukraine to send it's young men in after them? Sign the peace deal, cripple Russia with sanctions (not to mention arrest Putin for war crimes). Why continue the actual war?
Quoting Olivier5
Why? If we can cripple Russia with sanctions, why do we care? Is our schadenfreude at seeing Putin humiliated worth hundreds of Ukrainian lives?
Quoting Olivier5
So which is it, Russia on the verge of bankruptcy crippled by our sanctions, or Russia so powerful economically that it has leverage against even so powerful an economy as Europe?
Quoting Olivier5
Then why the fuck aren't Europe doing it? Your argument sounded callous enough when it was putting Ukrainian economic interests above Ukrainian lives, now you're arguing we should put European economic interests above Ukrainian lives? What kind of sociopathic position is that?
To recover territory and scare the Russian army for a long time, as already explained. Besides, the sanctions are hitting us as well and might benefit China. They are not a good solution long term, from a European perspective.
Quoting Isaac
:roll: It's not you and me fighting there, it's them. And they fight for their own reasons. Why do you need to confuse yourself all the time like this, to muddle the water, to spit and disparage so much? Is it because you have in fact no point? Is the spitting standing in for absent meaning and sense? Must you spit because you have nothing to say?
:up:
"Putin must be punished" is indeed just about the most stupid, sociopath approach to international politics I can imagine. But this is to be expected from those who treat the latter as a video game.
Imagine observing the current events and thinking: "we need to aggressively address ...Putin's feelings. This is very important - the most important - and totally not bad fiction writing for edgy teen novels". The brain-rot it must take.
Why are you wasting your time here, when there are all these kangaroos outside, calling for your affection?
No, not 'explained'. An explanation goes from cause to effect. You've 'said', not 'explained'. Why do we need to recover territory, why is scaring the Russian army (if we even believed in such nonsense) necessary for us when we can apparently cripple Russia with sanctions instead? And why do we need to be scaring the Russian army using Ukrainian forces anyway, we have NATO, a force I've been assured has no realistic threat of being attacked?
Quoting Olivier5
For a start 'Ukrainians' aren't fighting as if one entity, the Ukrainian military and some civilian men are. The women, the children and the remaining men in the 41 million strong population are not fighting and you've absolutely no idea whether they even want to.
But if its all just Ukrainian private business then why are you even taking part in this discussion, you're not Ukrainian? All I'm saying is that we in the west didn't ought to be encouraging Ukraine militarily or through social media, to continue the war rather than sign the peace deal available.
If you agree with that sentiment then we have nothing to argue about. If you disagree with it then it's you I'm discussing with, your motives, your reasons, not the Ukrainians. Why do you support the continuation of the war?
I don't think a single person here is Ukrainian, so everyone opposing the current peace deal is doing so for reasons other than those arising from being a Ukrainian. I'm disputing those reasons.
Yeah, it's this vacillation between war being the crisis to end all crises on the one hand and then immediately pivoting to war being so trivial as to be considered a useful tool for the ritual humiliation of people we don't like and the defense of 'sovereignty'.
If they must treat international politics like a game of dungeons and dragons they could at leat make the effort to stay in character. Is it anti-war peacenik or nationalist hawk.
Ritual humiliation of singular individuals having always been a mover and shaker of world history of course. Whole libraries devoted to bad feelings and positive international strategic outcomes.
I recall something about revanchism being the almost direct cause of WWII, but maybe that's just fake news history.
Ha, indeed! One only need look at the massive improvement in global inequality which came about after Bin Laden's humiliating defeat...
...One might have to look quite hard of course...
...Perhaps a microscope...?
I wouldn't necissarily take public diplomatic statements by Lavrov and company at face value. This is the same guy who spent months saying Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine.
What they're publicly offering is the status quo antebellum, and it's hard to see how Putin survived that politically. Granted, if he keeps the blockade of outside information up, perhaps it can be spun as a victory.
To me, it seems like having your military humiliated, having 5,000-12,000 KIA in two weeks, leveling large areas of cities, losing billions, crashing your currency, (likely) going into bankruptcy (according to the ratings agencies), etc. all to pull out and leave the same "drug addicted Neo-Nazis in power," would be untenable politically if Putin is to remain as leader, even in a state as autocratic as Russia.
The problem of securing peace might hinge on which "Neo-Nazis," have to be removed from power. Obviously demands that Ukraine shift military units over to disarming Nazi sympathizing paramilitary units that are currently holding down Russian invasion forces aren't going to be tenable because there is no physical way to make it happen. The "Neo-Nazis" could also include a bunch of moderates, and be a poison pill designed to split Ukrainian ranks? It's unclear because I haven't seen the demand fleshed out.
The other issue is NATO and the EU. Moldova is moving towards joining the EU. The EU provides security assistance for member states, but nothing like NATO (for one, it lacks US military intervention). Ukraine would benefit more long term from being in the EU than NATO in terms of technical support and economic aid, but NATO is the bigger goal now.
Obviously, they have a very good reason to want to join NATO. They were just invaded by a country claiming publicly that they would not invade. Russian decision-making for the invasion is extremely opaque and centralized, so any security assurances Russia gives appear like they are going to be able to be overturned based on the will of Russia's leadership at any time.
My guess, given Russia's previous demands, is that the demands are such that Ukraine can not only not join NATO, but cannot receive military aid and training from NATO. It should be clear why this is untenable. Ukraine is quite poor and lacks the ability to sustain the defense posture it has now. If they give up outside military aid, Russia will inevitably be able to grow stronger relative to them. Given the current situation, what is to stop Russia from deciding that the Ukrainian state has become "too Nazified," in five years, and launching another invasion?
NATO membership also let's the Ukrainians get out of investing so much in defense. They have a huge rebuilding project going forwards. They're already a poor country. Having to maintain a large military is a major burden. That, for everyone asking what possible good NATO does, is a major benefit of the alliance for Europeans. Defense spending can remain very low while still funding an adequate deterrent force. It also appears to have reduced the risk of interstate conflict.
Tangentially related, Moldova is moving towards EU membership. Russian troops have been occupying parts of Moldova since 1992 for "peace keeping purposes." There has been no conflict in 30 years. It signed treaties to vacate Moldova's land but reneged on them. Laws against the public advocating for the military's removal are draconian by even Russian standards, with seven year prison sentences for even digital protests. So, while the public in the region initially supported a split from Moldova, it is somewhat unclear if they still do, although the military is a huge part of the economy and it's unclear what an unwinding would look like.
The region is strategically relevant as an area from which to launch attacks on Ukraine, as we are seeing now. It's actually probably hurting Russia right now as it has encouraged them to launch more lines of attack than they can secure, and their lines of communications are being effectively harassed on every effort, often up to the Russian border.
:up: Intriguing. An example, if it's not too much to ask.
In politics, individuals who are movers and shakers, is a bad thing. So this needs to be discouraged. As movers and shakers, these individuals are out of line with "the will of the people", which exists as the establishment. In science and engineering, there is high esteem for the innovations of the movers and shakers. People like Einstein receive high respect. Shaking up the political order (which dictates right and wrong), is necessarily wrong. That's why democracies don't ever seem to be able to proceed with real change.
Russian combat effectiveness seems to have plunged. They're using reconstituted regiments now, forming new units out of ones cut down far from dull strength. Conservative US estimates are 5-6,000 KIA, which would mean an additional 10,000-15,000+ wounded.
This is borne out by the recruitment drive in Syria, consideration of using unreliable Belarusian forces, and use of Chechen irregulars and mercenaries like the Wagner Group as frontal assault units for their main effort on Kyiv. Also the abandonment of Kharkiv.
(Incidentally, a leader for part of Russia's amorphous mercenary Wagner Group is a Nazi with SS tattoos. Gotta send the Nazis to take out the Jewish-Nazis in Kyiv!)
If their last General Staff report is borne out and not based on bad estimates, they repelled a major assault by a regiment sized battle group yesterday with relatively little forces or losses. This would go along with analysis suggesting low morale and very high losses in their most well trained units had led to a rapid decay in combat effectiveness. Russia has, aside from yesterday's loss, been unable to mobilize any sort of offensive above the battalion level for weeks.
Doctrine and leadership are falling apart. For example:
https://mobile.twitter.com/armedforcesukr/status/1501834943051280386?s=21
Here we see a large tank column, looks like a battalion, that should be capable of pushing past serious resistance. It is ambushed with minor losses. It retreats to regroup, which makes sense. It does so in a hotzone, which does not. Predictably, it gets blasted with artillery, inflicting more losses and likely crashing morale, then beats a full retreat, having gained no ground.
This is not a combat effective unit.
So in Ukraine, Russia are...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yet...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
...and...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Which is it? Are Russia so weak (economically and militarily) that they're about to be defeated after barely two weeks, or are they so strong that only full NATO membership will hold them back from just taking whatever bit of Ukraine take their fancy?
It's difficult to see which cartoon of Russia you're going with here, the useless humiliated ex-bully or the evil Empire complete with Darth Vader and death star.
Real change or fast change? Fast change does not equal positive change and fast change rarely equals long lasting change. In a democracy, the change requires examination and execution by the people. When a majority, close to all people agree (I mean a majority of people that does not exclude minorities or one group over another), that's when change solidifies itself into cultural and political change. Some people just want change for the sake of it or for their individual or small group collective to gain something over others. Which is why we see war, conflict, terror and pain. Little of that leads to long lasting positive change, instead risk triggering a cycle of violence that is even hard to get rid of, even within a peaceful democracy. Look at systemic racism for example, so ingrained in the system that even when whole communities agree that it's a problem, it is still hard to get rid of.
Change for a whole system or people takes time and often need to take time. When people enter their 30s they start to lock themselves into ideologies and values. It becomes harder to change the older they get. So even if change happens in a democracy, they will hold on to older values like an anchor holding society back. This is why cultural change happens quicker when booming generations start to disappear or younger people in a booming generation get into power.
The clash in Russia right now is primarily between the young generation who grew up in the post-Soviet era and the older generation stuck in those old values while the people in power, mainly Putin, tries desperately to hold onto the old empire ideals. The collapse of Russia won't just be economical, the collapse is cultural. The rift between the old and new is so vast that revolution might be a real scenario. When the fear of being shot in the street by a fascist police becomes less than the fear of a dark future for the nation, that's when people will overthrow the government. A small group of people demonstrating will not do that, but a million young Russians, even turning some of the police to their side, will.
In that regard a fast change can happen even with a positive outcome. But it's rare that a violent act create a positive outcome. Maybe blocking democracy's ability to change through peaceful processes leads to the only time democracy creates change fast, i.e revolution. Since by definition, it becomes a democratic act when it requires a majority of people to be able to overthrow the power of a nation.
But they're still able to bomb a children's hospital. I don't think Ukrainians want to hold out for a better deal. There just isn't any deal on the table now because they're locked in. A cease fire would give Ukraine time to get civilians out and regroup. Putin doesn't want that. He's just lying about the deal. He wants the Ukrainians to stop fighting so he can get his shit together and crush Kiev.
There is nothing contradictory about it. Russia is obviously in a stronger strategic position, with its developed arms industry, much larger population, much larger military, much larger reserves, much larger economy, the fact that its infrastructure isn't being destroyed, etc.
It's humiliating at the operational level because they went at lengths to present themselves as a peer rival to NATO and have had abysmal performance in some areas. $15 million AA systems turned on and functional left for the enemy (twice!). Dozens of abandoned vehicles within their claimed zone of control left for civilians to tow off (or sometimes they are driven off right to the Ukrainians because they were left undisabled, with fuel). Running out of fuel almost immediately, which would happen to any military, but not on such a huge scale. Suicidal air assaults with no SEAD happening not a few times, but over and over with the same result. Looting, including from private residences by soldiers. Expired rations for the soldiers. Bodies of your fallen soldiers in areas of your control left for days for civilians to document. Parking in tight squares in range of enemy artillery. Losing tanks and men in horrific deaths due to not vetting the load bearing capacity of bridges. Sending police in police gear into combat. Using mercenaries as front line assault units. Losing two generals and two colonels because they have to move to the front due to bad comms. Using unencrypted comms and getting trolled by civilians.
That's the humiliating part. Also shows terrible training if their doctrine focused on NATO. I can't imagine their losses with those huge convoys and massed tanks if A-10s were in the sky. Whole tank divisions would be wrecked.
You can note that I in no way claimed Russia was on the verge of "defeat." I said they were rapidly losing combat effectiveness and have lacked the ability to carry out an effective push on the outskirts of Kyiv, let alone an assault into the city. This is the opinion of professional analysts. I said it looked particularly dire for Russia if the Ukrainian General Staff's last report was accurate. It may not be. There is evidence of the engagement in open sources but not enough to vet OPFOR numbers so it is unclear if they actually repulsed a reinforced regiment, or a smaller unit.
This may be proven wrong. Recent assaults have been with reorganized formations, up to the regiment level. The Russian pause near Kyiv was likely to allow time to reorganize units at reduced strength into new, combined full strength units, as well as to bring supplies up. However, this appears to have been completed days ago and no meaningful push has appeared.
They may be waiting for troops moving from points east. The assault on Kharkiv seems to have been abandoned and it appears most resources from the Sumy axis are moving towards Kyiv rather than attempting the earlier link up with forces south, with Dinipro as a central objective.
The Sumy axis has been fairly successful, so perhaps the infusion of resources and higher morale troops will change conditions around Kyiv. However, the push west for them is going slow and costing them. If they take their previous approach, sticking to main roads and bypassing large areas of the countryside, it seems likely that they might run into further issues with long lines of communications that are far from secure. This risks turning an effective component of the invasion into an ineffective one.
In time, Russia can reinforce units around Kyiv, bring in additional assets, bring in more competent leadership, etc. This is why I said Ukraine likely feels decently about their odds "in the medium term." This is not in contradiction with the military situation being "dire" in the long term. Their hope is that political and economic factors will intervene within that time frame to force a settlement.
The cannon fodder doesn't bomb the hospitals or maternity facilities. The cannon fodder are young conscripts at the front not knowing what they're doing, the real military competence in the Russian force stays behind and use missiles and other long range attacks. Or, they are fundamentally incompetent because they can't aim. Either way, the Russian army looks pretty stupid. At the start of the invasion I said that Russia has power, but not much else. They have the most powerful bombs, the most tanks, the most everything, but they have the least strategic ability or intelligence. All the reports of troops getting blind drunk on vodka close to the date of invasion speaks for itself on what type of soldiers these are. The reports of looting and the calls they've made while doing so also shows that these soldiers are far from being battle ready, well trained operatives capable of logical and strategical thinking. Russia can only win by brute force, just push regardless of losses until they've conquered by numbers, but that would lead to extreme losses on the Russian side that will be very hard for Putin to cover up.
Stronger position, not stronger strategic position. Brute force does not mean high strategic capability. Ukrainians have shown to have much better strategies, since they are able to hold against the invasion with less numbers and less technology. This is the problem with Russia, they have the most power but the least brain.
That doesn't explain the...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I get the idea that operationally any number of mistakes might have happened in Ukraine's favour, but you go on to say...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't see how your former assessment leads to the latter. If only a series of humiliating mistakes have given Ukraine a short term, unsustainable advantage, then in what sense is holding out for the military protection of NATO in their best interests when you're claiming the it's the financial muscle of the west that's causing Russia their only long-term harm?
Long-term, accepting being outside NATO gains Ukraine a ceasefire/peace, it loses them military protection, but the financial protection of sanctions against aggression are, you're saying, sufficiently damaging anyway to bring about near bankruptcy.
So what has Ukraine got to gain holding out for a better deal when, according to your analysis, the full military might of Russia might be just around the corner and sanctions are working just as well as the military defense they'd be giving up?
By bankruptcy I meant defaulting on their debt, the sovereign equivalent of bankruptcy in that creditors can legally seize your assets and are unlikely to lend to you in the future. Not that they would have some sort of total economic collapse.
Obviously they can maintain a war effort long term (look at the USSR during the German invasion, which, incidentally was also a series of crushing, incompetence-aided defeats that was later offset by longer term strategic advantages).
Sanctions won't stop an invasion. You can't fire sanctions at a helicopter and knock it out of the sky. I was in no way implying sanctions were causing Russia the most damage. They are causing significant additional damage to Putin's grip on power and reducing Russian incentives for continuing the war, but the main hit politically was is the surprise nature of the war for the Russian public, the attempts to hide the war, which will eventually fail, the high number of Russians killed and wounded, images of Russian attacks on civilians getting out, especially large scale attacks on residential areas populated overwhelmingly by ethnic Russians, and Russian citizens learning that friends and family in Ukraine have been killed, etc.
11 million Russians have family members in Ukraine, so efforts to hide the war seen particularly foolish because it's going to put moderates and even supporters in a position of facing prison sentences just for speaking the obvious truth about the "special operation."
Precision of language is key here. The situation is simply too complex for vagueness to work. [U]We[/u] don't need to recover territory. [U]Ukraine[/u] does, or to be more precise, its current leaders appear to think so.
As for crippling Russia with sanctions, it's an approach that has its limits. For one, it will impoverish Europe and enrich China. It might even lead to global economic recession. For two, sanctions do not typically cripple a regime as much as the people suffering under that regime. Sanctions hit the poor disproportionally, while the rich and powerful find ways around them.
The best way forward for Ukraine is to win this war on the battlefield.
I'm not worried about the impact of our discussions here on the war. We are encouraging no one. There's no audience, and nobody ever fought a war because of a tweet... You are kidding yourself if you think you can influence anything from TPF, or Twitter for that matter. Your words are not going to save Ukraine. If you want to have an influence on this conflict, go fight in it, as many westerners are doing.
Quoting Isaac
And yet you absolutely ignore those reasons, you don't even know what my or other posters opinion is about that, since you don't pay attention... How can you dispute something that you know nothing of???? Logic, anyone?
Nahh. More haphazard lies from Isaac, that's what we deserve here. That's our lot.
100% correct. Sanctions only support defense to the varying degrees in which they erode public support for a war (sometimes this backfires by closing an economy and a public's access to information off) and erode the economic ability of combatants' to wage war (Russian access to microchips and are hugely relevant in this scenario).
In the event of an insurgency, the sanctions will have a multiplicative effect on Ukrainian resistance efforts because COIN required high force levels, which Russia will struggle to pay for.
Obviously though, military aid is, and will continue to remain more important.
As for the long term effects on Europe, this may be a net positive if it helps a drive towards lower emissions nuclear energy, increased cooperation and appreciation of the EU and NATO structures, and higher defense spending. Germany is already expanding defense spending tremendously in response to Putin's actions, to over $100 billion.
This would make it the third largest spender by a wide margin, except that Japan is also doing a huge surge in force build up in response to Chinese aggression. Both countries get more bang for their buck by benefiting from US hardware, which has had almost a century of massive investment as well.
This is a good suring up of the deterrent forces of China's neighbors, as combined Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Australian defense spending will be almost equal to China's, potentially ahead of it if Vietnam and the Philippines are included.
Victoria Nuland, who once handed out cookies to Maidan protesters, tells us all about them.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1501313109520175104?s=21[/tweet]
**********
[i]Russia is dying. In just the first week of Putin’s war, the country lost somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 men, according to western sources, an immense and needless tragedy for the poor families left behind to grieve.
Whether those in the Kremlin will weep for them, they must shudder at the thought that in the average week the country loses another 2,000 through population decline, a rate that rose to 20,000 during Covid. But even in normal periods, Russia is now shrinking by more than 100,000 people a year and with no prospect of raising fertility above the 2.1 total fertility rate (children-per-woman) replacement threshold.
The incomprehensible thing about this war is that Russia is not a belligerent young nation in need of expansion; it is not filled with frustrated young men hoping to assert themselves in conflict, as with Syria, Afghanistan or the world’s other conflict zones; it is already elderly, ageing quickly and in some parts heading for oblivion. Some 20,000 Russian villages have been completely abandoned in recent years, and 36,000 others have fewer than ten inhabitants left and will follow them soon. A third of land once farmed in the former USSR has now been abandoned.
If the Russians turn out to have no stomach for this fight, it will probably be for the simple fact that the country does not have enough men to spare. The majority of those poor young men killed for Russia’s honour will be their mother’s only son, in many cases their only child; this will make the impact of Putin’s crimes even more devastating for its victims.[/i]
https://edwest.substack.com/p/children-of-men-is-really-happening?s=w
That’s not how Americans spell defense.
Quoting Isaac
A choice. But not the only choice. Defend to get a better peace treaty is a possibility also.
Quoting Isaac
Is it so crazy to understand that defending against the US was successful for the Emirate of Afghanistan after two decades, yet attacking the US and trying to occupy California won't succeed?
Yes, countries when attacking other countries are weaker and while defending themselves are stronger.
You start loosing it, Isaac...
It is a selling point for whatever. Rallying public opinion with private opinion is key.
That's a hopeful analysis. Dirty business this war. Any war for that matter.
I hope somebody wins, quickly. No one seems to agree with me that Ukraine will come out of this much stronger, because world support is on its side, world money, world rebuilding of armed forces, and security assurances from Russia.
Meanwhile there is the interview with Charlie Rose.
There is the interview with Charlie Rose:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKT-XmvIwKM
This is my opinion.
Putin seems to be a realist, an immensely practical man and a very forthright in this speech: typically European in outlook. Did he start a war and get people killed? No leader of any country can avoid that taking on that responsibility, to use military force, they cannot be and should not be put in that position. There are no pacifist presidents or prime ministers. Not among the powerful nations which rely on force.
I can't help feel that both Ukraine and Putin have been provoked, manipulated by the 'cunning' and perhaps unprincipled other parties.
So how come...
Quoting Olivier5
...is
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
...?
How do you see a chance for Ukraine against a superior force undamaged by sanctions which can maintain a long term war effort, yet with the same breath say that Ukraine cannot give up NATO membership. I can't see a way those aren't directly contradictory statements. Is Ukraine strong enough to convincingly repel Russian invasions on its own or isn't it? You seem to say it is when asked about continuing this war, but then say it isn't when asked about the reasons for not accepting the terms offered.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
...yet...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
...sounds like stopping an invasion. Surely if something can reduce the incentive for continuing a war, the war no longer continues, no? Or do wars continue despite having no incentives to do so?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Why would they need to 'hide' the war? Again, I'm getting this mixed picture. Putin the dictator with an iron grip on power, shooting dissenters left right and centre, powerful enough to send armies to do his bidding - when we want to make the war sound strategically mad. Then Putin the fragile madman who can't even allow images of war out lest his volatile population reach for the guillotine. Which is it?
And?
The best bit about this story is the 'fact checkers' response. This one from USA today is priceless (if you're into dark humour)...
"Some people suggested that the US Government are funding bio-weapons labs in Ukraine...
...We asked the US Government and they said they weren't".
So that's that 'fact-checked'
I explained those points in detail. You seem to want to reduce my answers to binary 100% yes, 100% no answers. That isn't the case in any complex phenomenon.
As to hiding the war, Putin has to do that to avoid backlash from the public. Currently, many are convinced still that there is no war, no major combat operations: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/world/europe/ukraine-russia-families.html
No autocrat is fully immune to public opinion, even one that whose authority is legally absolute. This is apparent in the collapse of the Tsardom.
I included that...
Quoting Isaac
...or did you think they could defend some more without any more loss of life?
Quoting ssu
That's not what's in dispute. This part of the argument started because you claimed Russia had no strategic interests as they were too big to have to ever be concerned about attack. I took issue with the scale of the difference you were claiming, not the mere existence of it, not to mention the more substantive issues (which you're dodging) that if Russia have no such interests, then neither do America.
Myers's The New Tsar is a good biography too.
Ukraine has to either say yes or no the the deal. It's a binary question.
Your claim that it is "100% correct" that the only way forward for Ukraine is continued bloodshed. That isn't sounding complex at all.
So which is it. Is Russia such a threat that Ukraine must hold out for NATO membership, even at the cost of it's men women and children, or is Russia so weak that Ukraine has a fighting chance of defeating it. It can't be both, no matter how complex because those are two halves of a binary choice, they must continue the war or not.
The average Russian is poorer than the average Indian. Wow.
You're assuming there is a deal offered. Lavrov and the Russian state just spent months telling bald faced lie after bald faced lie to journalists, diplomats, military attaches, etc., and now they say "here are our generous terms, all they'd have to do is say yes!" and you buy it 100%?
Ukraine denied such terms have be offered. It's propaganda.
They've released no plan. No map demarcating which Ukranian land they are taking, nothing about combat cessation, etc.
If the terms require unlilateral disarment by the Ukrainians to cease hostiles, then it's not a real offer. Obviously, they can't trust that Russia will follow through on its commitments, and so any terms that force them to cede military advantage are ridiculous.
I said the situation in Ukraine is dire, not that they have no chance of winning. The conflict appears to be losing intensity on some fronts, with stalled Russian advances. However, if the Russians keep throwing low effectiveness units into frontal assaults then Ukraine could win.
Sure, Russia can mobilize additional forces long term, but not instantly. If you take mid-high end estimates of Russian losses, 8,000-13,000 KIA, likely 2-3 times that wounded, now over 1,000 vehicle losses, and project that out (i.e., assume they continue to use the same garbage tactics) for another 2-3 weeks, you're looking at the invasion force having lost more than half its combat personnel. If that were to occur, depending on Ukraine's own losses and the strength of its mechanized divisions, I think you could see major counter attacks finally emerging, instead of the defense in depth strategy.
Optimistic, but not impossible.
At that point Putin would have to totally double down, implement a war economy, implement mass conscription, etc. or employ nuclear weapons. I don't see him politically surviving that (hell, I don't see him physically surviving ordering a nuclear strike over this, he'd probably "have an accident and hit his head.")
However, since the Western media insists extremely strongly on the narrative that Ukraine is somehow winning, going to win, can hold indefinitely, I'd like to present here the alternative point of view of the military situation as such.
Of course, deception is a large part of warfare, so the Ukrainians could be planning some brilliant move to rout the enemy that launches at any time. Likewise, stories of Russian moral collapse could be totally true or then riots start breaking out all over Russia at any moment. There's definitely risks on Russia's side and predictions of obviously possible things always have a chance to come true. However, what we can be certain of is that all the retired generals and retired intelligence directors that hammer this impending Ukraine victory home, base that on absolutely nothing. The real experts acknowledge they don't know the situation on the ground for Russia or Ukraine.
So, that being said, the reasons to assume Ukraine is not going to bust out some brilliant move is that conscripts generally speaking, and especially conscripts that trained sometime in the distant past, are terrible at offensive maneuvers. Conscripts are effective at manning trenches and firing artillery mainly, and doing the logistics, cooking, repairing, medical evacs and nurse work etc.
Furthermore, even manning trenches and doing defensive maneuvers and planning logistics etc. requires professional soldiers and officers to keep things from falling apart. Of course, in a long war conscripts who survive can become professional soldiers through learning by doing, but we're literally 2 weeks into this thing. Keep in mind a big part of being an infantry soldier or even just doing logistics is just carrying stuff around and it takes time to build that strength.
Therefore, how a conscript army is supposed to work is that it's mobilized before there's an invasion and then all those conscripts basically go and dig trenches and sit in those trenches with a bunch of ammo (that even old out-of-shape conscripts can do with enough time). Once a conscript is in a trench, it feels safer to stay in said trench, and shooting randomly into the darkness seems like something to keep one occupied, and everyone else is doing it so seems reasonable to also shoot in the general consensus direction.
Which, as an aside, to me, explains the Russian invasion plan. Russia was in a catch 22 that if they made a better plan, Ukraine is likely to be tipped off and mobilize, so the plan would be better ... but Ukraine maybe way better prepared. And, pretty likely there's Russian soldiers just texting with friends in Ukraine who are asking "if they'll invade" and so on (and if all such chats suddenly went silent for weeks... maybe suspicious too; so you'd actually want your troops to be like "same ol' same ol' and that nothing seems to be going on"), which requires your own troops to be genuinely clueless there's an invasion (even officers would spook their troops by acting differently, if that was possible to keep a secret anyways outside the very top; hence "the plan" was likely Putin and 2 other people, then everything is launched in a week kind of thing). Of course, there's downsides to the total surprise, but there's also upsides. And in Russia, if troops get demoralized: off to Siberia!
The other reason it's difficult for Ukraine to launch some surprise offensive is that it's logistics and armor is far worse than the Russians. Russians also have anti-tank rockets and so on, but armor would still be good to have. The reason armor is so important--tanks, personnel carriers, and armored artillery, is that infantry are extremely easy to kill with explosions just walking around; and, even getting hit with a anti-tank missile doesn't necessarily kill everyone, they can still get out. So, to just get your infantry to the battle without being slaughtered by artillery it's useful to have armor. It may also seem "easy" to pick off a tank that's just sitting there (and maybe a decoy), but with artillery explosions and smoke and bombs and machine gun fire, and total chaos everywhere in an offensive maneuver, a tank is not some sort of liability for your own side.
So, if the above points are true, then it's essentially impossible to take back any significant positions from Russia (i.e. land that Russia is able to dig in and setup artillery and supporting logistics and organize it's defense). There has been push back in the East ... but those can easily be tactical retreat to then slaughter the advancing infantry with artillery.
Hence, if Russia can't easily lose any (important) land once taken, and can gradually take the land it wants by just enough artillery, rocket artillery and bombs to just obliterate whatever is there, then Russia plan seems obvious to me to keep as much of the Ukrainian army in the East as possible (just keep them occupied), and then complete the encirclement of everything East of the Kiev. Seems that position West of Kiev is built up and no going anywhere and, according to maps today anyways, seems to be extending salients now South of Kiev. It's just a matter of time until the North and South join up. Again, the "convoy" seems to me a giant parking lot of vehicles that are unneeded on the front (which is seems obviously well defended and also the air space), to make space for new vehicles in the rear bases (i.e. the vehicles that were intended for an uncontested entry into Kiev ... that Russia may as well have tried, but no longer needed in the current configuration; also, better to have a vehicle tens of kilometres closer if it is needed, than back in Belarus).
Having a line North South to the West of the Dnieper river not only encircles Ukraine but also means Russia can easily secure the River itself as more or less unassailable, so if Ukraine simply never surrenders and keeps harassing the Russian front indefinitely, Russia could always withdraw to the East side of the river and there's little Ukraine could do about that.
As I mentioned previously, if there's a lot of Russian speakers East of the river, then it's in Russia's interest to have the most intense fighting to the West (the exception being Mariupol, which seems to me anyways, a clear collective punishment for Azov brigade that's based there). Hence, Russia wants to tie-up as many Ukrainian troops in the East as possible, but not rampage through Russian speaking areas. So there's both a political and military purpose to advancing West of the river (a lot of commentators before the war were predicting a likely scenario of Russia taking East of the river; and the current strategy seems to be about that, but by creating first a line West of Kiev which also puts obvious pressure to surrendering). On the Eastern front Russia doesn't really have much risk in having inexperienced troops, as there's nothing strategic for Ukrainian forces to advance too. The only forces of strategic concern are the North and South salients West of the river, and it seems these forces are the most professional and well organized (in particular the Southern from coming from Crimea needs to take a lot of ground and key cities on the river if it's going to link up with the North-Western front (which is where defense and counter attacks will be focused to prevent encircling of Kiev which has obvious political consequences), and South-West army seems pretty effective at taking territory, so is presumably the professional offensive maneuver and urban combat battalions with the most experienced commanders--an additional reason for having the experts in the south is the Nuclear reactors on the way).
Now, I'm not saying this was the plan from the start, but seems to me the plan now (and definitely I'm not the only one to point it out, but the Western media seems to keep saying Russia is bogged down due to lack of advance in the East ... and then just casually mentions at the end that ok, south is doing better--maybe the strategy).
In terms of game changing weapons, it seems extremely likely to me that Migs from Poland would just get shot down and not do much (certainly can have a chance of doing some damage before being shot down; but the idea the skies would be safer for Ukrainian pilots than for Russian seems "untenable" to use the word that seems to currently describe that). The reason for the focus on the planes is likely for the simple reason that Ukraine does have the pilots and personnel to put some planes up in the sky.
The real game changing weapons would be a lot of armor. There's a reason that Nato assumed that the Soviet Union could just roll through Europe: a shit ton more armor than Nato had. Turns out that the US wildly overestimated the Soviet capabilities (because they hired a Nazi to run intelligence on the Soviets who realized grossly inflating Soviet capabilities would get him more resources and reason to hire his friends), but the basic principle that only a bunch of armor is actually effective against a bunch of armor at the end of the day is pretty accurate (planes and other things can help, but any large scale offensive or counter offensive maneuver needs a bunch of armor--which is why the conscript mobilization playbook also calls for an insane amount of anti-armor mines everywhere).
Problem with donating these kinds of heavy weapons becomes people need to be trained to use them. So, failing that, Ukraine is basically an infantry force, which can sit in trenches (that will eventually get destroyed by heavy artillery and armor assault) and any maneuvers basically gets everyone killed. Hence, the staying in cities which is basically a system of trenches both above and below the ground.
Obviously, Russia's plan is to simply siege cities and not venture in for the above reason unless strategically necessary.
Of course, things can change overnight and with US intelligence help maybe it's possible to do some surprise super move.
However, if it doesn't happen and Russia simply links up it's forces North South and if that doesn't cause a negotiated peace, it would be a sort of "now what" phase of the war.
Last note, another reason for Russia "going light" at the start of the war is that certainly they can now tell their soldiers that the only people that remain "want to" be there, everyone has had a chance to flee etc.
In terms of the wider military significance, if Russia completes a North-South line West of the river that becomes well dug in and basically immune to any infantry attack and can just sit there indefinitely, it's clearly "won" militarily, even if the war isn't over. For the kind of international relations Russia has, winning through overwhelming force is the advertising they want.
Again, abandoning Afghanistan (which then fell in a few weeks without NATO doing anything) and then cutting Ukraine in half (without NATO being able to stop it) and Russia successfully helping Syria, keeping clients in power in Belarus and Kazakhstan (with quick in and out operation, nothing messy), all sends an important military message: US says their your friend ... think twice if that's true, what's been happening to America's "friends" ... whereas Russia says your their friend, Russia sticks by their friends. CIA threatens to take you out, talk to Assad, he's still there.
For the kind of core international relations Russia has, winning this war (even in a brutal way) is a perfectly good message. If the Kremlins offer is never accepted then the Kremlin can say "they were reasonable, all they wanted was a couple of things" for the rest of history and no one can say otherwise.
So, this would be the alternative situation in Ukraine. Again, it's possible riots are erupting in Russia even now due to sanctions or that multiple fronts are being routed as we speak, but what I describe above is also one possibility.
A short version is that Russia is employing World War II pincer maneuvers all over the place, followed by World War I style trench warfare on the fronts it wants to defend. No doubt they have taken losses, but if they are serious that this is existential for them (granted, in the naked imperialistic sense, not my own anarchist philosophical sense), then accepting losses is a logical extension of that.
Was it possible to do better? The problem with this question is that Ukraine's been financed and helped by US arms and intelligence, so the very cautious approach at the start of the war may have been wariness of any CIA surprise ... like, I don't know, biological research labs, or like, whatever man.
So you're saying that because the Russians are liars, Ukraine (who obviously never told a lie in their lives, and probably are being considered for beatification as we speak) can't negotiate. You're basically saying that the only situation in which two sides can negotiate peace is one in which there's no propaganda. Do you realise what a hawkish position that is? You're basically advocating full on war for every dispute until one side is utterly wasted.
Sure, that's exactly what I was saying... :roll:
The push south from the Kharkiv axis and North from the Kherson axis, to "cut off the eastern half," as you say, did appear to be the plan until a few days ago.
It appears to have been abandoned, likely due to the perceived inability to secure such long lines of communications.
The 42nd around Kherson is now striking west from Kherson, by passing Mykolaiv, which was assaulted by a small number of forces a few days ago, most likely recon. They appear headed to a crossing in the Southern Bug.
The obvious destination would be Odessa. Satalite images show a large Russian naval force and landing forces arranged for what would almost certainly be an attempt to take Odessa. They haven't been moving though, which is likely because they're waiting on the 42nd to get round the other side of the Southern Bug so it can support.
Then the northern forces projected to go south have instead turned west toward Sumy. Forces have also been withdrawn from Kharkiv back to Russia, probably to support this and because a success counter offensive split the 1st Tank Army, at least temporarily, up to the border.
"Punitive" attacks have not been limited to areas where Azov is operating. Similar attacks were made on Kharkiv, they've just fallen off due to a counter offensive drinking forces west of the city across the border, and other forces being withdrawn (likely for a push on Sumy to Kiev).
The southern forces probably do have better morale. Fewer losses, they did take a city successfully. However, it looks like the most effective units were thrown at Kiev, and to a lesser extent Kharkiv. That's were most of the VDV and Spetsnaz have been.
The difficulty of counter attacks will depend largely on how well Russia is preparing for them.
I honestly don't feel there's accurate enough information to make these sorts of conclusions on the order of days. If a position is held for a week, then it's probably well defended, but the back and forth during days isn't really revealing of overall strategy and force strength, and there also seems to be intense map propaganda at the moment of minimizing as much as possible Russian areas (could be true, but who knows ... and, I think all that really mattes strategically is the positions West of Kiev in the North and South and they seem pretty solid: no one has broken through to torch the convoy for instance).
However, we really don't know much about the state of the Russian forces and how their generals see things.
We have a huge amount of intelligence self-produced by Ukrainians, such as what just posted, but this will have an extreme survivor and positive spin bias.
And this video basically demonstrates well my explanation above that infantry are terrible at offensive maneuvers against an enemy line. Imagine if an observer spotted these guys and 10-20 shells and/or mortars landed on them (which we obviously wouldn't then get to see on the internet).
Russians need to establish forward operating bases; so "pauses" in the North and South main pincers seem more to do with that than they have been stopped. If they are stopped for a week, that would be one thing, but slow progress can just represent sorting out logistics and digging in on the flanks, installing artillery, and taking care of a bunch of details.
There's this narrative that Russian forces are "falling apart", but Russia can rotate in fresh troops, has a massive inventory of vehicles and artillery, and isn't going to run out of ammunition or diesel anytime soon.
Of course, doing the unexpected has strategic value, but the value of setting up a line North South seems so high, and the only way to end all the chaotic ambushes and anti-tank pick-offs, etc. in the East, that is the downside of having a super long front in the east (the advantage is that it ties up Ukrainian troops that can be cutoff on mass). Conventional warfare like this takes massive amounts of ammunition, so once units are cutoff their calculus changes pretty radically; they are for sure unlikely to go anywhere.
You're arguing that Ukraine should not accept terms because...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I mean I'm literally quoting you here, I can't get any closer to what you're saying than actually quoting you. If there's more there than "Ukraine can't negotiate because Russia are liars" then you'll have to add it, because it's clearly not in the quote.
Do police negotiators just show up and call a hostage taker a crazy madman, and when the hostage taker denies it they just call him a liar too, and then leave?
Which is pretty clever by Putin offering the status quo before the war.
It's both impossible to accept (as literally makes the whole war pointless, and Ukraine is obviously not being rescued by NATO nor ever going to be let in the club, so "fighting for that right" clearly makes zero sense also) and also absurd not to accept.
If Putin was actually worried about the military situation, he'd start high and then settle low, maybe offer some symbolic reparations etc. to sweeten the status quo deal.
Instead, Zelenskyy finds himself fighting an existential war with a foe that keeps repeating they just want the exact same situation as before the war, just de jure instead of de facto.
You are misreading. Sure, you are quoting, but you are quoting just part of a paragraph and splitting a sentence. I was referring to your credulity regarding Russian public facing statements, not commenting on Ukraine's diplomatic position.
Indeed. There was talk before the war of Putin wanting to be recognised as a proper player on the world stage. A war to make official that which was true but disputed seems aligned with that ideal, especially if the whole thing can be glossed with a shiny coat of anti-Nazism.
In keeping with this general trend of schizophrenic analysis here (Fumbling lunatic one minute, iron-fisted dictator the next) I think there's a sense among some people here that the war in Russia will be judged on the terms that we in Europe believe it to be really about. As if Putin will have to go back to Russia, tail between his legs and say "well, I didn't manage to capture all of Ukraine for Russia, sorry", but there's no reason to think there's any large group in Russia who are supportive enough of Putin to be behind the war in the first place, but also savvy enough to see that it wasn't a 'special operation' at all. I just don't see any evidence of such a demographic at all.
I think Putin is, as you say, in quite a strong position really. If the war goes his way, then it's obviously a win. If it doesn't then, well, it was only an 'operation'. It's not that nothing could count as a failure, but he's certainly hedged his bets.
I see so...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Says what, in addition to "Ukraine can't negotiate with Russia because they're liars"? That there isn't really a deal? Well Russia have certainly said there is a deal, so there seems to be nothing more here than just the 'liar' issue. And "...and you buy it". Well, again there seems to be nothing more there than saying I shouldn't 'buy it' because Russia are liars.
Unless you're writing some seriously cryptic metaphors, I'm not seeing anything in the rest of the paragraph that says anything more than Russia are liars so no-one can negotiate with them.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Well that's odd seeing as my question, not to mention my entire conversation for the last few pages, was about Ukraine agreeing to the terms rather than continuing war - as you say they "100%" have to do.
So perhaps, having got the important task of berating my credulity out of the way, you could say something about Ukraine's diplomatic situation. Why do think they 100% have to continue fighting rather than accept the terms?
For here a bit certainly, but the Western mainstream media basically take this idea as the gospel truth.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, definitely Putin could stop at any moment and says he's achieved whatever he set out to achieve.
Fighting neo-Nazi's: shelled Mariupol to oblivion and decimated the Azov battalion base (I don't know where it is, but I assume it's something can blow up if they haven't already).
Russian core strategic interest: it's pretty clear to me Ukraine isn't in NATO, and Ukraine won't be building back buddy-buddy with the CIA anytime soon in my opinion.
Calling the Wests bluff and creating schism in NATO: don't see any sanctions on that sweet, sweet Russian gas (in the EU) and this whole thing about the jets is comical (US: we're working on getting Ukrainians jets! Poland: ok, we'll give them to you, you give them to Ukraine ... US: not tenable)
Key land captures to show for the blood spilled: land bridge to Crimea.
And that's just today.
If his forces can link up in the middle of Ukraine, then he can easily take everything East of the Dnieper river and passify largely Russian speaking areas with zero easy ways to smuggle in arms for an insurgency into that part of Ukraine (unlike the Western part) and proclaim protection from neo-Nazi's achieved for Russian speakers, for ever basically (and better protection of Russia for the next hundred years at least).
By offering throughout the whole war, the de jure status quo before the war, Putin can easily explain his good faith and good intentions (certainly to most Russians) to the end of his days, as all he wanted the whole time is just the fighting in the Dombas to end and a neutral Ukraine (to have peace and not nuclear war) and to blow up some neo-Nazi's; just a simple man really.
As soon as the war ends, the discussion will switch to how it started in the first place and how was anyone crazy enough to reject Russia offer to end it. It makes "emotional sense" now, but will make zero rational sense as soon as the War is over and the extreme damages to Ukraine and people's lives contended with.
We only hear the pro-war almost kamikaze level fanaticism side of Ukrainians (as you point out) but we'll hear other voices as soon as the war ends: and the viscous partisan fighting has only just begun.
As well as even more advanced captured Russian equipment: straight to organized crime you go!
If you don't think people are making fucking bank ... you don't know people.
Of course, RT and Pravda are pure propaganda now, very easy for all to see.
Anyone here recommend a source for this?
I would put that all in past tense.
There simply is no way around this: Putin made huge gambles, made huge victories (2014 annexation of Crimea), or at least he could think so if getting territory with poor economy is that, and basically had punched way over his weight class. And now he lost it in the gamble. Made a catastrophic error on starting this war. It puts the Soviet leadership that went to Afghanistan to seem far more intelligent, far more cautious. Perhaps nobody dared to say it to him or whatever. Before Putin heard different opinions, but after 2012, the people around him have come smaller and smaller.
There are too many reports on how this came as a surprise to the whole Russian system. And just think about one thing: how could the US intel be in the end so accurate? Usually US Intel blunders at nearly everything. I think the issue is that they actually got informants inside the Kremlin because people there were worried what was happening. That the US intel assumed that Kyiv would fall in 90 hours tells how Putin wasn't the only one overestimating the Russian army and underestimating the Ukrainians.
Putin has now thrown such bad dice that there are dramatic long term consequences.
I'm not averse to it, but the whole point of my post is that we don't really know what's going on. Western media continuously say one unsourced thing, so seems appropriate to say the alternative scenario.
But the main source is just the maps of what territory Russia is holding / contesting, which clearly do advance everyday on the West-North and West-South main pincers. There's really no way to know about the state of those pincers in terms of soldiers, equipment, logistics, and likewise the state of Ukrainian resistance to those pincers.
There's also a whole bunch of maps made by different people with different biases and sourcing, none of which are "authoritative", but I assume anyone interested in this topic we're discussing checks on one map or another (or sees on TV).
What we can know is that if the pincers meet then the entire East of Ukraine will be encircled and that will certainly change the dynamic of the war (but not necessarily end it, as the West Ukraine can keep harassing and attacking from time to time ... potentially for years).
In terms of infantry being extremely poor at attacking maneuvers (without armor against dug-in positions supported by armor, mortars, artillery, planes and attack helicopters), this is based on my personal experience training for this sort of warfare. Never been in a war, but live fire exercises of this kind make it pretty clear that exiting the trench is extremely hazardous ... even to run away, much more so to run towards the enemy line.
It's not really in dispute that Russia has far more armor than Ukraine, and NATO could supply armor but then that needs training, logistics ... and Russia has plenty anti-armor weapons.
Hence, focus on sending Ukraine anti-tank guided missiles and manpads. These are extremely dangerous weapons for sure, but you can't really assault and take a dug-in position with these weapons; certainly harass supply lines and lay ambushes but they don't really help defend against a concentrated offensive. So, if Russia digs in on the sides of a pincer and has a concentrated offensive to move forward, there's not much Ukraine can do about it with ATGM's and manpads.
However, as I mention, deception is a large part of warfare, so if there's some game changing weapon or tactic ... maybe we don't know about it.
But if you want sources, feel free to ask which factual statement you want sourced and I provide more information.
All the commentary on Putin is simply arguments he could say to play things at home (his main audience), doesn't need to make sense to Westerners (just as what Trump said didn't make sense to us Europeans), and, of course, Putin may say something different. But @Isaac was simply pointing out that Putin hasn't stated more than extremely minimal objectives, so he can easily just set the bar at whatever has been achieved at any moment.
In the US, it seems to me the NYT has not succumbed to the sirens of alarmism and dramatism. These things sell well; wars make for good click bait I guess... so commercial media are naturally tempted to dramatize. But Biden is intent on not escalation and the NYT, well, I guess they love their children too so they understand the risk of going gung-ho here. That would be my sense anyway.
Another solid, professional and ethical journalist source is Reuters. It's pretty neutral from what I can see.
English Al Jazeera have a good daily dispatch at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/10/russia-ukraine-war-military-dispatch-march-10-2022
They can't be suspect of being pro-West... nor are they pro-Russian.
One of the best tracker sites for live news is Bellingcat - https://www.bellingcat.com/
These sites use tweets and other social media fed by (mostly Ukrainian) cell phone users on the ground. The bias is that you tend to see the victories more than the defeats of the Ukrainians.
I rely also on my national TV channel. They have a good team of war reporters, all female for some reason, and they do a great job. They are not "embedded", so they report from behind the frontline, on the effects on the civilians. This coverage is naturally sympathetic to the Ukrainian side but they try and maintain some professionalism.
Hardly a new attitude in the human scope. In the discourse of this recent crisis there is plenty of textbook cases of psychological defense mechanisms ... Or maybe it's all just about what people really want.
As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. Or let's say the US response to the war in Ukraine makes this obvious.
I'm bit confused why you really seem not to get that having strategic interests doesn't mean a country can invade another one country whenever feeling like it. There's multitude ways to try to influence things, but annexing parts of another countries simply isn't one.
Just think of the US and Mexico. The US has naturally strategic interests at it's southern neighbor. But does it have the option to invade & occupy the country? Actually not. Same thing with Brazil, Argentina and the Southern American countries. Basically it can use military force freely in the Caribbean, invading islands like Grenada or then make incursions to Haiti.
Democracy comes with a price.
Only under a dictator would civilians be innocent. Under a democratically elected leader, they are all accountable.
I have been seeing Al-Jazeera for this reason, but you've given me a few more.
I wish I could access different channels, my country offers CNN, FOX and BBC.
The BBC has really gone downhill quality wise these last two decades or so, a real shame.
Thanks!
Or maybe the US is just waiting to make a grand entrance and be the one who gets declared the victor?
Bad faith always wins. Always.
The basic problem is that for Ukrainians being on the defensive works. But wars are not won just by being on the defensive. Ukraine should make counterattacks and here might be their weak point: to counterattack they should concentrate their forces and firepower and destroy the Russian units. If those Russian units are in a long column in the middle of an urban area, that's easy. If they are in defensive positions, that's hard. And with the concentration the Russian artillery has targets. Likely Ukraine will try to avoid a battle of attrition. Yet the material support coming from NATO countries is substantial. But they would need more than just those ATGMs, but also artillery and medium range Surface-to-Air missile systems. Stingers cannot defend attack from high altitude. And if you are Putin, you don't care about if you hit something else also when destroying the Ukrainian army.
When Russians declare cease-fires or humanitarian corridors, I assume they take the time to get their defences up. Already you can see that they are throwing their reserves and second tier forces into the battle as there starts to be a lot of civilian trucks in the columns. This means that the army trucks are already in use. Likely the war is going to the next phase.
But still, it's not going well for the Russians.
The US made it's grand entrance a long time ago.
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/
Yes, so far we've heard mainly about the ATMG's and Manpads, but there maybe other things in the pipe or stuff deployed in secret. But mechanized warfare requires serious training and logistics, so it's not clear to me what other weapons systems can be just thrown in.
Quoting ssu
We really don't know how Putin and his generals evaluate things. Russia tolerates far more casualties than Western armies.
If Russia achieves it's objectives (which we don't even know at this point ... other than they are obviously in Ukraine), Putin, generals, Kremlin and even most ordinary Russians may view the war as a hard fought battle, but worth it.
In particular, people shouldn't underestimate how much ordinary Russians hate Nazism, and the West's own journalists have been documenting this movement in Ukraine since 2014. Whatever political / moral / policy discussions we may have about it, Russians will react to videos of these people (that they happily produce themselves) extremely negatively.
Also, it's estimated some 10 000 people have died in the civil war in the East since 2014 to the start of this war, so the logic of "getting it done" when Russians / ethnic Russians are dying anyways regularly, can make a lot of sense from the Russian perspective.
However, we really don't know much about what the average Russian is thinking about things (obviously sanctions are hitting, no one like wars--except those neo-nazis--, people are dying, and so on), but once the war is over there are many bases on which it could be considered "worth it" to ordinary Russians.
Russians were already demonized by our media before the war ... so, it's unlikely they care too much about even more demonization.
The Western media logic is mostly: we disapprove, therefore it's a blunder, therefore Russian troops are unmotivated, therefore Putin is looking for an off-ramp. But this logic is entirely self-generated.
Putin maybe happy to end the war with what he (from his perspective) reasonably asked, but he maybe perfectly content also cutting Ukraine in half and taking everything East of the Dnieper River.
Russians like land ... that's why they have the most of it already.
It's been a while since I've read the New Yorker, I'll check it out.
NPR... ehhhh, I'll pass. But still, many sources it's appreciated. :up:
Maybe Putin wants to use this war to cement his dictatorship, so it doesn't necessarily need to be a quick war.
As the Frontline documentary said, Putin has the same succession problem Yeltsin had. He can't step down without fear of prosecution. So he'll just stay there for life?
All three of those are known for bias (Fox is worthless).
Yes - in his case, a few more weeks with any luck.
I think it's obvious that what we're seeing in Ukraine - the mass destruction of cities and hospitals, the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants - is simply state-sponsored terrorism on a massive scale.
Quoting Manuel
Don't we all! There are a few news channels available on the Internet beside Fox, BBC, and CNN. Deutsche Welle, for instance. Various radio stations in countries stream their service on the Internet -- so you could listen to National Public Radio (US) too.
Ask Google for English (or other language) radio services in Europe or Mars... wherever.
I'm going to take that as a biased statement, and add a grain of salt to it.
This is the real tragedy. I am do not live in Europe, I live in Asia, and my perspective is like one who comes across two men trying to kill each other. I would say to them: do not do that. Your existence is important. I am not taking sides. Stopping the fight would be a good thing. I am against against war. I think a nation must be able to defend itself against enemies within and without. That's in the CIA handbook I think.
This also means I do not support violent overthrow of governments for any reason. Lets be consistent here. Should George W. Bush be violently overthrown because of what he did in Iraq? He was given a second term.
Quoting ssu
I am not counting the war lost until it is over of some sort of ceasefire is in place. I am not going to ride the roller coaster of Russian losses and Ukranian seiges. I am worried for Ukraine when I see the map, and it looks like an encirclement of the east.
Quoting boethius
Such an irony that some human beings consider the loss of other human beings off the face of the earth worth something.
putin and his 'inner circle': "You have to submit to authoritarian, kleptocratic rule."
Ukraine: "Yeah... we don't want that."
What is a viable solution to this conflict?
Let's look at some evidence. Headlines today:
[b]Russian forces crawl closer to 'fortress' Kyiv
Russian troops advance three miles towards Ukraine's capital, whose mayor says it is well defended.
EUROPE
Russian forces crawl closer to 'fortress' Kyiv[/b] -BBC
[b]LIVE UPDATES: Russia makes new demand over what they claim America is secretly doing in Ukraine
-FOX News[/b]
40-mile-long Russian convoy largely dispersed -CNN
Looks like we are neck deep in a propaganda war. First of all, it is not "all lies" (incidentally similar to the spelling of "ALLIES". ) There is truth mixed in, at least what we accept as truth. There are statements that are encouraging to each side and demoralizing to each side. For someone involved in the war, what the news channels choose to put on their headlines has an effect, and has a different effect on the combatants since the headlines are different. This is more than propaganda. This is psychological warfare.
The reason I do not go to those sites is that I do not want unverified and unverifiable statements to affect my view of the situation, although they do. The news channels can lie all they want and issue corrections later - the damage is done.
So are these news items true?
BBC - maybe, the Russians may be advancing. Who knows?
FOX - this is verifiable. Has Russia made new demands? Follow the link.
CNN - Maybe the Russians have fled. Maybe they cleared their traffic jam. Maybe they are advancing on Kiev.
Why I watch RT and Sputnik is simply because I know whose side they are on, their intention is to promote a certain point of view, propaganda, no-one believes they are unbiased. CNN and other channels can build up trust and use that to mislead, suddenly and effectively.
RT :[i]403 - Forbidden . That’s an error.
Client does not have access rights to the content so server is rejecting to give proper response. That’s all we know[/i].
Sputnik: LIVE UPDATES: Russia Ready to Resist Sanctions, It Will Be Difficult But There Is No Panic - MFA
So sanctions are hurting you, Boris, well well, your propaganda is now trying to calm the Russian people. Looks like they are ... working....
(Useful information from Sputnik)
And this : (no comment)
Video: Speaking in Poland, Harris Needs to Check Notes to Know Where She's Standing
(!)
Good, solid, verifiable, reliable information can be hard to find in many situations, but in the middle of conflict, it's out of reach at times in several ways. There is deliberate misinformation (propaganda); error-based misinformation (failure to fact-check); perception-based misinformation (looked like a duck, sounded like VP); missing information (things get lost). Bonafide information (aka the truth) may be disbelieved or rejected out of hand.
How many people in several categories have been killed so far? How many people have been injured, and how badly? There are always good reasons to inflate or deflate totals, and where an accurate count is desired all round, it may just be impossible to obtain.
I could not get past the first few minutes. What a disgusting piece of anti-Putin propaganda. From the classist "unemployed spy" to the accusations of corruption from the first five minutes, interviewing a man who 'tried to arrest Putin" to obtain reliable testimony on corruption charges.
Nice try at war propagada: it is effective in that it does not convince anyone who is either too clever or too dumb or too biased, but gives a cudgel to those who want to force the anti-Putin narrative to its extremes.
PBS (Public BS?) has lost my respect completely. This is the kind of BS that the far right channels put out to defame certain democrats. Favorite line "The Russians are not Democtrats" Autocratic? I am not sure the UN Charter prescribes or proscribes political systems.
Why don't you think RT or Sputnik don't have a documentary on how 'x' rose to power in the United States? It will be instantly attacked as a piece of anti-American shill. Unfortunately some people still trust some news channels maybe they want to believe.
No offence to 'ssu'.
Yes indeed, but do you note the way casualties are bandied about like a set of brownie points for each side? These are people too. The more Ukranian civilians killed the better for the 'cause'.
Can we stick with what we know for sure? What do we know for sure?
That's true, "objectivity" isn't really attainable - I perhaps meant to say somewhat less propagandistic.
I think many understand what is happening, but then there are of course those who believe what is said. I think here the issue is that Putin is still holding to the idea of "special military operation" and the Russian media is showing Russian troops handing out food and blaming the Ukrainians (neo-nazis) to be shelling the civilians. That can sink in for a while. But too big casualty figures you cannot hide, it simply goes by word of mouth. If Americans don't trust their media, Russians don't trust it on a larger scale. At least those that can use their brains.
Quoting frank
Not like he was seriously challenged by anyone or anything before.
But those protests at him in 2012 likely made him wary. Likely he has seen that "being liberal" won't help him. He hasn't been able to produce similar economic growth as China, so the war has been his response in order to get higher popularity. That documentary tells why it hasn't been so: basically put up to sustain the kleptocracy, I think Putin massed his wealth just because of taking power. But what he failed to do is to do anything about the kleptocracy, which would have been important. I remember him only declaring that Russia has to be a dictatorship of laws, meaning that laws should be followed as the word of a dictator (Stalin?)
This shows the utter lack of understanding how a country governed by laws operates and that it is usually the dictatorships that are the most corrupt.
He has lost this. Even if he can declare a military victory.
Just ask yourself: what does he win, if he conquers all of Ukraine? He would have to occupy a huge country. Ok, that's not going to happen (or it will, who knows). So let's then think of what he gains from this war if Zelenskyi's government would accept tomorrow his demands. So he gets Crimea and the puppet states of Donbas that he can then have join the Russian federation.
And what then? He basically had them already. Now he has a bit more territory and 1) an army that needs a lot to refitting and money to cover the losses, 2) new territory that is devastated by war and would need billions in investment, 3) a ruined Russian economy, 4) an unified Europe and NATO, who are now going to spend on the military as during the Cold War and treat him as an imminent threat, nearly.
So what's the victory with all that above? Can you see it?
You see, to do annexations, you have to be smart. You have understand what the backlashes are, you don't get into a situation where the response of the outside World is like this. Good examples are Israel of for example Morocco with the Spanish Sahara.
I think that this is the beginning of the end for Putin.
Yeah, people forget, this is a country that's been at war with itself (in parts) for years - over exactly these issues (the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, far-right nationalism, Crimea...) the idea that they're now suddenly all united behind, not just a single goal, but a specific method for achieving it, is ludicrous. War certainly unifies people, but, a) not when the attacker is ideologically aligned with one of the sides in that dispute, and b) it only lasts the duration of the war, or less if massive losses begin.
A smart politician needs to make decisions that they think their population will be satisfied with in the long-term, not one which placates the kind of simplified jingoism that war necessitates. In Ukraine, I imagine that's excruciatingly difficult and it seems to me Zelensky is doing a good enough job of walking that fine line between being realistic about the future. and keeping morale up for the fight at their doorstep.
Here, however, and in other social media, mainstream media, politicians even, I've absolutely no sympathy for this faux camaraderie, this enthusiastic joining in with the jingoism and war-time bravado. It's just going to make that job harder.
Then why do America have strategic interests? You keep dodging the question. Why have America got a missile base in Poland if no-one is going to attack NATO on account of their nuclear weapons?
Quoting ssu
Well maybe you should try reading what I've written, it's less confusing than you making up what I think.
You keep dodging the answer. Or failing to understand it.
Every country has strategic interest in their neighbors. Yet how to promote those interests is always limited. And military intervention is usually the last thing. Only annexing territory is even more threatening as you then the country doesn't even respect the borders. The US just cannot walz into Mexico and occupy the country, even if we say Mexico is in the "sphere of influence" of the US. If a country disintegrates totally and cannot perform the tasks of a sovereign country, only then it's usual that the neighbors get nervous and at least look after their citizens in the country. Before that, it's usually the UN that gets involved.
Quoting Isaac
It's called deterrence. Look, nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. But they perform a crucial role. And so does everything in an armed forces, when that armed forces is for deterrence. And that's what armies ought to do: have training exercises, keep their equipment ready, and have the generals retire to their golfclubs after a career made in peace-time exercises. That's what the Swiss army has done successfully since Napoleon.
And you simply need the conventional forces, because the use of nuclear weapons is so limited. If a aircraft breaches the aerospace, you wouldn't use a nuclear weapon for that. Hence the need for conventional forces.
I should have time today to look for sources, I'm not sure what sources you want.
One reason I try to avoid posting sources is simply that leads to accusations that the source is biased. This isn't a journalist forum, but more focused on argument, so I try to keep to arguments of the form "if the premises are true, the conclusions follows" and let people makeup their own mind about the premises. However, I'm not against sourcing, just takes a lot of time and, as @ssu has pointed out, there's a big fog of war element, we can only speculate about a lot of stuff; things can deteriorate rapidly in warfare.
That being said, for the foundation of my analysis of simply what conventional warfare is like to assess the battle field as best we can, since a lot of decision making depends on whether you think Russia will win or lose. Now, we can't really know Ukraine's prospects for victory, but presumably the Ukrainian leadership knows and NATO countries also know more than us. We criticize the Nazi's and Japanese for not surrendering to avoid unnecessary loss of life when there were no more prospects of victory--I see no reason why that criticism only applies to them because "they're bad". The "right" to fight to the death doesn't mean that's the best decision to make; just like if a bunch of ex-marines invaded your home, fighting back depends on A. prospects of victory regardless and B. if it's an existential threat (if they are there to torture, sry "enhanced interrogation" you, and then murder you then fighting back is a good decision if no one's coming to help ... but if they just want your frozen pizza's because the store ran out and then they'll be on their way, a low-odds fight to the death maybe isn't the best decision).\
Likewise, for the EU, supplying arms and hitting with sanctions isn't morally justifiable if it just results in more people killed and undermining European security for the next several decades. If the only possible resolution of the conflict is diplomatic, then that should be the focus. If there is a impasse in the talks (and Ukrainian negotiators being executed as "spies") then the EU could step in and offer things to Russia and also Ukraine and protect negotiators from being executed etc.
The current problem in the negotiations is Russia is already asking essentially the minimum that it won't possibly make any concessions on. However, the EU could not only offer things to Ukraine for also offer things to Russia who then offer "something" to make the settlement more sellable to Ukrainians.
Being in the EU already may simply motivate Ukraine to keep fighting from the West for several decades, which isn't really good for Ukrainians nor the EU.
Of course, diplomacy requires some evaluation of the war situation. If we think Russia is really, or then Russian leaders perceive, in a bad spot one negotiation strategy follows from that assumption. If Russia is actually getting what it wants the hard way and, at least leadership, perceives no risk of military loss or social upheaval in Russia, then a different negotiation strategy follows from that. If what Western media repeats as "super bad for Russia" is viewed by Russian leadership as a good thing (maybe they actually want a break with the West, but couldn't do that themselves as the Russian people would actually revolt about that, but if the West does it, that's grand; likewise, maybe Putin wants all Oligarch wealth to be seized by the West as it's wealth outside of Russia that is laundered around in corrupt schemes ... which Putin doesn't necessarily want corruption; you don't need corruption if you control the government, everything can be done "legally").
So, there is a purpose for evaluating the war situation and how Russian leadership and ordinary Russians perceive things, nor merely intellectual brainstorming.
A good source to start with is I found this Candian artillery youtuber with a lot of military analysis made before this war, and who has stated he cannot comment on the war due to Canadian Forces policy. So, all this material made before the war is presumably not biased towards Russia or Ukraine, and he is not commenting what he thinks now, so the channel doesn't promote one side or another.
This video is a bit long, but I think gives a real good feel for how hard and how much skills is required to be an effective infantry soldier.
One really important part, is the short bit about the positioning of trenches; takes significant skill for senior commanders to decide where to send soldiers to dig in, the strategic purpose, and then there's a chain of decision making all the way down to the squad leader positioning individual trenches and even then soldiers themselves deciding all sorts of details as seen in the video.
I think anyone who looks at this source will get a good feel for my view that handing out small arms to civilians is just killing people for no military justification. People with rifles will be fired upon by mortar and artillery, bombs dropped on them etc.
It takes significant experience and skill to a) always be hiding in a battle situation and b) have some idea if you're safe or not. Observers can sneak anywhere and order strikes from artillery tens of kilometres away, and observers then see where the shells land and send back corrections. Observers we rarely see talked about in the media, but are basically have the same sneaking around skill set as snipers, just an additional skill of knowing better where they even are and what direction their looking at and the distance to things they're looking at.
What the video also shows is the level of vulnerability of the soldiers when they first reach this position compared with the stage 6 trench they have built at the end. The combat effectiveness or "force multiplier" of the trench is several orders of magnitude. Of course, trenches don't move, so infantry can't bring this force multiplier with them to assault an enemy position. The tank is basically a trench that you can take with you.
Without serious armor and supporting artillery fire, and ideally air support as well, it's basically impossible for infantry to assault a well dug in position by themselves (why WWI resulted in one giant stalemate for so long).
Hence, we do see a lot of chaos in the East of Russian troops maneuvering around and they can be ambushed and harassed. However, if the strategy is to encircle the entire East, then the North-West and South-West pincers are being well dug-in as they go, and it really seems to me that Ukrainians can't do much about that with just infantry.
In particular any sort of conscript or civilian given a rifle, will have essentially zero effectiveness in any offensive maneuver. Infantry (alone) do have a few offensive maneuvers they can do, but it will almost always involve a "long sneak / death march" to arrive somewhere the enemy simply doesn't expect. This requires a high level of sneak skill, strength and endurance to carry stuff (weapons, ammo, food) many kilometres and still be effective enough to take enemy position; the utility of such maneuvers is also extremely limited as without armor infantry simply can't go very far and very fast, so even if you do take some enemy positions you can't really follow through to rout the enemy rear positions. If you look at a map of Ukraine and think about how far you can actually carry heavy stuff in a day, you'll get a feeling for the limitations of infantry maneuvers. Why armor is so effective at offensive maneuvers starts with simply being able to get to the battle in a reasonable amount of time; the difference in maneuverability is basically exactly the same as if you decided to do everything by walking instead of car or public transport for the next week.
And, once you have armor you have significantly more logistical problems: armor needs fuel and heavy ammunition. You can send someone with a bunch of food and a buddy with a bunch of ammo to resupply a whole infantry unit for the day, and these people will be hard to spot and difficult to kill even if you do spot them from the air; but you can't resupply tanks and armored personnel carriers and armored artillery on foot, so you need fuel and ammo trucks which can't just sneak around in the woods and marshes.
Likewise, why armor is so effective at counter offensives as well. If you look at a map of Ukraine and you imagine a position on a defensive line 20km away coming under assault ... if you have to walk there with your weapons, ammunition, food, it will take you the entire day and the whole battle maybe over by the time you get there. Ok, you can hop in a civilian car and drive there ... by any artillery or air strikes at all on the road between here maybe impassible to a civilian vehicle and if you some under artillery fire on the way, a civilian vehicle won't offer much protection.
Whereas having an APC solves a lot of problems compared to a civilian vehicle, and also can carry way more ammunition and brings along it's own machine gun and cannon that maybe useful too. However, even if the APC is immediately disabled when arriving at the battle, ATMG's are unlikely to just kill everyone inside (far more likely to be disabled than be totally destroyed), so the infantry can get out are "fresh" for the fight; if the area is secured, of even not, there maybe still a whole bunch of supplies in the APC that are incredibly useful for continuing the operation (conventional warfare, even by infantry with unmounted arms, consumes large amounts of ammunition, super difficult to resupply on foot whereas one APC arriving, even if immediately disabled, may still provide a significant amount of ammunition).
One last note, when we see online videos of tanks being hit by ATGM's, the large explosion can be the reactive armor working as intended, and super long ATMG shots can easily be at decoys.
Disabling an armored vehicle is not the same as killing everyone inside, and if the crew survives, Russia has plenty more armored vehicles. Even when we see totally destroyed armor, this could still be blown up sometime after the vehicle was disables and the crew escaped. Vehicles can be disabled by just driving over the wrong thing, but it is the skilled crew that is far more valuable than the vehicle. There are weapons that can completely obliterate a tank and everyone who dwells within the tank, but they are heavy weapons and not shoulder mounted ATGM's.
But the main thing to be taken away from the trench video, is that that's how to effectively use conscripts, and still requires learning how to dig and fortify a trench and experienced professionals deciding where it's useful to send people to dig trenches, and out of shape conscripts are going to need a lot of time and experienced sergeants regularly checking in on them to yell at them.
So, if you mobilized a month before an invasion you can secure a lot of positions and lazy out of shape middle-managers can even get in shape a bit.
And, once you've dug one trench, this in no way prevents digging more! You can then leave a tiny garrison in your front line trenches and have everyone else go dig a second line, third line, etc. You don't really ever get to the end of trench digging. No one has ever said "this is it, this is the last trench to dig".
Right. So Russia does have a strategic interest in the advance of NATO (their neighbours). Your denial of this is how this whole thing started.
Quoting ssu
Again, if I had actually said anything about those interests justifying invasion then this might be relevant, but since I haven't, it isn't. Please, if you want to discuss, discuss with me, not with some imaginary version of me saying things in your head. Find a quote and respond to it, it's really simple. And if you can't find a quote of me saying the thing you're ascribing to me, that should be something of a red flag that you might not be following the point.
Quoting ssu
Deterrence against whom? - Apparently, no-one would attack America (even without the missile defence base in Poland) because even without that base they were a massive nuclear superpower, and you said no-one would attack massive nuclear superpowers, so why the base? If America faces no threats on account of the nuclear weapons it has then why add anything new to that arsenal? You're giving me reasons why countries have military at all, I'm asking for reasons why they expand them as America has done.
The guy Matsimus has surprisingly good videos and good video material.
Yeah, I think a lot of people base their expectations on Iraq and Afghanistan / first person shooter games.
We haven't seen much conventional warfare on television for decades, so I was looking for something more than just a demo video of a lot of explosions (which there are many), and this Matsimus is kind of a gold mine for contextualizing what we're seeing, and his latest video is just explaining why his lips are sealed about what he thinks of the current war, so it's a pretty rare resource that's not also promoting a point of view of current events.
Seems that you have been gone a long time for some strawman argument, in thinking I'm denying something. Or then simply haven't read what I say (or perhaps it's been in the exchanges with others I guess).
In order to keep that countries do not want to join NATO, perhaps the issue would be then not to annex territories from them and make speeches how "artificial" their country is. (Oh I think I know what you will say: but we aren't talking about Russia, I don't care a fuck about Russia or something like that...)
I've said that there would have been a multitude ways for Russia leave NATO in the "new NATO" figuration thinking about out-of-theatre operations like Afghanistan and Libya and have had Western Europe make it's armed forces even smaller. It made that absolutely worse possible decision annexing territory of neighboring countries, which only reinforced the Eastern members that they were totally justified in their fears of an imperialist Russia. And that's now clear to even the Western NATO members, which as like the US didn't understand this when the Russo-Georgian war happened and desperately tried to "reset" the relations with Russia.
Most nations have said that if Russia start using bioweapons, the response will be much harder on Russia. And of course, if they do it, if Putin actually use bioweapons on civilians in Ukraine I wonder what the response will be from the Putin/Russia apologists.
The problem with the bioweapons lab thing ... is that US seems to have admitted to it.
As surreal as it is, Fox News has some actual critical thinking about it:
Stop using FOX news as any kind of valid source. :shade:
Verify with anything other than Fox please. It's the official media closest to conspiracy vloggers out there outside of pure state owned propaganda. Since Trump went into power, Fox has been sinking even lower than it already was and now it's impossible to use as a source.
Seriously, the media knowledge in this thread... :shade:
It's a completely valid source for just showing the super strange Q&A with Nuland at a public senatorial hearing. Whatever this conversation represents, it's a fact that it happened, and legitimate to ask questions about it.
Tucker Carlson also simply has completely valid critical thinking questions: such as if the purpose of the labs was to destroy Soviet bio weapons: a) why would that take 20 years b) why would you need to to that in the Ukraine instead of just transporting them to a NATO country, and c) what's so concerning about the Russians getting their soviet weapons back (presumably they already know about them and know how to secure them).
Facts need to be sourced, but just literally showing government statements is a valid source of the fact of those statements.
Critical thinking doesn't need to be sourced, and good questions are good questions whether from Tucker Carlson, anonymous forum posters, Putin, or anyone else.
The levels of support for this kind of cynical exchange of civilian lives for a cheap propaganda coup is vaguely excusable (if not morally sound) in a country actually at war, but supporting from the comfort of one's armchair, as many in the West are doing is, I think, disgraceful.
Just recently in England, our Foreign Secretary said of British civilians going to 'join the fight' -
...until her own defence chief had to point out that that would be illegal.
Really, the levels of zealotry for this war in the West have become absurd.
Government statements aren't facts. And Russian statements right now have such a low validity that anyone even seriously listening to it does not have the capacity of rational thinking. Tucker is a fucking joke, he was a Putin apologist before the invasion and his word means jack shit. Fox is a propaganda channel through and through.
If you're gonna conclude anything as facts you need to have actual evidence and people need to realize how Putin and Russia conducts this war. The propaganda machine is their biggest tool. They establish a narrative and then they act, in order to confuse people or validate for their own people why they're doing what they're doing.
The thing is that when they do this with actual UN meetings, they know that if they can't control the narrative with the rest of the world that isn't as gullible as the Russian people, it's gonna be hard for them to use those types of weapons. So they're desperately trying to fool the world that the results we're gonna see "came from an Ukraine lab leak" instead of their intentional attacks.
It's quite clear what the plan is here and it's only fooling them who don't know how to sift through the propaganda BS.
Marco Rubio (R-FL) to Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”
Nuland: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities...we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of them, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”
My bolding. It's on tape. The news channel broadcasting the tape is immaterial.
Ukraine has 'biological research facilities' the contents of which are of sufficient military function that there's a concern they may fall into the hands of the Russian forces.
Quoting Christoffer
Well, let's have them then. The actual evidence for...
Quoting Christoffer
Or are you immune from the need for evidence?
Self-Appointed Smart Person: "media literacy is important".
Also Self-Appointed Smart Person: "lmao I don't need to watch that I can make stuff up without looking and misattribute total basics I am very enlightened".
Government statements represent the fact the government made that statement, and give rise to legitimate questions about those statements.
That's how journalism and democracy is supposed to work: representatives (such as senators), journalists and pundits (such as Tucker Carlson), random people too, ask questions and the government responds by answering or not, giving rise to more questions about the answers or then the fact the government is not answering.
In terms of evaluating facts from government statements, certainly anything can be doubted, but if it seems something they would usually keep secret if it's true ... such as bio "research labs" in Ukraine (that isn't so famous for it's cutting edge bio medical research that is a concern if Russia gets hold of it ... to just go cure cancer in Russia or something?!?) ... maybe they are saying it because it's true, Russians have secured those labs already, and they want to get ahead of the story with some counter narrative of what those labs were about.
Quoting Christoffer
The Wests own sources, such as the Nuland senatorial hearing above, or Western journalists regularly visiting Azov brigade since 2014, is not Russian propaganda. Russia cannot be accused of creating propaganda if it's material literally coming from the US government or Western media institutions like the Times.
Of course, Russia will take that material and also use it for propaganda purposes, but the logic that this material (that a CIA chief / "Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs" admitting to building a bunch of "Bio Research Labs"--that were obviously secret as otherwise we'd already know about them as just normal university or hospital labs--gives rise to completely legitimate questions regardless of how big a gift that is to Putin and the Kremlin).
No. Here's the exchange...
And the context before was me saying...
...in response to questions about whether advancing NATO was provocation.
I don't see any complication there except of your making. Russia has no less a reason to fear being attacked than America does. If America has legitimate concerns about where its bases should be located then so does Russia.
Thanks for transcribing ... it's pretty common sense Tucker Carlson's questions, and credit where credit's due.
Research facilities on biological substances exist all over the world, facilities being funded from many different companies or even governments based on what they're working on. A bioweapon facility, on the other hand, is something else. And in true Fox news fashion they report on how it's been debunked that Ukraine has bioweapon facilities but turn it towards the Biden administration as a "well, so asking questions about it means we are just Russian propaganda so that means it's all untrue *wink wink*"
Quoting Isaac
What evidence?
Both Isaac and I have already commented that normal biol labs in universities, hospitals and private companies aren't really a concern if they "fall into enemy hands".
It's also an answer to the direct question about bio weapons ... so rambling about something totally different (legitimate biological research) in response to this question is at best some sort of delusional psychotic episode in the context.
Yes, but questions does not equal counter-evidence or counter-arguments.
Quoting boethius
Quoting boethius
You do know that research labs on extreme contagious viruses are considered secret in practice and location so that criminal groups, terrorists or foreign agents won't attack, steal or infiltrate them? Many of these labs are government funded. This does not equal them being bioweapon facilities.
What evidence do you have that any of these are bioweapon facilities? It's important to have clear facts.
They do. There's one not far from where I live. Neither I no my government would care if an invading force got hold of it because it just contains a load of non-weaponised samples of easily available various pathogens which would rapidly die outside of the very tightly controlled conditions in the lab.
And if they're not bioweapons, or anything close they why were they mentioned as an answer to the question "Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”
She didn't say " no, but they've got some great restaurants "
Quoting Christoffer
Evidence for the claim you made, obviously.
You don't seem to be following the conversation.
Quoting Christoffer
The evidence is what Isaac just literally transcribed. We can assume Nuland knows whatever these labs are about, otherwise it's unlikely she'd improvise, and from her statement we can pretty safely conclude there is a military purpose for these research labs.
If you want to say she's making it up as she has zero knowledge of the situation or actually wants the whole world to believe the Ukraine military has bio weapons labs (WMD's) the US knows about and funds directly or indirectly ... then that's a possibility too.
That's exactly what the US (and their British Poodle) are doing, too. They establish a narrative and then they act:
Propaganda in the United States - Wikipedia
This is common knowledge, unless you live on a different planet (called Finland). So, perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with some basic facts before lecturing others about facts. :grin:
Quoting boethius
Some people keep saying that Putin “miscalculated”. But I think it is fair to say that Zelensky miscalculated even more. All he had to do was to promise not to join NATO and recognize Crimea and the Donbas as Russian. That would have saved half of his country from being reduced to rubble.
In any case, the Russians learned their tactics from America and Britain and are following the example of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden .....
And that means that there are no higher tier labs anywhere with pathogens much worse? That doesn't mean a thing.
Quoting Isaac
I was asking for evidence of bioweapon labs in Ukraine funded by the US for bioweapon research. What evidence exist? Questions by Tucker on Fox news aren't evidence.
Yes, and if the offer was bad faith and Putin attacked anyways, then it's far easier to legitimately claim there is an existential war happening with an enemy that cannot be dealt with diplomatically.
And even Putin's demands to pull back NATO to Germany makes rational sense considering the justification of that forward deployment was to send missiles to Afghanistan and NATO was "adamant" that was the reason literally stating it has nothing to do with Russia... which doesn't seem such a good justification anymore, and NATO just huffs and puffs that "of course they're not removing those missile bases! Don't be absurd! Delusional demands from the Kremlin!!".
Here's the conversation we just had...
Us: The US Secretary of State has just admitted that Ukraine has biological research facilities of such a nature that it would be concerning if they fell into the hands of enemy forces - that sounds like they might be bio weapons.
You: You need evidence, evidence, evidence...
Later...
You: Russia are going to the UN to discuss the bio-weapons issue, that sounds like they're creating a smokescreen for a bio-weapon attack of their own
Me: You need evidence
You: What do you mean I need evidence?
The point is not the tier of the lab, the point is that Nuland was concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces. You don't think Russia has sources of Anthrax, Ricin, Botulinum, Tularemia... They don't need to go to Ukraine to get samples of the sorts of pathogens which could be released as bio-weapons. If they were going to use them, they'd have just brought some with them.
The issue people are interested in (anyone above kindergarten level analysis, anyway) is why Nuland would be concerned about these samples getting into the hands of the Russian forces. If they were purely defensive preparations in this lab, then they would be defences against preparations the Russians already had, wouldn't they? So no cause for concern about them falling into the hands of the Russians.
The only reasonable explanation for the concern is that the labs contain samples of something the Russians could use as a weapon which they don't already have. In that instance it's very hard to see how they could have been researching some standard global risk. The Russians would already have samples of that.
(Officially, they are volunteering to "defend" the separatist Donbass.)
This is a totally normal process ... and may also be happening to Ukrainian forces. To say Russia is losing requires not just Russian losses, but more losses than Ukrainians (decrease in relative strength, not absolute strength). But, only Russian generals really have a good idea, likewise for Ukrainian generals about the state of Ukrainian forces.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This isn't surprising nor really indicates anything; a military is going to use the available assets the best it can; US equipped and advised jihadist fighters in it's proxy war with Syria, because it had those assets to use.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
If the purpose is to cut Ukraine in half North to South then the purpose of all fighting in the East is simply to tie up Ukrainian forces until they can no longer effectively retreat to the West. If you want to retreat by civilian vehicle, that maybe impossible by now, and armor is vulnerable to air attack and whatever is left maybe out of fuel (maybe we didn't see much air power until now to not scare Ukrainian East deployed forces to retreat to the West).
If you're going to retreat on foot, according to google maps it would be 133 hour walk from Karkiv to Vinnytsia (that is a town just West of where the Russian pincers are likely to meet).
It's not possible to walk 133 hours in one go, so we can easily double that to 266 hours, which is 11 days (where you'd need to bring all the food you need, or then scavenge for it, and this assumes the optimum path as calculated by google).
Tying up the Ukrainians in the East and encircling them not only reduces significantly Ukrainian strength, but will almost certainly lead to a domino of surrenders of these encircled forces.
When people talk about sieges lasting years in ancient or medieval times ... the superb innovation of just in time supply lines had not yet been discovered.
If Russian generals see no way Ukrainian troops in Kharkiv can possibly retreat to West of their pincers in the time they calculate those pincers to meet, then there is no further need to keep pressure on Kharkiv and those troops can return to Russia and be circled around to reinforce the main pincers.
Well, if people keep spamming you will start confusing yourself as well.
Quoting boethius
That's not evidence for fuck sake. That's an answer that you interpret as being questionable.
Quoting boethius
Still no evidence for BIOWEAPON RESEARCH. Get it into your skull already.
She could very well be talking about Ebola strains which are not bioweapons. A specific Ebola strain in a high tier research facility could be vastly more infectious and dangerous than what we've seen in outbreaks since research labs do this to test out variants for treatments and that is totally legal and important in order to combat pathogens like it.
Quoting Apollodorus
Of course, but not with the level of state control Russia has and not with the blatant stupidity of thinking people outside of Russia falls for it. The scrutiny in the US and UK is much better since media is more free and it's easier for people to review and question such propaganda. If you do that in Russia you get sent to prison. It's not even comparable.
Quoting Apollodorus
Here's an example of you not ever reading what I'm writing because you think I live in Finland, so clearly you aren't paying attention to what I'm actually writing over the course of this thread.
Quoting Apollodorus
Are you still blaming Ukraine for this invasion? Like... you are unable to understand page after page of counter arguments to this? Ignoring how almost everyone points to Putin wanting to restore the Russian empire which has nothing to do with Nato except that if Ukraine joins Nato it becomes harder for him to invade and claim Ukraine? Promising not to join Nato does not mean that Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded. Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia, that's his goal. Nato stands in his way, that's all, that's the whole connection to Nato. He fears that further expansion of Nato will block his attempts to restore the empire borders. Why can't you understand this?
And stop blaming Ukraine for the invasion, it's disgusting.
Quoting Isaac
Not evidence
Quoting Isaac
Based on previous behaviors during this war. In some way you are confusing evidence for the existence of a bioweapon facility with predicting war desinformation based on previous desinformation and active on-going desinformation. I never said they WILL use chemical weapons, I said they MIGHT.
There's also an inductive argument to be made. What's more likely based on what we know so far about this war? A) Russia continues to use propaganda and desinformation to try and control the narrative. B) The US has leaked intel continuously in order undermine that desinformation and has proven to be correct information based on Russia actually acting accordingly.
- So, the likely conclusion based on repeating events points to Russia aiming to use chemical weapons and will use the idea of a bioweapon facility in Ukraine having "leaks" in order to control the narrative so that the world blames Ukraine and not Russia if chemical weapons on civilians leaks to the world press. Pentagon leaking this intel falls in-line with how they've leaked previous intel in order to undermine Russian propaganda.
Since we can't deduct and only induct in this, we must go with most likely. A vague interpretation of a statement that might hint at a facility with dangerous pathogens co-funded by the US does not even remotely induce a conclusion of the Russian narrative. And even if there is a facility in Ukraine working on bioweapons, it would still not change the fact that Russia would use it as a scapegoat for their own attacks.
Quoting Isaac
Of course the tier level has a point. You are all making conclusions based on interpreting Nulands statement but her statement would also work if the tier was top level. Just as I said it can have variants of pathogens for research purposes that if released by bombardments could potentially be catastrophic for the entire world.
And if we're going by your narrative, what's the reason Russia would go there? Or do anything with it? Even if they had labs with such weapons, it's still a narrative from Russia to scapegoat Ukraine and the US if they attack with chemical weapons.
You guys seem to always do a flip in this. When the risk is that Russia might use chemical weapons it gets turned into "but the US should be blamed because there might be a lab in Ukraine", or "Ukraine should be blamed because Nato".
If Russia attacks with chemical weapons they are the guilty one of using chemical weapons. Period.
My point was how they were aiming to blame the west and Ukraine for their own attacks. Don't fucking tell me that if we start to see civilians killed by chemical attacks you're all gonna confirm that as Ukraine's labs being the cause of it :shade:
This is literally witness testimony. Nuland obviously knows about these labs.
Quoting Christoffer
This seems to me completely delusional.
You're saying US has leaked intel (are you saying this is "evidence" or more government statements that aren't evidence of anything?) ... in no way to try to control the narrative themselves? Just concerned truth seekers out to give the world an objective view of the situation on the ground?
Quoting Christoffer
What legitimate research purposes? You're saying that there's legitimate purpose for Ukraine (a defacto ally of the US) to being doing it's own "defensive" bio-weapons research in multiple secret labs?
There are labs that do that kind of research: heavily regulated, super secure, of the large powers that deal in WMD's (not small corrupt countries). Any "defensive" measures against bio-weapons Ukraine could legitimately need, the US could easily do that research (as it does anyways in it's top security labs run by credible top-of-their-field researchers) and supply Ukraine with whatever information they could legitimately require to "defend themselves" against a bio-weapons attack.
There is literally zero possible "legitimate research" defense of Nuland's statements.
What's the hypothesis here, that Ukraine and the CIA have had the following dialogue:
Ukraine: Ok, you've given us a bunch of ATMG's and training and stuff, super cool, but how do we defend against a bio weapon attack?
CIA: Oh, you know, you just build a bunch of secret bio weapons labs ... you'll figure it out. It's really a "learn by doing" kind of thing, we can't really like "explain it" to you; kind of like, learning to play the flute or something; sure, you can come see us do it, and hear us talk about, but nothing replaces practice, practice, practice when it comes to the finger dexterity you need to work with pathogens that (if released, so definitely baby steps) could cause a global calamity.
Which, at least could explain why no one secured the labs, if you're learning by doing then you kind of need this sort of debacle to realize securing the labs during the military build up that may invade and find the labs / cause a second global pandemic with a single errant shell, is a good idea.
Use of biological weapons is really stupid. As if they could be contained. At least with chemical weapons you can observe where the wind is blowing. Usually you end up killing your own troops, just like the Japanese did during WW2:
Oops.
But perhaps Putin will try to wreck the Ukrainian harvest and blame it on the US.
It does not make sense that someone who has led the Russia for so many years is stupid. If you and I know the above facts, doesn't he know? He may be carrying out a last-ditch attempt to 'save Russia'. By the way, DW has an excellent video of Putin, this time supported by depressing facts. Also see the chief opposition leader also seems to support getting Ukraine into the fold as well. It is much deeper than we think. Seems to be largely supported by Russia, which means Putins future may depend on trying to take Ukraine.
Tucker asks some excellent questions. You may dispute facts, but you cannot dispute that a question has been asked, and then it is a simple matter to figure out if it is a good question or not. As I said I do not trust anything without some verification - I watch news channels to get the facts about what each faction is saying. Their statements are valuable evidence, and revealing.
Totally agree, Tucker basically lays out a pretty good critical analysis of this truly extraordinary exchange. We certainly don't know the truth yet.
However, what we can more easily evaluate about the main stream news is how different people are likely to perceive things. Obviously Russian's aren't going to be bending over backwards to find some strange interpretation that Nuland is just talking about pharmacies in Ukraine with discounts coupon, that if Russian were ever to discover would aid their war effort tremendously, and, technically speaking pharmacies can have some sort of laboratory to mix drugs and pharmacists do moonlight as meth producers from time to time (and, could have developed meth recipes that would be the perfect stimulants to power the Russian war machine).
It's not evidence of any bioweapon research. A lab doesn't mean anything. If Russia uses the idea of a "dangerous lab" as a scapegoat reason to hide chemical attacks, that doesn't mean there is a bioweapon facility because of your vague interpretation of her statement. "She clearly knows about..." doesn't mean shit. And if you think that's "witness testimony", try use that in a court with a straight face. None of this is evidence, jeez
Quoting boethius
I'm saying that the inductive conclusion to what has been going on in this war points to what I said. You are using conspiracy narratives and valuing Russian propaganda as valid perspectives as support for yours. We know that Pentagon leaked intel about the invasion, about the acts Russia were going to take and then Russia did exactly so. This undermined their attempt at justifying the invasion and helped undermine the propaganda both in Russia and internationally. This happened, it's literally what happened at the start of the war. So leaking intel about chemical weapons COULD be in line with this strategy, which has proven to be highly effective. It's the inductive conclusion based on what we know.
Quoting boethius
There's no evidence for bioweapon research. Research on dangerous pathogens don't need to be weaponized in order to be dangerous. Read what I write.
Quoting boethius
That is a final conclusion if I've ever seen one. So there's no other possibility than there being a bioweapon facility? There are no problems with such a final conclusion, such a final definitive fact that you conclude out of that statement? If this is how you arrive at your conclusions, no wonder they're all over the place.
And even so how does that have anything to do with the possibility of a Russian chemical attack?
Does it occur that saying bad things about the enemy - what they have done, what they will do, what their intentions are, are all propaganda and some of it may be actually fabricated?
How can an opinion be fact? If there is a attack using bioweapons it will be Putin? 100%? With statements like that it only makes sense for the Ukrainians to stage one - that is simply being strategic.
By Fox news and Tucker who's consistently using everything possible to smudge democratic administrations. And what the fuck does it even mean to validate anything through the idea that you "can't dispute a question". Like, how are you all even arriving at valid rational conclusions if you treat "raised questions" as almost equal to facts?
It's basically impossible to have any intelligible discussion with this level of denial.
The question is about bio weapons, a weapon of mass destruction and if Ukraine has them.
As I say, for Nuland to respond with a ramble about "labs that don't mean anything", in the context of this senatorial hearing in the context of this war, in the context of possible escalation to Nuclear war, would be a delusional psychotic episode and the US government would institutionalize her immediately if there was no relevant link between the question and her answer.
If you want to learn what propaganda is ... all you got to do is reread your arguments here.
There is no credible way to say Nuland's statements are not incredibly concerning and obviously due to the fact there is WMD's in Ukraine, and there's no credible way to argue the CIA wouldn't know about it (and ... obviously the US government does know about it otherwise she wouldn't be talking about it) nor any way to argue there are some legitimate reason to tolerate it and, at best, be indirectly financing it.
And, as Tucker correctly describes, no one was really talking about it before Nuland talked about it ... and, even if it was true, to not then move / dispose of these labs by now (which, if they were all disappeared from Ukraine, Nuland could just confidently say "there are no bioweapons in Ukraine" as an answer to that question in the present tense; and if someone did bother to ask about the past tense, which is unlikely as not relevant for the current situation, she could anyways then confidently say given Ukraine's history "it has had bio-weapons in the past, yes" -- subject closed) is a fuckup of monumental proportions.
What previous behaviour? Which of the behaviours you have evidence for, indicates a likelihood of creating a smokescreen for and then using chemical weapons? You can't use your previous, un-evidenced assumptions as evidence for your next assumption
Quoting Christoffer
No more firm language has been used in discussing the bioresearch labs than you have used, we're all just speculating here. Your more insane than I thought if you think America hasn't got just as much history of deception and subterfuge on which to base our suspicions as Russia has on which you base yours.
Quoting Christoffer
And why would anyone be concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces when Russian labs already have samples of similar variants? You've not answered the question. If all these ksbs are doing is researching defenses against likely threats then it is unreasonable to assume Russia wouldn't already have preparations of these threats.
Quoting Christoffer
Seriously? A bioweapons facility exists in enemy territory and you're wondering why it might be a strategic target?
Quoting Christoffer
No. If the Russians use biological weapons, the Russians are to blame, but that hasn't happened yet so there's nothing to discuss on the matter. What has happened is s US state official has made a statement which, given America's unscrupulous history, is very suspicious, so that's what we're discussing. You're not obliged to take part.
Quoting Christoffer
A point lacking any evidence at all and so one which can simply be discarded.
Among Russian elite and media personalities there was evident confusion and even dismay initially, but most regrouped and closed ranks, or else are keeping quiet. Some cautiously dissenting voices can occasionally be heard even in the official media. Karen Shakhnazarov is a director of a large film studio and an accomplished filmmaker. He's been a staunch Putin loyalist and a media fixture all these years. But the other day in a TV panel discussion he was heard saying: "We must admit that over the last 30 years they (Ukrainians) apparently managed to come together as a nation." (He blamed the traditionally more independent and nationalistic West Ukraine and their "Western curators" for that.) He admitted that not only Ukrainians are not welcoming Russian soldiers, but are fighting back, and that they are determined and united. He even called the war a "war" - a taboo word in Russian official discourse. (Of course, Shakhnazarov hastened to make clear that he fully supports the "special operation.")
The question is raised by Russia. Intel leaked (as intel leaked before that was confirmed by Russian acts) points to possible chemical attack by Russia.
You listen to Russias narrative, you have that in mind when interpreting statements not mentioning anything like that. You interpret according to the planted ideas of bioweapons and weapons of mass destruction.
You have no evidence, there's nothing but an old conspiracy theory and propaganda narrative originated from Russia. But you still entertain the though as valid, without anything concrete to support it.
This is why I think all of this is stupid. It's basically how conspiracy theories work. Confusing facts with being on the same level as questions raised concluding in conjecture without any real connected dots.
Try and make a conclusion that only uses what we actually know. If you want to elevate that to what you are talking about, then you need further support for that.
Quoting Isaac
I rest my case
Neither Nuland nor Tucker Carlson are Russians.
And, your whole argument is "statements" by the government have no factual, or even critical thinking value (lab could "mean anything") ... yet "leaked intel" you find more credibly objective, true and no possible ulterior motives ... and somehow not statements from the government?
We know exactly what Russia is thinking and doing and planning because of Western "leaked intel"?
Good idea, let's try that. You provide the template.
Quoting Christoffer
Lay that out for us using only what we actually know.
Any question can be evaluated as to whether it is a sensible question or not. Going even further, I can tell if I would have wanted or if I wanted to ask that question. That means I think it is a valid question to ask. When I get the answers I will make up my mind about the answer.
Lets see the transcript and I did watch the video of the testimony:
3:51
>> DOES UKRAINE HAVE CHEMICAL OR
3:54
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS?
3:56
>> UKRAINE HAS BIOLOGICAL
4:01
RESEARCH FACILITIES WHICH IN
4:04
FACT WE ARE NOW QUITE CONCERNED
4:06
RUSSIAN TROOPS, RUSSIAN FORCES
4:09
MAY BE SEEKING TO GAIN CONTROL
4:12
OF.
4:13
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE
4:15
UKRAINIANS ON HOW THEY CAN
4:17
PREVENT ANY OF THOSE RESEARCH
4:19
MATERIALS FROM FALLING INTO THE
Ok. Why not answer "No, Mr. Chairman, as you know the United States does not fund Chemical or Bio Weapons research in other countries. " Could it be that lying to congress is a crime? Is that a possibility after all? Possibility.
Don't you think that is one of the possible explanations but not the only one? Probabilities aside.
Because the strategy has been in the open over the course of this entire war. It is true because leaked information has been validated by how it relates to Russian propaganda and acts in the war. So concluding it to be more plausible is based on the actual events of leaked intel undermining Russian narratives before their acts. This is why it's more credible, not that we trust the government more, but how the act of leaking intel that is actually linked to acts Russia is doing. So if intel is leaked about Russia possibly using chemical weapons, it can be plausible they will do so, especially when they at the same time try to start a narrative about Ukrainian labs. Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/595916-us-employs-unusual-intel-strategy-to-counter-putin
Bosnia, Serbia (not Kosovo), Libya and Afghanistan didn't have nuclear weapons. (Libya had a program, which was a joke, didn't go anywhere). None of these countries were CIS countries allied with Russia. Had Putin been not so hostile towards it's neighbors, likely he could have emerged as a person of reason and sanity in this crazy World. It would be sitting in the G8 with it's friends Germany and France and there would be absolutely no talk of joining NATO in my country. We would be extremely happy with our non-NATO member stance.
When the Baltic states joined NATO, there were not even planned any kind of Article 5. defense for the Baltic States. One NATO member thought it was too provocative to even have plans to defend the Baltic States. There were no NATO exercises in the Baltics. Estonia was basically reprimanded for sticking with something as obsolete as conscription and area defence strategy. Basically the armed forces were not for repelling a possible Russian attack
Quoting Isaac
Having security concerns are really a bit different from attacking other countries.
There simply isn't any justification or logical reasoning to attack a country when the action has the totally opposite effect on your security situation than you want. It has been totally counterproductive. It's all been totally counterproductive.
It would be like the Chinese would lose their marbles and started harassing US allies in the Pacific perhaps by starting to sink Japanese, South Korea or Australian ships. You really think that would benefit the Chinese? That it would cow US allies not to have strong ties with the US? Of course not!
What China can do (and is doing) is to develop it's armed forces and try to improve it's economy (as it has done). And just let the US talk about the "Chinese threat". As the were talking about the "threat" of Japan taking the dominant economic position in the World earlier.
Quoting FreeEmotion
You already made up your mind, you just try to find stuff that supports it.
Doesn't it depend on the dictator? Putin was chosen because he was corrupt and so would protect Yeltsin. If he dies in office, couldn't there be a reset where Russia becomes less corrupt?
And you base this "strategy" of objective truth telling openness ... on what?
On leaked intel?
Read what I wrote again...
Quoting Christoffer
Do you understand what I'm saying here?
So, you "interpret" leaked intel as being 100% credible.
But our interpreting Nuland's clear answers to direct questions to just mean what she clearly means ... is invalid "interpretation"? Because it doesn't cohere to previous phases where the US government was denying any bio weapons labs in Ukraine...
That because they've kept it a secret for a long while--hasn't "played out" as information in an earlier phase--and a top US official, most closely associated with the original Ukraine coup and managing things since, is only disclosing this secret now ... it, therefore, cannot possibly be true?
Oh for fuck sake, are you illiterate, can you please READ what I wrote here AGAIN and see if you can understand it before continuing?
Quoting Christoffer
I've found that there's no point in discussing further without getting a good validation that what I've written has been interpreted correctly first. I have no interest in circle jerk behaviors.
Yeah, definitely. They're both as bad as each other. If it came out later that they'd cooked the whole thing up between them to boost arms sales I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.
I've no objection to having the least charitable interpretation of Russian motives possible. It's probably right. What I object strongly to is the associated white-knighting of the US and Europe. They're far more powerful so giving them a free ride is way more dangerous in the long run.
1. Snap surprise invasion planned in a week
2. Conventional warfare not starting for 2 weeks, small units rushing everywhere not super clear strategy wise.
3. Russia not caring at all about world opinion or sanctions.
4. Far larger invasion than anyone expected.
Is perfectly explained if Russia knew about these bio-weapons labs (because Russia has had intel ops in Ukraine for ... basically ever ... and it's a pretty corrupt "intel space" where people are super likely to sell info to the Russians as "be a patriot").
And the "irrational" chaos of the first phases of the war was to ensure securing these labs with special forces: take over the lab, get the researcher in charge to message back "the shower is cleaned; the pubes have been itched; the hair is in the drain", and then wait for a salient to secure the position, which are so random and chaotic that it's impossible to deduce what the Russians are doing until it's too late.
It is truly a "game changer", and you can't really fake secret research if you find it. Other NATO countries can easily verify the info checks out as something only the CIA could have helped create, both contextual evidence and human testimony (of double agent / captured researchers) overwhelming.
So, if Russia knew about it ... which is honestly the only way it could credibly "fall into enemy hands", then it explains a lot about the Kremlin's decision making.
If it was just speculation on the internet, it would just be speculation on the internet, but these few statements by Nuland are quite possibly the most shocking statements in the history of international relations, all in a tiny handful of phrases.
It's truly a completely bizarre and almost unimaginable (any point in time before) turn of events.
Right, I've actually quoted our entire conversation and you're still making up stuff you imagine I said rather than using the quotes I painstakingly provided for you. I don't see the point replying if my role in this discussion is going to take place entirely in your head.
I respond to exactly what you say ... what are you missing.
You say you're "interpreting" government actions ... like "leaked intel" which are still government statements, just nominally supposed to be kept secret as it's intelligence during a war and potential nuclear escalation.
We're "interpreting" Nuland's statements.
What's the "information has played out in earlier phases" that are relevant for interpreting Nuland's public statements? Sure, information "pays out", I'm not denying that, but how do we know we're not seeing right now information playing out in the way it seems to be playing out: the US government admitting in public that Ukraine has bio-weapons that the US surely knew about if not helped create?
These handful of phrases by Nuland seem to have no other "interpretation", as you call it, other than representing the greatest intelligence and clandestine failure in all of history. By a wide margin.
Governments obviously leak intelligence to support their interests and/or undermine the interests of opposing governments.
One of the ways leaked intelligence could be used to undermine opposition governments is to de-fang their propaganda.
That can, in no way, serve as evidence, or even greater likelihood, that any given intelligence leak is being used for that purpose. Simply being one of the options doesn't stand as evidence that it is more likely than any of the others.
Even so, already easily rivals the spies in the Manhattan projects as:
A. US needed a lot of scientists to make the bomb, and scientists can have sophisticated ethical and political analysis and decide it's not acceptable that only the US has these weapons, especially considering they are willing to use them, and are really smart so it's by definition a challenge to keep tabs on them. So, certainly a Soviet intelligence success, but it's not like the US intelligence community mishandled and just "failed' miserably in securing the Manhattan project.
B. Soviets may have developed the bomb anyways in roughly the same amount of time, so the Manhattan project spies may not have changed world history much.
Likewise, the Soviet movement of missiles to Cuba ... difficult to keep a secret, and the political point would be the US knows about it anyways (just as Russia knows about missiles in Poland).
As well as breaking enigma; it's not like the German cryptographers had a dumb system easy to break.
Whereas in the present situation, in the middle of a real possibility of nuclear war, it's honestly a truly dumbfounded level of incompetence to not only have these labs ... but then not get rid of them ... by yesterday?
And, rationally, the only justification to have these secret labs in Ukraine (in a sort of "closer we are to danger, farther we are from harm" sort of plan) ... would be to do something truly nefarious. It's certainly not for Ukraine's "protection".
I can assure you that nearly every world leader and diplomat and intelligence officer and military officer on the entire planet is thinking the same as us: what the fuck just happened?
I think it can. Many seem to have lost hope in this. The fact is that it takes decades for corruption to be erased as it's more part of the culture. Or simply such a horrible disaster that people agree that the past has to be forgotten and a totally new society has to be created. Like happened in post-war Japan or Germany.
A dictator cannot do everything. He isn't omnipotent. And dictators have this urge to control issues with special decrees, personally made laws and of micromanagement. To portray themselves as the leader "who makes things done". This creates an environment where actually corruption prospers. For example Hitler's Germany was quite corrupt.
:shade:
No, you basically seem to not understand what I'm saying. Or intentionally since otherwise it would undermine your argument.
Let's break it down for you so it becomes easier for you.
Quoting Christoffer
Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government
This means that interpreting the events that have unfolded previously has nothing to do with what governments are literally saying, i.e their info is not the validating factor.
it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.
This means interpreting the interplay between acts by governments involved in this conflict.
So, Russia releases a statement that others accuse of being propaganda, false and lies (example: "we will not invade Ukraine). The west releases intel regarded by outside analysis to be purposeful leaked intel (this intel cannot be verified as true at the time it is released, example: Russia will do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine). At this point, it's word against word and disregarding years of confirmed disinformation from Russia we'll just go with the events here. Russia claims independence for regions of Ukraine. The west releases intel of false flag operation. Russia releases "cry for help" from the independent regions, i.e false flag operation started. This validates the leaked intel of false flag operation. Russia then initiates a full-scale invasion. This validates the leaked intel of full-scale invasion.
These are initial acts from the west by leaking intel that is later confirmed by actions made by Russia.
This interplay points to how events might play out going forward.
So when Russia forms a narrative around labs in Ukraine. And the west leaks intel once again that undermines that intel, i.e Russia might use chemical weapons. That will inform a plausible event chain based on previous events. It does not mean it will happen, it means it is likely it will happen according to these previous interplays. Nothing of this validates the current "leaked intel" as true, but the creating a likely scenario based on previous events.
This is what I've proposed. A likely scenario based on previous events. Because it's more likely that events play out as I've described compared to the fiction and conspiracy interpretations other people try to play against it. I have the events that have happened, a chain of causality that is likely to continue, the interplay between the west and Russia as the foundation, while you use Putin's propaganda, a vague interpretation of a vague answer to a question and a conspiracy narrative that was debunked, or a misunderstanding of what types of labs there are in the world. Nothing confirming bioweapons, nothing confirming a link to anything about Russia's chemical weapons, only the using the link provided by Putin and his propaganda machine.
So if you continue to do your circular reasoning by saying that I say the intel is 100% you are either intentionally misinterpreting what I write or you don't actually understand what I write.
Or to just undermine the propaganda so that Russia's actions cannot be justified by them through lies.
I know that you just want to blame the west and the US all the time, but that bias just makes you unable to break the circular reasoning you're doing over and over.
I would have hoped to hear other people in here, but it seems like a gang of apologists have formed in here to circle jerk the entire thread. So what's the point of actually trying to discuss anything of this. You're clearly not taking in what other people write and just repost the same conclusion over and over without any attempt at premises that support it.
Your narrative is based on "leaked intel": aka. trusting the government in question's intel is accurate to begin with and leaked for the purpose of "just being open" ... aka. trusting the government is telling the truth when they say they are just being open and honest with everyone and that they actually have the truth to be open about in the first place.
Leaked intel could be fabricated but it could also simply false anyways.
Comparing that intellectual process to a top US official just answering a question in public and admitting in public to certain things ... can just be dismissed because "government's can't be trusted" and "lab can mean anything"?
This is why I'm hoping for a Russian revolution. Clearly, there are enough people in Russia who don't want the current form of government.
So you don't understand what I wrote, even with that nice breakdown. Or you just ignore it to fit your argument. Either way, if you don't understand what I'm talking about and just strawman everything like that, then there's no point in engaging in a discussion with you. I can wait until you engage the argument as the argument I presented, not your delusional interpretation of it.
:up:
What's there not to understand?
What strawman?
Yes.
As I said, the mere existence of that possibility as a motive cannot stand as evidence that it is, in fact, a motive on any given occasion.
Because you still retain that I view the intel as true and therefore...
When what I said was that Iinterpret events and structure a likely future outcome based on current events being in line with how previous events played out.
Those are two different things and if you interpret what I wrote with the first one over and over, regardless of my attempts of explaining myself in detail you strawman my argument as being about "true intel". You simply can't seem to understand the difference and I'm beginning to believe that you are just not capable of doing so.
Let's see how my own personal intel plays out shall we? My network of sources tell me that Russia is likely to use weapons to attack Ukrainian positions. Let's just see over the next few hours if my intel leak proved true. Remember you heard it here first.
... This is literally what you say:
Quoting Christoffer
That US "leaked intel" has been correct so far, nothing clandestine about it at all, and therefore trustworthy going forward.
So trustworthy that we can be certain that what Nuland, a top US official, is saying publicly in can be dismissed offhand, that we literally don't even know what "lab" means in the context.
Sure, trust to the "leaked info", maybe it's true. Maybe Nuland has literally been replaced with a Russian robot that US intel is dismantling as we speak to show the world that Russian treachery knows no bounds.
No one here seems to be saying they know the real truth of the critical things under discussion (except for you maybe).
For example, I explain at some length that the military situation on the ground we can't really evaluate with much confidence about the real state of things. It's possible Russian troops are at super low moral, logistics in chaos, and their lines are about to collapse. I'm not denying that maybe the Western media narrative is 100% true, even the strange spinning of Nuland's statements could be "true" that by "lab" she literally meant a Quiznos, as lab could mean anything, and the "bio labs" are just their kitchens "Boldly Building a Better Sandwich" and if the Russians get their hands on these better sandwiches: oh boy, moral problems solved, boldness achieved, victory at hand, strategic disaster.
For you see, a sandwich is made of biological material and building a better sandwich implies some sort of biological laboratory to conduct this important research. And what can sandwiches do in the hands of the enemy? Fuel the Russian war machine.
Nuland's just saying a completely banal description of a situation you'll find among any freedom loving population that appreciates a good sandwich. How can we prove otherwise?
Yep. And to think they'd be so aggressive after the US promised to conduct it's future proxy wars using nothing but a strongly worded leafleting campaign.
But nothing has been proven otherwise or even remotely been argued in any inductive form to support those hidden interests, so you're just doing circular reasoning based on your predetermined contempt of the west and the US. In your eyes, everything is about something else than what it likely is about.
It can also be as simple as these people actually wanting to fight against Russia since they are killing civilians and breaking international law. They want to undermine the lies so that Russia cannot justify what they're doing. Just like when a prosecutor strategizes to show that the killer is lying, in order not to let the killer control the narrative that could free him. The prosecutor, the legal system etc. have no real political reason to either convict or free the killer, but people in such power can absolutely act purely for moral reasons. It's like you assume that because people are politicians or working for the government, then they are no longer moral human beings. You continuously argue with the assumption that everyone has an agenda that does not care for human lives, everything is a conspiracy, everything is a play of power. And yes, much of it is, but much of it can also be an unintentional side effect. Everyone now sees an opening to go against Russia and Putin, but they can very well act to resolve the conflict to the best of their ability, which is hard with a fucking lunatic like Putin doing this invasion, as we've seen with peace talks not resolving and refugee corridors being bombarded by the Russian army.
Quoting Isaac
This is called a straw man ...having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.
And that's why it's impossible to discuss with you.
Of course. The question is why we should take your default position and have to prove otherwise rather than take our preferred default position and ask you to prove otherwise.
Quoting Christoffer
Well, it's not circular but yes, it's based on my predetermined contempt of the west and the US, I've made no secret about that. What I'm disputing is your ludicrous claim that your position is somehow devoid of such political bias. My default position in issues of uncertainty is to assume malicious intent in terms of financial gain for powerful (mostly US based) interests. Are you suggesting that's an unreasonable default position, that there hasn't been an unbroken history of such institutions doing exactly that?
Quoting Christoffer
It can be, but you'd need some precedent to justify assuming that as your default position. Where can you point to in past US foreign affairs where the goal has been clearly humanitarian with no financial or political gain? Because without a strong history of such actions your 'could be' is just wishful thinking.
Quoting Christoffer
No, its called a joke...
Ah, the usual "it's a joke" as soon as fallacies are called out. You do understand that jokes in a line of arguments without jokes, without anything indicating it a joke (like an emoji) just reads out as you being severely mentally challenged for the level of discussion in here?
Let me see if I understand you here.
Russia forms a narrative around labs. OK.
The West leaks intel ... no this is not leaked intel, this is an assumption or a prediction that Russia might use chemical weapons. We have no idea if that is leaked intel or simply a statement designed for a purpose. Is that correct?
What plausible even chain?
You are saying there is a pattern here? OK so we see a pattern, and you think it is likely.
Making claims of chemical attacks seems to be a long standing ploy that the US uses against its adversaries, for example Syria. I have no way of knowing if it is true or false, so based on the pattern of falsifications that accompany war, I have to assume it is probably false.
And if you do it in the West you get attacked by the media and by the brainwashed mobs in the streets.
Anyway, that is not the point. The point is that your statement "the Russians establish a narrative and then they act" (a) does not prove anything and (b) it isn’t an argument given that everyone is doing it not just the Russians.
Even the Western media, the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, etc. has pointed out that Western platforms like Twitter and Facebook are full of fake news:
Ukraine conflict: Further false images shared online – BBC
So, basically, it is nonsense to claim otherwise.
Quoting Christoffer
You mean page after page of spam from the Finnish outback? :grin:
Why don't you read people's posts before "commenting" on them??? I never said Ukraine is to be blamed for the invasion. Ukraine is to be blamed for not meeting Russia's demands to stay out of NATO and for putting its own population in danger. But the real culprits are NATO and the EU, i.e., America and its European puppets!
Förstår du det inte?
Quoting https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/03/ukraine-afghanistan-quagmire-far-right-global-economy-climate-disaster
The whole article is well worth a read
Met with skepticism? With a former lawyer like Biden and tech oligarchs in charge, the best bet is to completely ignore them. Except, perhaps, to have a laugh .... :smile:
I put my nukes on high alert so I can bomb you a little faster than I ordinarily would.
Just so you know. You're on notice. I might also take your weapons grade anthrax and blow it on you.
Im afraid I have no idea what any of that was supposed to mean but...
...how very drole/apposite/insightful/admonishing [delete as appropriate]
Depends. If it's Trump, it's probably a lie.
That's it! I'm laying seige!
Zelensky has dug himself into a hole (or grave). My guess is that he was prompted by his oligarch masters (Kolomoisky & Co) to stand up to Russia in the hope that the US and UK, who have been arming and training his people, and maybe Israel, would come to his rescue. Obviously, he has miscalculated badly. Now he is likely to lose half of his country to Russia and he will have the death of thousands of Ukrainian civilians on his conscience.
Anyway, here’s more info on Zelensky's boss Kolomoisky who is so dodgy that even America had to kick him out:
An Injection Of Rule Of Law For Ukrainian Business? Oligarch's Lawsuit Could Help Improve The Culture Of Business Dealings In The Post Soviet Space – Forbes
According to The Times, Kolomoisky’s private militia is one of Ukraine’s most powerful military groups:
U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch - New York Times
According to the Pandora Papers:
And The Times:
U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky - The New York Times
Shouldn't the West start imposing sanctions on all Ukrainian oligarchs? Or are mobsters OK as long as they're on NATO's side? :smile:
The thing is that when the Soviet Union collapsed, there wasn't a revolution. Actually the Soviet leaders could make a controlled crash without everything going to hell as in the case of Yugoslavia. It would be like the Governors of the States that make up the United State would meet and agree "Yeah, let's get rid of this whole Federal thing." Now we are having those wars. Let's hope that we don't end up with Russian Civil War 2.
Yet the classic imperialism that Putin is so dearly advocating will only end if the country experiences and absolute catastrophy. This hopefully might happen.
But then again, who knows what the future will bring us.
I'm pretty confident Israel wouldn't show up and fight for Ukraine.
However, I completely agree that the play was to hold out as long as possible, focus on social media without any military plan, and try to corner NATO on social media into intervening.
It's really unclear to me how Zelensky could have sat down and rationally worked out such a plan. In addition, his US supporters were pretty open about the goal to arm an insurgency ... which takes as given losing the conventional battle.
I also completely agree that as soon as the war ends (or even sooner), as @Isaac put it, the idea Ukraine has essentially been "beautified" and can face no criticism of anything and any kind whatsoever, will evaporate and there will be some pretty hard questions for both Ukrainians and the EU on how and why this happened and wasn't stopped sooner (of course, maybe Putin's bad faith and accepting Russia's offer would be "appeasement" but you need to accept a reasonable offer first to credibly accuse someone of bad faith).
Still doesn't prevent you like going to prison does or that police comes to your home because of something you wrote online. When did you get attacked in the streets by a mob? And attacked by media, how do they "attack"?
In a free nation, your arguments get counter-arguments, which doesn't equal active censorship or getting actually beaten by the government.
Quoting Apollodorus
This is actively blaming them for not bending over for Russian control. As stated many times, Nato is not an offensive alliance, they do not attack unless being attacked. So joining Nato would never be a risk to the population. What Ukraine wants to do is up to them. To say that Ukraine is to blame for the actions Russia takes against them because Ukraine thought about their own security is fucking disgusting.
Russia is to blame here, pure and simple, it's entirely Russia's act to invade, to kill civilians etc. There's no grey area in this matter, there's no security risk to Russia if Ukraine joined Nato. People need to understand that the only reason Putin is against Nato expansion is that it blocks the restoration of the borders of the old Russian empire. Russia can't invade a Nato nation because of the consequences it would entail, so the only way to restore some of the old Russian empire borders is to invade before that happens. This is why the invasion is taking place. This is why Putin won't retreat because he knows that after such a retreat he would lose Ukraine to Nato, and after that, it would be impossible to invade again. Instead of making up some geopolitical nonsense speculation, look at what actually exists as information, like the leaked propaganda document aimed for after the invasion was supposed to be over. It's clear what the end game is here and it falls in line with why Putin is willing to risk Russia's economy and international reputation. No other end game makes sense in the context of this war and how Putin is treating it. The only question is if he will be able to finish the war before someone finishes him. Because a failure in Ukraine means a failure to restore the old empire and forever makes it impossible to reclaim it.
No, but there have been revolutions before. If the Ukraine war fails, either utterly or as an ongoing failure of never-ending war, it will either lead to a revolution or a collapse like the Soviet collapse. The third option would be a retreat and Russia isolated, economy down the drain with a people suffering under the extreme totalitarian regime of Putin, more like North Korea than how Russia was before or even now.
So far the Aljezera map seems to be most accurate and useful (with distinctions of zones and operations).
So, if this map is accurate, Russian Southern forces have broken into basically open country side that is the center of Ukraine. This is the archetypal and infamous flat plane through which armies can easily invade.
Equipment, supplies and soldiers can easily be brought into their naval base in Crimea, and there's no further built urban environments that are difficult to fight through (such as is seen on the North-West front).
If Ukrainian forces dig in to the front of a salient, Russian forces can just flank and pincer around it, and in flat open territory like this I do not see how Ukrainians could build and defend a line hundred or two hundred kilometres against armor maneuvers.
If the logistics are now in place to simply roll North, then retreats from Eastern positions are not losses, but simply represent the Ukrainian forces there having no where to go and are stuck there anyways now and so Russians can just withdraw; Russia has no strategically important positions in East Ukraine.
In understanding these maps and what they represent, it's important to keep in mind that you don't go and dig in as close to the enemy as possible, you generally go and contest an area with suppressive fire and dig in behind that and once the defensive line is formed the skirmishing forces withdraw. There's a big difference between a tactical withdrawal to a defensive line and losing a skirmish, and breaking through a defensive line, and these maps don't tell us the state of defenses on either the Russian or Ukrainian side. Likewise, a maneuver through an areas does not mean there is any intention to hold it ... could be just a maneuver through an area to get somewhere else or to get the enemy to commit forces to an area that is unimportant. However, since the strategically important pincers on each side of Kiev and the pincer coming up from the South seem pretty stable they maybe well defended.
The indication a pincer movement fails is usually the counter tactic of cutting through the pincer and isolating the advanced forces succeeds, which we have yet to see against any of the main pincers and salients of Russian forces. For me, it's difficult to imagine the basis of statements in the media such as literally "Ukraine: Demoralised & incompetent, Putin’s army is doomed | Taras Kuzio interview" from the telegraph, without seeing any Russian salients actually getting cutoff, isolated and dispatched with.
As stated many times, that claim has long been debunked and exposed as a lie. NATO does attack anytime it serves US interests to attack, as in Serbia where it bombed a country that had no issue with NATO, America, or its British Poodle:
NATO bombing of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia
So, America manufactures a false narrative and then acts on that narrative to attack any country it pleases.
See also the case of Iraq, etc.
And, of course, under the NATO Treaty, the only event that justifies a NATO military response is if a country attacks or prepares to attack a NATO member. At no point did Serbia attack or threaten NATO members.
It follows that NATO is NOT a purely "defensive" alliance .... :lol:
Yes. IMO the best solution would be for Ukraine to be divided fairly between the two sister nations.
Russia should take everything east of the Dnieper, and maybe half of Kiev, and Zelensky (or Kolomoisky) can keep the rest.
I wouldn't agree that's the best solution, considering that it seems it was possible to not have a war at all.
But it does seem to me Russia can militarily achieve this result.
However, the EU could certainly negotiate a better result for Ukrainians, but so far has chosen not to.
Quoting Apollodorus
Governments come and go.
:smile:
That's the big question. Zelensky is a professional TV actor (comedian, to be more precise) with no experience of politics or statesmanship whatsoever. He entered politics in 2018, ran for president in 2019 in a virtual election campaign using social media channels and YouTube clips, and with the backing of the same oligarchs who financed him and his party, and "won" the election.
Even now, there is no evidence that he understands international relations. He obviously lives in a media bubble and acts as advised by his oligarch bosses and foreign powers (US & UK). If Zelensky isn't a puppet, I don't know who is ....
The local National Defense University publishes a map with the assumed units in both sides. Unfortunately in Finnish. This picture of the situation in 10.3.2022 in the evening:
Interestingly it shows 16 Ukrainian brigades. The red round ones are the Donbas voluntary units. More "volunteers" are coming from the Middle East to fight on the Russian side, whereas some estimates put the size of the volunteers in the Western side at 20 000. What is notable that you have "international brigades" just like in the Spanish Civil War.
"Best solution" considering the current situation on the ground. I'm pretty confident the Russians can take the eastern half and make the Dnieper their border. Ukraine would still have Odessa for access to the Black Sea, after which all it needs to do is to stay out of NATO.
Unfortunately, the US and UK don't want that, because their true objective is to expand NATO, i.e., "their" territory into Ukraine and beyond. Clearly, this is unacceptable to Russia. IMO NATO should stop expanding and America should get out of Europe.
At the moment, at least nominally, Russia is still offering to end the war if Crimea annexation is recognized, the Eastern breakaway regions independence is recognized and Ukraine commits to remaining neutral.
This offer seems more fair to Ukrainians than losing half the country.
The "pincer" from the south is two battalions; it's not going to cross hundreds of miles without a significantly larger force/logistic elements moving up to supply it. They are moving a battalion tactical group up behind it, likely due to the stalled movement. It's been trying to force crossings on the Southern Bug to move west, not driving towards Kyiv. Odessa is the likely target, and based on the size of the advance, it is intended as a supporting element for an amphibious assault since it's inadequate to take Mykolayiv, let alone Odessa.
True. But there is no sign of US-UK agreeing to this, and that's because they want NATO and the EU to keep expanding all the way to Siberia after which China will be next on America's NWO agenda ....
This map is way more informative, thanks for posting.
If the Russians have been basically just keeping the Ukraine forces in the East to setup this moment ... seems to me there's no a race in time against the pincers closing for all those brigades to the East of the pincers to retreat West.
Militarily speaking, Ukraine has been in a double bind: If they retreat to the West, then Russian forces advance unopposed to the Dnieper river and have a big strategic victory and "map momentum", the narrative that their losing somehow completely falls apart. If they don't retreat, then 14 out of 16 brigades of the map you posted risk being cutoff from external resupply and nearly the entire professional army cutoff and then both the East and West may fall militarily.
That Russia is starting to disengage the most Eastern fronts, for me anyways, indicates that trying up those forces no longer has any strategic need as they have no where productive to go.
That's why I mention the naval base in Crimea which can easily bring in supply, heavy armor and additional troops.
They have been holding the territory North of Crimea and the crossings at Kherson since early in the war, so even if they only have two battalions there now, what actually matters for a push north is setting up the logistics chain and forward operating bases to be able to resupply and refuel a breakout maneuver. Russians can also then bomb every bridge along the Dnieper they don't control, and mess up critical junctions and roads, to further slow any retreat West as the pincers close, which may explain why we are now seeing air strikes in Dnipro.
The Russians have also been sorting out logistics and digging in on their salient West of Kiev, once it is out of urban areas it too can do a breakout maneuver towards the south.
Interestingly, the WHO has advised Ukraine to destroy high-threat pathogens housed in the country's labs to prevent "any potential spills" that would spread disease among the population:
Exclusive-WHO says it advised Ukraine to destroy pathogens in health labs to prevent disease spread - Reuters
So, maybe they know something that the public aren't being told about ....
To setup the breakout maneuver to push North, you'd definitely want to first push West to push out to protect forward operating bases, and to just fortify your flank generally speaking, while also tying up troops to your West which is not your priority. Of course, Russians will also want to go encircle Odessa as well, so these plans aren't exclusive.
From Kherson to Zhytomyr (town West of Kiev) is 8 and half hour drive according to g-maps.
If Russians simply poor in armor (tanks APC's and armored artillery) to rapidly close the pincers going through flat open terrain, it could be done in a day or two (facing light opposition). Of course, the logistics need to be setup to resupply the pincers, and once established it's only a couple of days to poor in more infantry to dig in on the entire pincer formation. Since there's the river to the east, which can be difficult to cross if key bridges are bombed, the pincer formation may only be realistically assaulted from the West, where there are few Ukrainian battalions, certainly very few professional soldiers.
Yeah, because no one in the US has any interest in stopping that. NATO can act offensively if the UN supports it. The UN didn't officially support it but didn't condemn it either. The decision was taken by council, meaning it wasn't the US who did it, it was a decision by everyone with the justification of stopping genocide, which it actually did. The criticism against this went to the Hague and reports by Amnesty, while the outcome of the Hague court ruled against it being a war crime (article 9) and investigation into Nato did not conclude according to Amnesty's report.
So, sure, this is an offensive attack, true, you're right in that. But the offensive was based on "humanitarian intervention" and the fallout was extremely damaging for Nato even with demonstrated cause. It was, however, nothing made in the interest of the US or made without consent from any other nation within Nato.
Would you call that an offensive alliance in the sense of acting out attacks by geopolitical interests as you frame Nato? If every type of military act by Nato is based on defensive measurements or interventions alike, how would that make them an offensive alliance in the way you describe it or relate it to Russia? The support for an offensive attack is so complex based on the charters that it makes it close to impossible for them to do so, even more so after the fallout of those bombings.
So what reason is there for Nato to attack Russia? Give me one reason where Nato can justify it by their charter and the UN charter? Because there has to be lots of support by them in order to do so. Breaking Article 5 of Nato's charter cannot "just happen", it requires an extreme evaluation and there are no reasons for Nato breaking it to attack Russia. The act of including Ukraine is an act of defense for and by choice of Ukraine. Nato would happily want them to join, of course, but there would be nothing to justify an act of attacking Russia. At the same time, the reluctance to help Ukraine shows just how careful Nato is today. And the more nations that have joined Nato means the US has even less council power.
So, your argument relies on Nato being controlled by the US, which it isn't, even back then. And it relies on an active risk of invading Russia, which doesn't exist. So the valid reasons for Russia to fear Ukraine joining Nato becomes a smoke-screen for what is actually going on. Russia can't attack Nato, but Russia needs to force Ukraine to join them in order to claim it into the imperial borders. So the logical motivation for Putin and Russia to invade and push as hard as they're doing still follows my conclusion. You still have to support the premise that Nato is in fact a threat to Russia. Even if the entire existence of Nato would be (which it isn't) about defense against Russia, it still doesn't equal a threat to Russia. All Nato is, is a threat to Russia's expansion of its borders, an expansion that is not legal by international law. Russia doesn't like Nato expanding into the old regional territory that was part of the old Russian empire, but it would be exactly the same as if Sweden bitched about Norway getting into Nato because we want to claim it back by force sometime in the future if they don't want to join us. Nato has no reasons to attack Russia, it will never be able to justify or vote for such an attack and therefore is no more threat to Russia than the US and other nations actively attacking anyway.
If Nato is a threat to Russia because Nato would attack or do whatever they like, then the nations within Nato could just break protocol anyway at any time and attack. Nato's existence doesn't matter if their charter doesn't matter. So it doesn't matter who's in Nato if they were to attack anyway. This breaks any kind of idea that Nato would attack Russia. Everyone would need to be on board and everyone would need to break both Nato and UN charters to attack Russia unprovoked.
So how can you actually justify the argument of threat against Russia? It's based on a simplistic analysis of Nato's history, boiling down to,they did those bombings, therefore, they will attack Russia. Tell me there's more than that to your argument.
This whole development about bio weapons labs, is truly and utterly bizarre.
Already what's admitted to by Nuland is massive bombshell level, and Russia says it's taken these labs, now WHO is casually suggesting it's advisable to destroy any pathogens that may pose a risk to the entire world population.
Very difficult to imagine this can turn out to be a nothing burger at this point.
Let's put on the tin foil hats then. I mean, this forum is the last place for facts, rational arguments, or logic.
Still not a bioweapon lab. You know, there are labs in every nation working to prevent stuff like the pandemic we just went through. There are high-level pathogens everywhere in these labs.
I see no conspiracy here, I see normal high-level labs with highly dangerous contagions.
How did this thread go into pure conspiracy theory territory?
Then why would Nuland talk about non-bio-weapons-related labs in response to a question about bio-weapons?
Are you just saying she's a total moron?
Why do you make a conjecture in the form of a factual conclusion?
If it was just rumor on the internet; sure, conspiracy theory stuff, maybe based on some real cloak and dagger happenings, maybe totally fake, maybe just self-generated internet conspiracy theory.
Likewise, if it was just Russia saying with zero corroboratory evidence anywhere; again, can't just go ahead and trust "intel leaks" from Russia can we?
But we're not talking about rumors on 4-chan or 8-chan or reddit or wherever or just Russian intelligence leaks.
We're talking about a high ranking US official who seems to just come and say that Ukraine does have bio weapons labs: labs working on pathogens with bio-weapons potential that would "be bad" for the Russian military to find.
And, labs that work on defense against bio-weapons, and have relevant pathogens for that, are still working on bio-weapons, just for defensive purposes.
When countries perform nuclear tests to see how to defend against nuclear weapons ... they still obviously have nuclear weapons too.
These are literally questions. It would would be up to you to propose a conjecture to answer said questions.
You've already conjectured that "labs" could mean anything and therefore Nuland's statements have no content whatsoever. And I've responded to that conjecture with agreeing that, true, she could be talking about Quizno's in Ukraine.
Just because a question is difficult to answer in a way that makes sense in your narrative based on "leaked-intel" in "previous phases", doesn't make that a question in the form of a conjecture.
We're literally at the level of grammatical analysis that if the police ask a suspect if they've been killing people, and they answer "yeah, sure, some killings have been happening, by me so we're clear who we're talking about," that you're willing to argue that if, not as an immediate followup to clarify the statement, nor even stated by the suspect later but somebody else unfamiliar with the whole case, that the suspect saying "killing" doesn't really have any meaning here, and they could be talking about killing online in World of War craft (which millions of people kill things on everyday, totally normal) ... that, based on such an analysis, the police should just let the suspect go, nothing suspicious at all, totally explainable as just perfectly legal, run-of-the-mill video game killing online.
No, you conclude it as facts, move it into a premise for another conclusion and there's your maelstrom of ill-conceived arguments. That's why it's such a mess trying to discuss with you, you don't know where the conjectures end and the facts begin.
Quoting boethius
It has no content before a factual context can be established. That's not conjecture, that's explaining why your premise is wrong until it's been proven correct. At this time, it could mean bioweapons, it could mean traditional pathogen labs, but until any factual context is established, the worst version should not be considered factual since it more heavily erodes truth and leads to conspiracy theories. All we can work on is the most likely scenario, which is traditional high-level pathogen labs, because they're common. Any claim of bioweapon labs needs to have greater factual support, because it's a much less common thing.
Without proper facts, you can only work with what's most likely. If you are unable to do that, you open yourself up to conspiracy theories.
Quoting boethius
No, we're not. We're at the fucking facts- and complexity matters because people with limited rational thinking have it hard to conclude anything other than black and white conclusions. If you ignore actual analysis you are just grasping at what supports your thesis instead of looking at probability correctly. We're on a philosophy forum, this matters, otherwise there are a number of other places where facts, deduction, induction, probability, complexity, logic don't matter as much and opinions matter more.
It's a fact that there's only one common sense interpretation of what Nuland is literally saying.
Now, it's possible she's lying or she's just misinformed herself, but as @Isaac has already explained pretty clearly, there's no way to interpret what she actually says as referring to non-bio-weapons.
Of course, that doesn't make it a fact, just Nuland talking about bio-weapons; she could be lying or misinformed.
But the what she says, and has been recorded as saying, is a fact that she said those words.
If that's inconvenient to your world view and creates questions which have no good answers in your world view (the common sense followup questions of Tucker Carlson are simply good questions, and the explanations offered so far, like it was to destroy soviet bio-weapons, just make no sense as Tucker Carlson accurately conveys) ... not my problem.
Now, seems we will learn more about this when the Russians present their case at the UN, leak intel all over the place.
Likewise, that the Western Media now has their nickers in a knot that they've been blanket denying this and using the fact the Russians are talking about it as evidence that Russia is going to use chemical weapons (when it can simply bomb things to rubble and use thermobaric weapons in addition to that) ... but then Nuland just admits to it on live television and the Western media isn't even united in blanket denial but pundits like Tucker Carlson willing to just say the common sense interpretation of things ... again, that a Western media problem, not mine.
This is so faulty on so many levels of fallacies that it becomes utter nonsense. It's like one of the most bullshit sentences of an argument I've ever seen. :rofl:
She's asked about bio-weapons, she answer that Ukraine does have biological laboratories (that are secret otherwise we could lookup their websites) with things the Russians shouldn't find and they're working hard to prevent the Russians finding those things.
Yes, there is only one common sense interpretation of what she's saying. And this isn't some low-level person that maybe confused, or poorly selecting words, or wouldn't have good insight into the issue and is just surmising from a limited vantage point.
This is a high ranking official, running US policy in Ukraine since even before 2014, answering the question about whether Ukraine has bio-weapons with something that clearly means Yes, and not No.
If the truth was "No, Ukraine doesn't have bio-weapons, why would it" then she would have just stated that "No, Ukraine does not have bio-weapons".
One theory is that it was intended for Yarun, Ukraine, but that the navigators might have been using Google Maps, typed in Jarun, and that led it to Jarun, Croatia, about a 1,000 km off.
How the 6 tonnes drone was able to fly across the airspace of at least two Nato countries without being detected remains a mystery.
I'm not supporting Russia.
I'm not cheering on Ukrainians to die for no achievable military objective, that is not the same as supporting Russia; it is political realism and, for me, common sense ethics about the responsibilities of civilian and military leadership.
However, as I've explained a few times, only Ukrainian military leaders know if they have chances of achieving military objectives; maybe they have some huge surprise counter offensive about to launch; we don't know.
I have also presented alternative potential narratives to the Western media narrative, but I've made clear many times that perhaps the Western media narrative is totally true, but, since it seems to be based on nothing tangible, seems useful to present alternative explanations for things for the purposes of critical analysis.
But I do feel the future-crime accusation Russia will use chemical weapons are not based on anything remotely real, Russia has zero military reason to use chemical weapons, it would escalate to a tactical nuclear weapon if it wanted to escalate.
Russia has thermobaric weapons it's already deployed and are effective at clearing large areas (weapons the US also has and uses), and without any risk of poisoning your own troops, super large political consequences, and chemical weapons are notoriously ineffective for tactical purposes (why we stopped using them after WWI).
Biological laboratories do not mean bioweapon research. Biological laboratories exist in almost every country, acknowledge of its existence does not mean acknowledging the existence of biological weapon research. High-tier biological laboratories can possess great danger if compromised, even without being a bioweapon research facility. High-tier biological laboratories are usually secret because their location is a safety risk for any malicious agent, like terrorists etc.
Therefore your conclusion has enough invalid premises to conclude that she's talking about anything other than the most probable scenario, which is a biological laboratory. Another probable scenario is that contagions substances from the Soviet era could be stored there. But that does not mean active biological weapon research.
Your argument is flawed but you don't care. This is called circular reasoning: your conclusion comes before any valid premises.
Right. So, that torpedoes your spurious claim that NATO is "defensive". By your own admission, NATO is defending its own interests by attacking countries that have never had any intention to attack NATO! :grin:
BTW, why are NATO's enemies of choice Slavic people like Serbs and Russians. Why can't it bomb Finland or Turkey instead?
Quoting Christoffer
Yeah, that's why you're on this forum, isn't it? As for tin foil hats, I think you're wearing one already .... :grin:
Your inferences do not make any sense based on what was said.
Quoting boethius
...keeps getting twisted into 'You're supporting Russia'. It's analysis at the level of the school-yard.
Quoting Christoffer
All true. But she wasn't asked "Does Ukraine have Chemical or Biological research facilities", nor was the context such that she might have been confused into thinking she had.
To be clear, the Senator didn't even mention labs, nor pathogens, nor research. He asked about weapons. So she had no reason at all to tell the Senator about innocent biological research labs.
She was asked "Does Ukraine have Chemical or Biological weapons". The answer to which should have been "No", if they didn't. It's that simple. Victoria Nuland is not some intern fresh out of college, she's a seasoned politician. If she was in the position to give an unequivocal "No" to a question as important as that she would, without a shadow of a doubt, have done so. So why didn't she?
If the police ask "Are you carrying a bomb", you don't answer "well, I am carrying some electrical devices and a watch, and some fertiliser bags" and then later clarify that none of these ingredients had been put together into a bomb. You answer an emphatic "No!"
Not to mention you've yet to explain why there'd be any concern about these innocent biological research preparations falling into the hands of Russian forces. Russia already have samples of all the ordinary pathogens which can be used as weapons. We know this because they've bloody well used them. So why on earth would it be a problem finding them also in Ukraine, they have plenty already?
Well, there is no smoke without fire. If Ukraine had biological weapons, it would have labs in which it developed them. If it has the labs, it still has the biological material. And if it has the material, some people must know about it. Though, obviously, not the general public ....
You must be joking.
Is this guy supporting Russia too? Basically the exact same arguments.
I think what @RogueAl is trying to say is that only fanatical Russia-haters should be allowed to take part in this discussion .... :smile:
Incidentally, Facebook and Instagram have announced they will allow posts calling for Putin’s death and for violence against Russian soldiers:
Sky videoSky video Ukraine war: Posts calling for violence against Putin and Russian soldiers 'to be temporarily allowed' on Facebook – SKY News
But according to some, Zelensky is a thug and his government is evil:
Video emerges of Madison Cawthorn calling Zelensky a ‘thug’ and Ukrainian government ‘woke’ and ‘evil’ – The Independent
Considering Zelensky's connections with criminal oligarchs, they may have a point. After all, if someone is being bombed by someone else, it doesn't follow that he isn't a thug. It just seems a shame that innocent Ukrainians have to suffer because of the corrupt leadership ....
Thank fuck it's Friday! :party:
"A pox on both their houses" has turned my stomach for its moral obtuseness while Russian atrocities have flayed Ukrainians these last weeks. But Western – Anglo-American – culpability is even more sickening, and for that reason, goddamn tragic. I still hold to "The time to fireproof your house, my man, is either before or after, not during, a house fire." Still, I've got to give (Bulgakov's or Jagger's) devils their due ...
[quote=Vladimir Ilich Lenin]The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them[/quote]
Apparently, Putin took a page out of the other Vlad's book (which no doubt was partially plagiarized from Marx & Adam Smith). Doused in NYC stripclub Stolichnaya while flicking a critical clown's Zippo ...
Londongrad + Manhattangrad = Absurdistan! :fire:
[i]"When after all
It was you and me ..."[/i]
?? ??????! :shade:
Perhaps not everyone realizes just how fantastical this conspiracy theory is (unsurprisingly, QAnon is all over it). One of the more specific claims from the Russian Ministry of Defense is that US biolabs in Ukraine are developing weapons that are capable of selectively targeting certain ethnic groups. And this story has a history.
A few years back people were scratching their heads and wondering about Putin's mental health when, out of the blue, he expressed his concerns about "someone" collecting "biological matter" of various ethnic groups in Russia. Gradually it emerged that Putin was heading into Dr. Strangelove territory with this theory: he believed that Americans were collecting Russians' precious bodily fluids in order to develop bioweapons for ethnic cleansing. No one knows where he picked up this nonsense, but it cropped up regularly over the years, and apparently this is what the propaganda decided to go with this time.
Here comes very apparent the problem that Russia has now: that "front line" drawn to the map is what? 1300 kilometers or so? In the map (on page 84) there are drawn 16 Russian divisions or equivalent, which would be something similar to that 190 000 - 200 000 figure of Russian forces. But that is "way thin" when you think of it. There are huge gaps in between.
Here's actually a map published by the UK Defense ministry before the invasion in February, then dubbed as information warfare. At least they got very good intel as we now can see.
Let's just compare this to a similar large scale ground war which had similar large formations. Operation Desert Storm:
The US deployed nearly 700 000 troops into the war and the Alliance had a strength of over 900 000 of which ground forces were over 600 000 troops, hence three times the size of Putin "Special Military Operation". In the map below the US & Coalition Divisions consist of a far larger force than Russia has deployed in Ukraine. Yet note the scale! From the town of Nisab, in the West to Kuwait City it is 317 km. The distance from Kharkiv to Mariupol is a little bit longer. 330km or so.
And the Invasion of Iraq in 2003? Again twice as many American troops than Putin's "Special Military Operation". And Iraq is a smaller country with large uninhabited areas with a smaller population.
The simple fact is that in many places in Ukraine there is no "front line". That Russian are attacked in columns is because the distances are so great. Above all, the real problem with deep operations is that the Russian logistics are dependent on rail:
Then the supply without rail: trucks. We've already seen that Russia has to use civilian trucks and that Ukrainian forces have targeted supply trucks. And there is a reason for this:
In fact, the Russian way of fighting, using massive firepower of the artillery, depends a lot on the supply:
And this is why some Ukrainian cities that the Russian forces are attempting to secure will have lulls in the fighting. Russia simply has to stock the ammo and equipment for some days, perhaps talk about cease-fires and humanitarian corridors, before they make the next attack. Rapid breakthroughs and rapid movement is now unlikely. And when the Ukrainian armed forces haven't been destroyed in two weeks, it's really going to take a long time to destroy them now.
All the above just how absolute disaster this plan was and how it's not all so evident that one or the other side will prevail.
First, if you want to stage biological weapons somewhere, you don't need a lab there. The whole advantage of CBRN is that you can inflict a lot of death with a small amount of material. That is, you have a more portable weapon than a conventional weapon with a comperable ability to cause mass destruction. The US has been shipping a ton of arms into Ukraine. If they wanted to give them VX or anthrax, they'd just move completed weapons systems there.
Second, if the goal is to threaten Russia and put a scary deterrent on their border, why the fuck would they put it in the country Russia plans to invade? The Baltics and Turkey are right there?
Third, chemical and biological weapons are pretty shitty weapons for most military use cases. The main threat from them is that they can kill a lot of civilians without a lot of material. This makes them ideal for terrorism (easy to smuggle into population centers, easy to disperse) or as a MAD deterrent. Barring the US having been planning some sort of false flag mass casualty terrorist attack in Russia, the only use of such weapons would be as a deterrent. The issue with the logic here is that:
A. The US already posseses a much more effective nuclear detterent.
B. A deterrent only works if you let your adversary know about it. Hiding a deterrent makes no sense.
Chemical and biological weapons are easier to defend against than conventional weapons. Very cheap equipment, respirators, atropine injectors, etc., can keep your combat forces relatively safe from CB attacks. There isn't much you can do for high explosives though.
They are weapons that will get you all sorts international blow back for relatively little military advantage. The countermeasures for these weapons are well known and inexpensive. Biological weapons in particular have simply never been good investments. They require specialized training to create, are very expensive compared to conventional weapons, and aren't very effective.
At least with chemical attacks you can make a major breakthrough into an area if you enemy isn't prepared for an attack. They are effective area denial weapons.
While even poor militaries have CBRN countermeasures, training to use them, and even the provision of the relevant equipment is generally neglected. So a nerve gas attack could definitely be effective at clearing the way for an assault. They also have the benefit of persisting for a while, so they can be useful for defensive operations since they can deny access to an area to an enemy for a decent period of time.
However, once chemical weapons start being used, militaries will start employing countermeasures. Gas attacks allowed for big breakthroughs early in WWI. Later, both sides were pounding each other with gas shells incessantly and it didn't move the needle on the fronts. Even Iran's poorly supplied conscript army was able to get fairly effective counter measures in hand during the war with Iraq.
Chemical weapons are good generally to the extent your enemy isn't expecting them, or if they are irregulars without proper equipment. Aside from that, what they're actually useful for is killing a lot of civilians and terrorizing then, which Russia has enough artillery to do plenty well already.
Biological weapons are the same as chemical weapons except significantly less effective while being significantly more expensive. Whereas countries still stockpile chemical weapons because they could be useful against an existential threat and represent a deterrent vis-á-vis their use on an adversary's civilians, they generally don't pursue bioweapons, because essentially, they suck.
You spend years, talent, and money weaponizing anthrax or some other spore. Congrats, you have super expensive shells that can take over a weak to disable your targets, with the added benefit of contaminating land you likely want to control long term. The stuff is great if you want to sneak it into a big subway station and disperse it in the ventilation system to kill a ton of civilians. It's pretty shit fired out of artillery as an alternative to using nerve gas or explosives.
The public tends to think bioweapons would be useful because infected soldiers would spread the pathogen among their ranks. This is not how most of the bioweapons designed work. They are generally spores, or toxins produced by organisms. They aren't going to be communicable. The toxins function like chemical weapons, except they tend to be worse at doing their job. The spores work somewhat similarly, but have the disadvantages of taking a long time to disable soldiers, being more expensive to weaponize, and contaminating areas for too long. Volitility is a perk, not a draw back of chemicals. You can gas a target, drive out your enemy, and then take the position yourself. Spores that sit around for potentially years will persist as a threat to your own forces.
Infectious diseases as weapons have been considered, and in a few cases used (Japan in WW2, American settlers giving small pox blankets to Native Americans, etc.). They make shitty weapons for military uses though.
1. You can't target how an infection will spread.
2. In a modern context, you will infect your own people, and everyone else.
3. It won't cause immediate or predictable effects and could hurt you more than the enemy
4. With these points in mind, such weapons only seem useful in an existential war akin to the Second World War, but nuclear weapons already exist, where as the technology to engineer super diseases easily and predictably does not. Nukes are cheaper and have the added benefit of taking out targets instantly.
Communicable disease attacks against livestock at least make more sense in terms of not killing your own people, but by the time you've moved to trying to cut the food supply to an adversary's entire population you probably would be escalating towards nuclear weapons anyhow. These sort of strategic scale bioweapons make more sense to use in concert with nukes if you did use them anyhow (which indeed is how the Soviets thought of them).
Plus the quote driving all this is dumb. Why would Nuland mention a secret bioweapons program in an open hearing? Why would she know about a secret bioweapons program? Sounds like the type of thing to keep under wraps, no? Why would the US government publicly announce a secret bioweapons program in public documents for years?
The obvious interpretation of her words would be that she, like most people, doesn't understand how infectious disease research works. A CBRN was almost certainly written up after the Russian bioweapons accusations started. Russians taking the lab is going to show up as a threat. This makes sense, no good can come from a bunch of conscripts walking around a BSL lab full of samples of antibiotics resistant tuberculosis, etc. and accidentally infecting themselves, or a building like that being shelled. This is Rubio doing leading questions on materials they've both probably read at Intel Committee meetings. Washington loves to get information out in this way, the staged question, instead of just releasing a memo for public consumption. Guess it makes the Congressmen feel good.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
:100:
How does Putin's belief about the mooted biological weapons have any bearing whatsoever on their existence? Putin might believe the vase on his shelf is just a container for flowers, or he might believe it's a sophisticated spying device installed by aliens from mars. Whatever mad belief he may or may not have about the nature of that vase has no bearing whatsoever on whether it exists or not.
Likewise, Nuland's deeply suspicious comments, together with the US's atrocious history of deception and subterfuge give reasonable cause to believe that Ukraine has US backed biological weapons. That Putin has some crackpot idea about what they're for and how they work is completely immaterial.
The rest of your analysis is really interesting, but this seems out of place. The Russians are claiming to be about to bring evidence of biological weapons research to the UN. If it's true, you seriously can't think of a reason why Nuland might want to avoid giving a straight "No" to the question, when literally later that week she might have some backtracking to do? How about 'avoiding perjury' as a reason?
- Will Belarus stay out of this disaster of a military campaign?
- Will Putin escalate to de-escalate?
Which line? The current one all around the East of Ukraine?
However, to cut Ukraine in half North-South is still 700 Kilometres.
But the entire line doesn't have to be one giant trench, just overlapping artillery cover defended by infantry and armor. Any sort of assault on the line can also be countered with air power and armor reinforcements.
An assault from the East would be by encircled units without supply lines, potentially no communication, and the river to deal with.
From what I can tell, the South-West front has simply been moving at it's logistical pace, while the North-West front has been slowly getting through the Urban areas around Kiev, which is the hard part.
Of course, it's always possible the Ukraine finds some way to stop these pincers joining in the middle. They do have a lot of ATGM's and intelligence from the US.
However, Russia also has drones for spotting troop movements and can drop bombs on them.
And, do to the flat open country side, Armor can just drive around any dug in infantry positions. I simply don't see a counter tactic available to Ukraine, but, of course maybe they have one.
So we'll find out in the coming days.Quoting ssu
True, but NATO wants to wage war with super minimal losses, which is only possible with overwhelming force. If Russia is simply willing to accept losses then it's a different calculus. How many troops are required to easily win, is a different question than how many troops are required to easily win as well as sustain super minimal losses.
And in terms of man power, Russia can rotate troops in and out of the battle space and commit more when it needs. It's not the case that it has put a hard cap on troops, committed them to Ukraine and they will win or lose with what they had to start.
Quoting ssu
This is definitely true, and the possibility that Russia can close the pincers rests on setting up the logistics to do so. Russian army has certainly reflected on the question of supply without rail.
Quoting ssu
"Tactical ceasefire" is a pretty standard thing in most conflicts, and definitely the ammo supply problem is a big problem.
However, all these questions about the Russians also apply to the Ukrainians, and the Russians are more just laying siege to cities if there's no strategic reason to take them.
Quoting ssu
I agree. Closing the pincers entirely depends on sorting out all the supply issues you mention, it would be a large display of operational competence. Maybe they've been bogged down and just incompetent and disorganized as the Western Media keeps saying, or maybe they've been tying up Ukrainian forces with chaotic skirmishing all over the East of Ukraine, while establishing the forward operating bases and logistical plan to close the North and South pincers.
From what I can see, the South salient simply keeps advancing every day, and the North salient has now passed Kiev.
Some crazy stuff... I don't know if related, but a similar ugly rumor has been going around in Africa for decades about AIDS, that is was invented by the Americans to kill black people.
:smirk:
It doesn't. But it's a good indicator of the intelligence levels of the anti-Russia brigade.
I think America’s plan to build a world empire through organizations like World Bank, IMF, G7, NATO, EU, is totally unjustifiable and needs to be stopped.
French Minister for European Affairs Clement Beaune has admitted that the European Union aims to incorporate Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and other countries in the region:
Ukraine likely to join European Union, French EU affairs minister says – CNN
This exposes the imperialistic designs of NATO and the EU and eliminates all doubt that Germany, France, and other European countries need to rise up and free themselves from Anglo-American capitalist dominance once for all.
Quoting boethius
Are you quite sure about that? According to Western pro-NWO propaganda, "Superman Zelensky" is winning single-handedly with some assistance from Biden and Batman. It's getting increasingly difficult to decide who to believe .... :wink:
Does he know it's nonsense? I would think the average educated Russian knows it's retarded. Right?
Quoting ssu
I think he's in it for several reasons: one of the main ones being his standing within Russia. If Russia is threatened, that cements his hold on the presidency. So he can accept a slow simmer of insurgence.
On the way to that state, he'll want to take out Zelensky and he'll escalate if required to accomplish that.
That rumor was actually true. That's why the population of Africa has gone up from 500 million in the 1980's to currently 1,4 billion and growing! Was this genocide?
You really shouldn't estimate the time needed for large military advances through contested territory based on estimates for a car trip without any traffic. You can also make it from Berlin to Moscow in a day according to Google Maps.
For example, the start of the southern "pincer" began trying to move northwest on March 2. It is currently fighting south of Voznesensk, which, if you use Google Maps, is two hours, not 216 (and counting) away. If their goal was Kyiv, they'd reach it around mid-April at their current rate.
That force is much smaller than what you appear to be describing. Part of the reason it isn't larger is because larger advances are harder to supply. A "flood of tanks" might be possible if military operations didn't require supplies, and if all of the Russian tanks that exist on paper are in working order, with soldiers ready to operate them.
Moving a "flood" of tanks across a large country isn't at all like a road trip calculated by Google. You generally won't find gas, you need to bring supplies with you. A modern tank division can burn through 500,000 gallons of a fuel in a day. While Russian hardware is generally not as awful about fuel economy as the Abrams, you're still talking about vehicles that use more than a gallon of fuel per mile under ideal conditions.
Filling a 470-gallon fuel tank is not quick, even under ideal drill conditions, using specialized equipment. ROM operations also represent excellent targets for ambushes or airstrikes. Under ideal drill conditions, a well-trained team using the newest US fuel delivery equipment takes 30 minutes to refuel a tank platoon of four tanks.
Obviously, the situations for ROM would be far from ideal, and based on everything we've seen, neither will the crews.
You also need to protect millions of gallons of fuel, hundreds of trucks going each way. You can't just push in one direction. You need an open supply line. If you lose that line, you risk your flood of tanks becoming a stagnant lake of targets.
And indeed, this is a problem Russia has had with an 80 mile advance under their main effort, with a supply line fed by a railhead. You're talking about a 350 mile advance that is then also, for some reason, reliant on sea transport, (Note: there is a bridge to Crimea that you can use to transport fuel. The bridge has the added advantage of not being prone to being sunk by Neptunes).
You also can't drive until you're out of gas, like on a road trip, because running out of fuel makes the tank a death trap.
Ideally, you'd use your tanks dug into scrapes, so they are only moving a bit to fire, or to relocate. But this advance is aimed at supporting urban combat, which means using much more fuel.
Also, tanks are fucking slow. They are ponderous to drive behind.
:up: a good watch.
I was talking about the line between the Ukrainian and the Russian lines. You do have the "front" stretched quite long now in Ukraine.
Quoting boethius
Let's see how it develops then. And let's be honest here: the Western intelligence has been very good.
Quoting boethius
The initiative is still with the Russians. But if the continue inflicting similar damage to Russia as they have done now, that's really good for them
Quoting boethius
That's not a counterargument. Everybody would desire overwhelming force to minimize owns losses and maximize the losses of the enemy. Short war means less casualties.
Quoting boethius
Well, they aren't invading anybody, hence when they have logistical problems, they can have peace all around them.
Quoting boethius
OK.
Let's just pause here for a moment.
When have you seen footage of American troops pillaging a supermarket to get food? When have you heard about British troops going from door to door asking for food from the people because their army is totally incapable of giving them rations?
Sorry, but this is really the typical Russian clusterfuck, just like the first Chechen war was. All that authoritarianism and corruption leads to stupidities like this. There simply is no hiding of it. Or to put it another way around, the Ukrainian/NATO propaganda isn't so omnipotent to theatrically portray these difficulties. This was a far too large military operation to perform for the Russian army, that it could succeed with flying colors as it did with the annexation of Crimea.
Yeah, despite it all, the Russian army can lay punches and isn't down for the count. But that this has been a really military "bordello", as we Finns put it, is the truth. No way to hide that.
Only Trump? I can point out truths and lies that all Presidents have told. If you can't tell the truth from the lies it is a problem, Trumps or Obama's lies are their problem not for people who can tell the difference or will not.
I think it is time to re-consider this 'imperialist' categorization of Putin. Here are the former Russian states: do you think Putin is going to invade them all? There are 14. Can they ever afford to do that? Look what happened with one Crimea and Ukraine. I think any talk of any imperialism is the echo of US propaganda, they are very familiar with imperialism.
Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic?Armenia Armenia
Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic?Azerbaijan Azerbaijan
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic?Belarus Belarus
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic?Estonia Estonia
Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic?Georgia (country) Georgia
Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic?Kazakhstan Kazakhstan
Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic?Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan
Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic?Latvia Latvia
Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic?Lithuania Lithuania
Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic?Moldova Moldova
Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic?Tajikistan Tajikistan
Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic?Turkmenistan Turkmenistan
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic?Ukraine Ukraine
Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic?Uzbekistan Uzbekistan
Maybe this was the plan to make a martyr of out Ukraine. If getting people killed is OK with you, then I guess the sky is the limit.
Putin won't retreat unless he has to, because it does not make sense to give up half way. Not because of NATO - Ukraine may still not get NATO membership - after the invasion and refusal of NATO to stop it? That is a really a joke.
Information - in the form of a leaked document? How is that trustworthy? Does it not depend if the leak was intentional? How do we know if the document is not a fake? I do not think you know how disinformation and counter-intelligence works.
Seeing the invasion maps make me feel a little queasy. How many have been killed... and the injuries. I guess Russia did not have the economic clout to push their interests peacefully like China.
Not the government of the United States. I get the impression that Obama, Biden are working for someone else. Trump did not follow orders so I guess he was fired.
I get the impression, not information or propaganda. That is why it is so difficult to deal with the United States, we are not dealing with people or a people but maybe Oligarchs? Maybe.
Who has predominant power in the United States? The short answer, from 1776 to the present, is: Those who have the money -- or more specifically, who own income-producing land and businesses -- have the power. George Washington was one of the biggest landowners of his day; presidents in the late 19th century were close to the railroad interests; for the Bush family, it was oil and other natural resources, agribusiness, and finance. In this day and age, this means that banks, corporations, agribusinesses, and big real estate developers, working separately on most policy issues, but in combination on important general issues -- such as taxes, opposition to labor unions, and trade agreements with other countries -- set the rules within which policy battles are waged.
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/class_domination.html
First, wealth can be seen as a "resource" that is very useful in exercising power. That's obvious when we think of donations to political parties, payments to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy. Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries.
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html
Zelenskyy is in a fix, maybe he has a gun to his head, as they say. Maybe he has two guns to his head.
As a human being how will he react? That is why he is fighting on he is fighting for his life. If Russia takes over then it would make strategic sense, and be good propaganda to ... well those more experienced in this sick game of international politics know what I am getting at.
He must be thinking: how did I get into this mess?
This documentary seems to say that NATO was a threat to Russia. DW - Germany Media. That video has some other material worth quoting, but later.
4:08
this new Cold War is of course directed against the winners of the previous one against the US and its armed extension
4:16
in Europe NATO [Music]
4:26
since the collapse of the USSR in 1991 the transatlantic alliance has
4:32
encroached on Moscow sphere of influence Poland Romania and the Baltic States
4:37
which were occupied by Soviet forces sought NATO's protection NATO carried
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8OqfMYlqJg
Russian soldiers are getting killed as well. Maybe we would like to see footage of that. I do not think pillaging supermarkets is going to lose them the war. Actually it might help with the logistics and offset some of the costs of sanctions.
As long as we are in a military strategy discussion, why didn't Russia simply do this with cruise missiles to destroy military targets?
Why not simply threaten to invade?
Is arming rebels a good strategy and does it violate the UN Charter?
Why not simply threaten to use Nukes in the first place?
Saving lives...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1502353759455821833[/tweet]
For Putin's internal propaganda of course, coz the Ukrainian population wasn't that neonazi afterall. They should have been liberated from the neo-nazis, right? Now after fighting against Ukrainian civilians, being condemned by the Ukrainian Jewish community, having millions of Ukrainian refugees going west not east, shelling Ukrainian residential areas, destroying hospitals, violating humanitarian cease-fire, and killing Ukrainian children (which is as like as killing Russian children b/c Ukrainians and Russian are "one people" [1]) is harder to back up the narrative of the "neo-nazi problem" any more, isn't it?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220201003310/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
Yes, but if you're trying to encircle the enemy, the priority is the salients and the rest of the front doesn't really matter (especially in this situation where Ukrainians can't really advance to any strategic objective; such as Moscow).
So, commanders would be focused on the salients and send their best officers and troops to do that, and the rest of the front would be less experienced officers and troops with the orders to skirmish and just pull back and regroup their positions come under pressure.
Quoting ssu
Definitely US has a ton of intelligence and satellites and so on, but Russians would take that into account. Since, as we agree, there's a huge fog of war and deception element, it's difficult to evaluate a lot of things.
First example of this is organizing the war in a week. Yes, US knew the invasion would happen as soon as orders started flowing, but Russia knowing the US would know of any detailed invasion plan may have done everything in a week so Ukraine couldn't mobilize in advance.
Or, it could very well be as the Western media reports that it was an act of hubris ... but, even if it was an act of hubris on Putin's part, Russian generals may have made sure their plan B would work anyways.
Second example, just leaving a disorganized convoy on the high-way to Kiev could be incompetence or it could be a tactic to make a significant force look nonthreatening. Now, had the Ukrainians been able to destroy the whole convoy, then obviously it would have been a mistake, but since they didn't it's possible Russian commanders were confident the convoy was at no risk and leaving it like that for days created this "incompetence" narrative by the West that, if your actually
It's very difficult to evaluate things during the war, other than critical strategic objectives that are clearly better not to lose. But everything unimportant strategically you can never tell if forces were.
Of course, I don't think we have any actual disagreements, we both agree that we'll see what will happen. Russians could very well break under the sanctions pressure, or oligarchs "take out Putin", or things unravel militarily. My fundamental point is that all these criticisms and risks facing Russia also apply to Ukraine. Russia hasn't achieved air superiority ... but neither has Ukraine for instance.
However, opposing the different scenarios I think is useful for us to understand things, but especially for people who maybe reading a long and less familiar with Russians.
And on that point, people accuse me of supporting Russia .... yet I've been trained to kill Russians, and I would if it came to that. However, I much, much, much, much, much prefer the countries leaders to avoid a war with Russia in the first place, and I also don't want to fight Russians if there is no longer a military objective to achieve. I don't view Russians as literally the Mongol hoards of the 12th century who will rape and then murder every last person if they choose to resist; in that scenario, ok, fight to the death regardless of the odds of winning.
But, certainly, Ukrainian commanders may have some sort of plan to achieve a great victory. The Russians themselves organized a massive counter offensive against the Nazi's in secret despite literally no one outside that planning believing it was possible for the Russians to do.
So, I am for sure not saying war is predictable, just that we don't know what Putin, the Kremlin Russian commanders are seeing, view as important and unimportant, acceptable losses or not. Certainly, just rolling into Kiev would have been preferred, but since that didn't happen the calculus for (totally agreed, naked imperialism) is what justifies the losses: more losses, more land must be shown for it.
Quoting ssu
Certainly Russia has major losses that they'd prefer not to have (fighter aircraft, tanks, obviously men too), no dispute on that.
However, we don't know the losses of Ukraine. Ukraine must keep gaining relative power in order to reach a stalemate. I don't think it's remotely possible for Ukraine to take back all the land Russia has taken, but a stalemate would be a better negotiating position than continued Russian advances.
Normally, the risk of this kind of costly war with a smaller but fiercely defending country, for an Empire, is not that the small country is any strategic threat (Ukraine isn't going to take Moscow in any scenario so far discussed), but rather that the other Empires see opportunity and invade and now you're also fighting the Persians all of a sudden who can inflict strategic defeats.
But, as we all now know extremely clearly, if the other Empire on the block, US / NATO, "seize the day" ... we all get to die in a nuclear holocaust. Hence, the only real risk to Russia strategically is internal disorder and international relations, hence the sanctions.
Quoting ssu
This is an expected consequence of making a 1300 Km front. Experienced officers and unit leaders are a limited supply, so if hundreds of kilometres of front are in the hands of inexperienced lot's of confusion and mistakes and losses are going to happen.
Compare this to the Russians in Syria where holding fronts was left to Syrians with Russian air support, but what the Russian ground forces would actually go and take were very specific locations; so there's only really one fight commanded by the best people Russia has. A good commander can work with what he has in terms of number of troops and experience level, but bad decisions at a command level can lead to disorderly retreat pretty quickly.
For sure, down side of having a 1300 km front is lot's of it is going to be under inexperienced commanders who make bad decisions and suffer losses and their troops retreat in a disorderly fashion ... but if there's no strategic importance in play, the Ukrainians have no where to followup those disorderly retreats to, then the high command is just going to send yelling down the chain of command to not be stupid, while they focus on what's important in the war, such as main pincers to encircle Ukrainian troops in the East.
And the main pincers just advance pretty steadily and stably so far. If there was a process where the tip of the pincers kept getting cutoff and captured / destroyed or then large resources poured into rescue them, then that's clearly strategic setbacks; you'd never actually want your salients to be cut through in pretty much any strategic situation; whereas back and forth skirmishing can be for tactical reasons (lay down suppressive fire as a defensive line in being built).
Quoting ssu
Oh, definitely I agree; I'm not denying that we see losses and mistakes and logistical issues that the Russians commanders don't want. No professional commander "wants" a vehicle to just get a flat tire and be abandoned, outside some 5D chess moves. No professional commander wants to see troops looting.
However, these situations can be viewed as an acceptable downside for the overall strategy of encircling the large part of Ukrainian forces in the East.
Every plan has pros and cons, and to evaluate things we'd need to know the calculus used to track progress as well as the political and military objectives, which we frankly don't know in any detail.
Quoting ssu
True, but Russia is also de facto fighting the CIA and NATO's best hand-held missile platforms.
There's this idea that Ukraine is a small country "taking it to the Russians" all by itself. Russia is fighting a proxy war with NATO (potentially at Ukraine's expense and total disregard for Ukrainian lives and even sovereignty) and winning a proxy war with all of NATO is a massive geo-political victory for Russia, almost regardless of losses.
Russia has also, at this stage we can clearly say, called NATO's bluff of "going all the way" with no-fly zone, sanctions escalations much less boots on the ground and tactical nuclear weapons.
Only about a third of Russia's banks (not sure on what metric, but point is not all) are actually cut off from SWIFT ... and I'm pretty sure I can feel Russian gas keeping me warm and supplied with reliable electricity as I type this. Certainly no one's going to escalate to the brink of nuclear war any time soon after this fiasco.
When potential client states come to Russia to discuss a deal, regardless of what we think of them, they want to know if Russia can deliver on it's promise to protect them from NATO. If Russia wins in Ukraine in a military sense, it's a big advertisement for what Russia is selling.
Keep in mind that right now we only see Ukrainian and US "information" about the war, but as soon as it ends Russia will start publishing video of it's victories with it's systems ... which certainly exist or it wouldn't be advancing.
I have been advocating here a diplomatic resolution, in particular for the EU to use it's leverage to find a diplomatic resolution rather than just "punish" Russia for invading Ukraine in a way that, so far, hasn't stopped the fighting and may actually encourage more bloodshed.
A lot of the sanctions could be viewed as a good thing by Putin for all we know. We've hurt oligarchs ... but, just as we saw in China, at some point Oligarchs are a liability once power is consolidated in the center. West could be doing Putin a favour in that regard. Likewise, maybe the Kremlin wants a complete break with the West to create an alternative economic system with China (as they've both been laying the ground work for, starting with alternatives to SWIFT that appeared for the first time in 2014).
However, EU does have considerable influence, certainly easily enough soft power to have prevented the war in the first place, but it decided Ukrainians dying was not a diplomatic priority.
If we want to talk about delusional miscalculations, we should start with Boris Johnson's statement that the days of tanks rolling around in Europe are over. This was clearly the attitude of European political elites, that a conventional war by Russia in Ukraine was not possible because "those days are over" and the EU could just call Putin's bluff without even attempting any diplomacy, then, when the war starts, just drive policy by what plays well on TikTok until the brink of nuclear war and then suddenly slink away from the fight in a literal deluge of bureaucratic hedge-speak bullshit.
I have no issue accepting and praising the ordinary Ukrainian's courage in fighting for their country.
But if the EU are as courageous and concerned as they say? Where are their troops fighting along side the Ukrainians?
Furthermore, from "we have a right to fight" it does not logically follow "I have a right to send you to die for no reason".
Yesterday's headline in The Guardian, BBC, CNN, pretty much every big Western media organization I checked in on, was basically "Ukraine is winning and going to win" in one form or another and / or Russians will use chemical warfare, despite already deploying thermobaric weapons that achieve the same purpose, US uses as well and the absolutely zero reason to risk poisoning your own troops, denying to yourself land you want to capture etc.
Today, The Guardian headline is:
Quoting The Guartian
So, from a military perspective, "closing in" on the capital is a pretty big strategic objective, and it's difficult to see how the Russian military is incompetent for so doing.
Commanders in a war will have an "eye on the prize" attitude with regards to failures elsewhere in the war "theater".
I'm certainly not saying it was all planned in advance, but Russian commanders certainly had a "well, we'll just do it the hard way" if the hypothesis of easy victory turned out to be true, and if they didn't they certainly changed to such a plan.
But based on recent Russian military history, it seems to me Russian generals know things can go easy or they can go hard; defenders can collapse or they can fiercely resist; and if the story is true that a top Russian general "warmed" Putin that Ukrainians may put up a significant fight ... then that implies that top general elaborated a plan B.
Mariupole is now under intense siege, and running out of food and supplies.
It's a fucking port city, EU could easily negotiate evacuating civilians by boat. And, the "non-boat" way would mean traversing 1000 km of disrupted logistics and potential battle zone.
Fact of the matter is EU and NATO want civilians to die in Mariupole for social-media gainz and views, to justify their own policies to make the economic harms in the EU "worth it" because Russia bombed civilians the EU basically wants there to be bombed.
Of course, if the EU tried negotiating evacuation by boat ... in a coastal port city, and Russia refused, maintained the blockade, ok, then you can say it's Russia that actually wants those civilians dead.
But you can't have it both ways: you can't say nothing, do nothing, apply zero diplomatic pressure to evacuate civilians from a port city in the common sense and safest way ... and then blame Russia for civilian casualties ... to whom small arms were distributed and insurgency (aka. "civilian" ambush) urban combat declared as the Ukrainian official strategy.
"Do we have to enter another Afghanistan, but even worse?" blurted out academic Semyon Bagdasarov as Putin's "propagandist in chief," Vladimir Soloviev, tried to interrupt him.
Before him, it was Karen Shakhnazarov, a filmmaker and columnist, who said that the conflict in Ukraine risked isolating Russia. "I have a hard time imagining taking cities like Kiev. I can't imagine what it would be like." And again, "If this film starts to turn into an absolute humanitarian disaster, even our close allies like China and India will be forced to distance themselves from us."
Strong words, especially considering that Russians who criticize the war risk being jailed for 15 years, while independent media in the country face threats of closure or hefty fines if they refer to the military campaign as an "invasion." And it is no coincidence that in recent days the host of "Hello", Ivan Urgant after taking a stand against the war, has disappeared from television. Urgant, known in Italy for his irony on our country, was on air on Pervyj Kanal with "Evening Urgant". The program had disappeared from Pervyj Kanal's schedule soon after the host's post on Instagram, leaving room for alternative programming made up of celebratory concerts, war films and patriotic commemorations.
https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/esteri/30788383/semyon-bagdasarov-professore-attacca-vladimir-putin-tv-quindici-anni-carcere.html
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Dude. guy. bro.
Do you have any memory at all of "academic" and media opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Coordinated protests involving millions of people.
"No blood for oil" that neo-cons today giddily gloat over the fact that "of course it was about oil!" ... like they cleverly duped us this whole time?
Didn't change policy of a single dollar of arms purchases, and the pullout of Afghanistan was that it no longer served a strategic (aka. war profiteering) purpose as the War on terror would be ... surprise, surprise, replaced by the new, far more lucrative, cold war literally months later.
Point is, no reason to believe toothless academic criticism and peaceful protests have any better chance of stopping a war by Russia than a war by the USA and buddies.
The world's greatest intellectual, by a pretty big margin, Noam Chomsky, has been criticizing American wars ... for a while now, pretty thoroughly, accurately, potent reasoning and exhaustive facts ... haven't seen the US end it's war policies.
Says who? Your cristal ball?
There's a gag on Russian media, and it was breached on prime time yesterday night by a few courageous guests in a propaganda show. I can understand why it pisses you off.
Why, when looking at the actions of annexing territories and then noticing what Putin has said for example of Ukraine and it's historical connection to Russia and the artificiality of the Ukraine as a sovereign country, it is really classical imperialism. Not just neo-imperialism. When you have Russians hoping to create Novorossiya, it is imperialism at the most obvious. Russian irredentism is totally clear.
Quoting FreeEmotion
That soldiers have to look for food tells the grim truth that the logistics to support the army simply isn't working. Or that they run out of gas, yet haven't made a huge strides into enemy territory tells it also. The units might be put on the field, but they cannot be supported properly in the field. It simply shows poor planning and the limited resources.
It's the usual thing that happens when usually some authoritarian leadership decides to invade a country or territory. Iraq had difficulties when invading Kuwait. The Argentinian army that invaded the Falklands had many not knowing where they are and going hungry also as supporting 13 000 troops on islands far away from Argentina proved to be a difficult task for Argentina. (Btw that was a war where civilians weren't abused and both sides abode well to the laws of war.)
Quoting FreeEmotion
Quoting FreeEmotion
Russia and Ukraine had been already at war since 2014. They had already annexed Crimea. So a bit late for threats.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Just casually? Even that would a bit too much for the Russians.
But Putin does have in his options the crazy tactic of "escalate to de-escalate". Russian military exercises have many times ended with the use of the nuclear weapon to "de-escalate" the situation and halt the fighting.
I literally conclude this list of indisputable facts with:
Quoting boethius
No reason to assume. It would literally be the first time peaceful protests and academic criticism have stopped a war ... in history.
Maybe it will happen, but it seems a bad strategy to rely on something that has never happened before suddenly happening for the first time, without some causal mechanism under one's control that has some theoretical and practical basis to assume will actually work this time.
But sure, maybe the Kremlin will burn and sink in a sea of discontent tomorrow.
You misunderstood the intent. There is no expectation of a direct cause to effect mechanism to anywhere here, and certainly no hope from my side or theirs that Putin will simply listen to them and stop his killing spree. They are just speaking truth to power. That's all, it's not much I agree, but it's not nothing either. It matters. Everything matters.
Then we agree.
You see? Miracles happen.
:roll: Ok, then use the word salients. There are a lot of salients for the Russians.
And for example encircling a huge city isn't so easy. Here the example of Grozny is telling. For Russians, it took then months. And it was a smaller city with fewer defenders. Without any outside help flowing in.
Quoting boethius
No, it can't.
There basically is an unannounced blockade done by the Russians. Note that an Estonian (EU member) ship has already been sunk in the Black Sea.
Besides, the EU isn't neutral in this conflict. It's arming one side in large quantities. And Russians have already declared about those "humanitarian corridors" leading to Russia.
Something to think about:
Prepare for higher food prices all around the World. 15 million tons is a lot.
I mean the main salients, local commanders will also try to encircle their local opponents as well, but what seems clear to me is there are 3 strategically important salients the Russians focus their resources on: East and West of Kiev, and South-West. Everything else, as far as I can tell, moves forward if there is little resistance (the whole purpose of a 1300km front is to stretch the enemies forces) and simply stops and defends, or even pulls back, if there is significant enemy resistance.
However, the 3 strategically important pincers seem to me just to move forward relentlessly.
That the convoy just sat on the road for over a week is pretty good indication significant resources were committed to defend that salient.
Quoting ssu
There is still no indication that the Russians plan to take any cities with significant urban combat. Most Ukrainians aren't fanatics and will want to surrender once they run out of food (most Ukrainians are not fanatical jihadists actually willing to fight to the death). And towns surrendering one-by-one after encirclement is what we see. Mariupole, home of Azov brigade, is an exception but easily explained as both the home of actual fanatical fighters actually willing to fight to the death, as well as collective punishment for supporting / tolerating a neo-nazi "brigade".
Quoting ssu
I explained that's why diplomacy is required, to convince the Russians to allow ships through the blockade to collect civilians. I talked about EU doing diplomacy, not just randomly sending ships unannounced to discover there's a blockade.
Now, if EU put this sort of diplomatic pressure, publicly criticizing Russia for refusing the EU or some neutral country to evacuate the civilians, then, certainly, you can blame the Russian blockade.
But you cannot, in any serious negotiation, not try and then claim the counter-party wouldn't allow it.
"Wouldn't allow it" clearly requires asking in the first place.
Quoting ssu
Even enemies negotiate to evacuate civilians ... indeed that's what the ceasefires between Russian and Ukraine exactly are; that the EU therefore can't negotiate evacuating civilians, makes no sense.
EU wants civilians to die to justify it's counter-productive and warmongering policies.
You can call it arms-profit-cynicism or you can call it murder, but you can't call it some credible effort to evacuate civilians from Mariupole.
EU leaders haven't all-of-a-sudden gotten anarcho-peacenik pay masters: there masters are exactly the same as before ... and surprisingly the only thing they agree on is the policy to increase arms sales, indeed more political effort has been on the long term "rearming" than on the war in Ukraine .... they literally can't even wait a month to start spending on the new cold war.
"Greatest intellectual", that's a stretch. "A while now"? Like what, sixty years? That's a pretty good legacy. Imagine if he was born in Russia, criticizing the policies of his him country like that. He probably wouldn't have lasted for sixty days. It's a real nice life being a great proponent of freedom of speech, when you live in a country which allows it.
Who else is there?
But it would be good to make a separate thread about it. I'd be happy to learn there is someone as relevant, as productive, as insightful, and as accurate.
Sure there's plenty clever people around, but if they don't work on issues that matter: they're the worst kind of stupid.
Diplomatic pressure?
After all the sanctions what the EU has imposed? After sending weapons to Ukraine? Then apply diplomatic pressure? Of what? What kind of pressure are we talking about here now? EU delegates manhandling Lavrov down to the ground and sitting on him... that kind of pressure?
Quoting boethius
:roll: ..... :smirk: ..... :snicker:
@boethius, this is a philosophy forum. Notice what you say...
I hear there's a bit of an influx of foreigners, going to fight Russia, in Ukraine. That's a different situation altogether.
Quoting boethius
This statement is the worst kind of stupid. The issues which matter to me are not the same as the issues which matter to you. So what are you saying, if you do not agree with the importance of an issue which someone takes up, that person is stupid?
What's an example of an Obama lie? I really wasn't paying attention at the time.
They will of course take strategically important cities, like Kherson.
Obviously, taking Kiev is also important, would be symbolic "victory" to take the capital and capture the leadership.
They maybe setting up to do so ... or they maybe pretending to setup to do so but plan only to siege Kiev and then encircle Ukrainian forces in the East (which can be done both East or West of the Dnieper river, or then both).
It's also not unusual that a strategically good position has several possible next moves, all of equal probability.
Russia has limited resources, certainly, but so too Ukraine.
Maybe Russian forces are about to collapse ... or then maybe Ukraine.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The context is the world's greatest intellectual, so it makes no sense to argue the world's greatest intellectual is working on something totally irrelevant.
You can't be the world's greatest footballer ... but choose not to play football, play golf instead or stay in some local pickup league.
Of course, what is relevant and a worthy task for the world's greatest intellectual would be part of the debate.
However, the difference with lessor intellectuals, and just non-intellectuals at all, would be that it's not reasonable to say the world's greatest intellectual is doing something irrelevant or counter-productive to just make ends meat.
It would follow from being the world's greatest intellectual: both a pretty clear idea of what's important (confusion about this would be negative points I think we would agree) and also succeeding in a strategy to at least work on what's important according to the first part.
By greatest I mean both intellectual skill and knowledge as such but also the greatest contributions to world society as a whole. Of course, up for debate what contributes or not to world society as a whole.
It's like you don't understand how negotiation works. Here's a primer for you
https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/what-is-negotiation/
Spoiler: it doesn't say "just keep threatening each other until one of you gives in"
This pretty much sums up the useful idiot position. US - bad. Therefore, any anti-US propaganda should be given extra credence, any US ally should be viewed with extra suspicion, and any US adversary - with extra deference.
So when Russian MOD claims that American biolabs in Ukraine have been developing bioweapons capable of selectively targeting Slavic ethnic groups, and that they have been studying bats, tics and birds as possible vectors of transmission of lethal diseases across the border, such claims ought to be taken very seriously indeed, and at the highest level.
It's Nuland claiming Ukraine has bio research labs that shouldn't fall into Russian hands and that they (i.e. CIA) is working hard to prevent that happening.
Without Nuland saying it, then it would just be internet rumor and conjecture.
But it's extremely hard to interpret Nuland's statement other than Ukraine has bio-weapons.
The argument has been put forward it was defensive bio-weapons research ... but those are still bio-weapons.
And the argument has been put forward that "lab" doesn't mean anything ... but then why would a top US official just "scat" meaningless scat cat derribidoos da da's in a senatorial hearing in the context of potential nuclear escalation?
I mean it literally says the exact opposite of this in the post you quoted...
Quoting Isaac
...but please, don't let what I've actually written get in the way of your little RPG you've got going on. Tell you what, you ping me over the scripts for what my character ought to say next and I'll do my best to stick to the plot
Yep. What's not on the recording apparently, is later when questioned about whether Ukraine has sufficient supplies of fuel to hold out she goes into a long monologue about the influence of Ukrainian cinema, before one of the other witnesses gives a lecture on wild flowers of the Donbass region, it was quite enlightening - I'm all for this new trend for what can sometimes be overly serious senate hearings about active wars to be interspersed with snippets of unrelated tourist information.
Noam Chomsky first political book's name tells it all: "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". The thinking goes that in order to improve our Western World, we have to be critical of it's actions. Here's the "The world's greatest intellectual, by a pretty big margin" explaining his argument quite clearly:
Yet as usual, people get lost with this argument, lose the narrative just on which side they are and start believing baseless propaganda of very nasty regimes and become the "useful idiots" in the information war. Or then start to fear if they take side with any issue with the US, they might give credence and justification to everything the US does.
And then at the same time forget to condemn the attackers, talk anything about the attrocities that happen and give any support for those that are fighting for their freedom and for their right to exist.
They're just such peace loving people they're already plugging the Ukrainian tourist industry to help the rebuilding effort. It's thoughtful.
But yes, all this criticism of Russian logistics ... sort of requires knowledge of Ukrainian logistics also to come to any conclusions.
There are actually 4 ways Russia can encircle all Ukrainian forces east of the River.
Quoting Isaac
1. It can join the North-West and South-West pincers in more-or-less a straight line through farmland.
2. It can breakout the Salient East of Kiev in a move south to the river, and breakout it's South-West salient in a move North-East of the river (and just blow up all the bridges in between if any remain).
4. It can break out one of it's salients in the East to the river to accomplish the point above in a different way.
5. It can just blowup all the bridges.
There's certainly no question Russia has sufficient fuel supplies to do any of the maneuvers above.
And the core problem of infantry vs. armor is that armor can just flank tens of kilometres around you.
One possibility is that what we have seen in Ukraine so far is largely what Russian generals largely want us to see, or then fine with it. I have a hard time believing Russian generals will evaluate success and failure apart from military victory.
Quoting ssu
... I've gone to the trouble of preparing a guide.
..(1).. is a bad man and all the bad things are his fault. ...(2).. is a bad thing. I feel sorry for ..(3)...
Just copypaste the above and fill in the latest media villain de jour at (1), whatever crisis is in the headlines at (2) and the latest protagonist at (3). Then you can crack on with your original post unafraid of damnation from anyone who requires we all wear them like a fucking badge before they believe anyone has emotions.
Oh, but do be sure to keep up with the latest version. At the moment it's
1. Putin
2. Invading people
3. All Ukrainians and anyone helping them
Do not, under any circumstances accidentally use last month's entries (check Facebook for details), and avoid at all costs generalities like...
1. The obscenely rich and powerful
2. Fucking over the poor
3. The poor
When it's reported by the news (Fox News), there has to be at least something true, right? In Pizzagate I think Clinton's election team sometimes ordered pizza, perhaps from Comet Ping Pong or at least somewhere else. Of course, everything else is total and utter lunacy. But does it matter?
Even that it's denounced, that there is no basement in the pizzeria, it doesn't actually matter. If the other has to react and say "This isn't true", they are already talking about it. However crazy and unimportant it might be. That's enough. The discussion can move next week to something else and people will forget it.
Right so the New York Times article in 2001 describing how Project Clear Vision created biological weapons which they hid from the mandatory UN declarations, carried out with private bioweapons researchers Battelle, partly in their Lugar Center in Georgia must have slipped past the NYT's editorial guidelines - what with such a notion being "Pizzagate-level insanity" and all.
To think anyone would be insane enough to think the US would fund research involving biological weapons in Ukrainian labs when the only evidence we have of them doing anything even remotely similar is them funding research involving biological weapons in Georgian labs.
I see now I've been a fool, obviously if the US fund such programs in Georgia it's nothing but insanity to think they'd do so in Ukraine!
Uhh... this is a thread about the Ukraine Crisis. :roll:
But of course we could talk about one if not the most obscenely rich and powerful, Vladimir Putin. One opposition leader remarked that the expensive wristwatch he has weared was more than what Putin officials declares to be owning. Pictures from his 1 billion palace.
The really stark example of the rich fucking over the poor: institutionalized kleptocracy.
(A kleptocracy whose leader starts wars btw...)
But it's clear propaganda. Of course, the US is a real super power in terms of military might and global reach, but Russia is a regional power and has the most nukes.
Chomsky has condemned this Russian war clearly and unequivocally.
It was a piece of social commentary about today's mercurial, shallow emotional flag-waiving. It's relevance to this thread is the obsession with it demonstrated here.
It was just your failure to understand that Putin has outdone his western counterparts in fucking over his countrymen financially.
For you, perhaps. For us, it might seem so. Not for Ukrainians.
Seriously? You want to put some figures to that? Putin has impoverished more people to a greater extent than the US?
Let's start with the Gini coefficient...
Russia 37.5
US 48.9
US wining the 'fucking over the poor' competition so far.
There's not even a whole percentage point between them on percentage of the population below the poverty line, and the US is getting worse while Russia is slightly improving.
Shall we look at crippling terms of debt next, or unreasonable tariffs on developing countries' exports, or the impacts of American vs Russian-based TNCs. You choose.
How is 'avoiding openly lying on public record' not 'a reason'?
It's a coin toss. One side results in the deaths of potentially billions and the other thousands. Might as well refuse to even toss the coin.
Sure. Median wealth:
USA: $121,700
Russia : $871
This is kleptocracy at work: no investment in future production, just raping resources til there's nothing left.
Quoting frank
And going down for Russia. But some other indicators, that actually tell something on this issue:
Life expectancy:
USA: 76.3 years
Russia: 68.2 years
Absolute povetry. Percent of people living on less than 5,5 dollars per day:
USA: 1,7%
Russia: 3,7%
Kleptocracy. Corruption perception index (the lower, the more corrupt):
USA: 67 (27th least corrupt country)
Russia: 29 (on 136th place least corrupt country)
And those stats aren't actually great at all to the US.
And btw, Ukraine covers both the US and Russia on the income inequality scale measured by the gini-coefficient, it being at 25. And as there is a war (which this thread is actually about), income inequality is going down. Hurray!!! :zip:
What lower income inequality looks like:
The oligarchs aren't surely making a buck here... if they aren't in the weapons business.
The claim was about Putin fucking over his countrymen. Indices of overall poverty aren't relevant to that claim. If they're all poor then one sector aren't fucking over the other are they? The claim was not "there are some bad things about Russia" that I wouldn't have contested. The claim was that it is worse than the west for enriching one class at the expense of impoverishing another. For that you need indices of inequality, not mean wealth.
Russia's pretty good at shafting the poor, but not the best.
All of which is, of course, irrelevant to the point, which was about the gross display moral pearl-cluthing over the exact indiscriminate disregard for humanity that's gone on virtually uncommented on for decades.
That’s wrong, but if it was right, it would be irrelevant.
Putin is fucking his countrymen and stealing the wealth from the Russian nation. Are you really denying that and becoming a true Putin apologist or what? I thought you were critical of the West's and US actions.
The Yeltsin-Putin kleptocracy has ruined Russia. That's the fact. The ex-Soviet countries that chose the West and the EU (and thankfully some could!) have prospered far better than Russia.
You don't get prosperity by starting wars. You get prosperity by trade.
But it’s far too late for the US to do anything about these facilities, now. Like American assets and man-power in Afghanistan, it was all sacrificed on the incompetence of the current administration.
Of course not!
The people here are fond of philosophy!
Hence it seems they have to be critical of the US and the West because... they come from the US and the West! Because it's good to be against everything bad the US has done. Like to enlarge NATO and "force" Russia to invade a third country. For them it's meaningless to ponder about what Russia has done. But engaging the discourse that Russia promotes is great, because Russia is against the US and the West.
So some opt to be a ???????? ?????!
How so?
The signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord, so soon after J.R. Jayawardene's declaration that he would fight the Indians to the last bullet, led to unrest in the south.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Indian_intervention_(1987–1990)
In due course, both the Indian "Peace Keeping Forces" and the terrorist army that they were supporting were defeated, the Indians left, and the terrorists were defeated many years later. Ironically the prolonging of the conflict was fuelled by external sources, India and certain other countries providing the facility for import of armaments and for funding.
I am not asking Ukraine to give up, just to agree to a halt in the fighting, and, as a sovereign country, they have to make a decision what they are going to do next: insurgency, subservience, whatever.
Zelensksyy's words seem to indicate that he is playing some sort of a role, and while others are fighting to the last man, he is in his safe house, and there may be the option of 'extracting' him at the last moment if needed, by NATO.
Some of the other news channels give a different, if not accurate, perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-uRaAbjUM
You can see how ineffective his criticism is, in Russia, however, such an intellectual may be able to influence the way things go, hence the crackdowns, book banning and so on. It may be just paranoia or just being careful.
On the other hand, not only are RT and Sputnik banned in the West (because they are effective)?
Because they 'spread lies'. Who believes these lies? Only Putin supporters, right? Might as well let them make fools of themselves by lying.
What exactly is Europe and America afraid of in these 'news' channels. The only thing that makes sense is that these channels do tell the truth sometimes, draw attention to verifiable details and that is most inconvenient.
I thought capitalists want people to be rich (and powerful).
He is a captive critic.
The Spectacular Collapse of Putin’s Disinformation Machinery
It seems Putin has a vision of (or for) Russia as among the grand nations of the world, an assertive force to be heard and reckoned with on the world stage, respected/heeded throughout.
Of course a nuclear-weapons power with a large military is to be reckoned with.
Who in their right mind would want to invade Russia?
Ukraine seeking NATO membership violates said vision, though.
And so, Ukraine is a victim of Putin's vision (Russia isn't facing an invasion threat), though it seems unlikely they'd ever attain NATO membership.
It's not so much that anyone is out to humiliate Russia here as such, more like Ukraine is looking elsewhere than Russia, taking their own steps forward as a sovereign state.
Yet, the Ukrainians are the real victims on the ground here, not the generals in the Kremlin.
More important is, why did TIME do such a video, about a year ago? What was its purpose? To draw Putin's attention? To expose the West to these 'Malitia' so they would understand the concept? To damage Ukraine's reputation? These are all questions worth asking. Why did it show up in my suggested videos list?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy910FG46C4
"It's like the Great Germany of before" Robin
The program was mentioned in public documents, numerous times. Hence all the super sleuths "confirming" the story by "uncovering" public documents on the lab. In 2010, US financed a nefarious upgrade to a BSL-3 facility, which they ingeniously hid from the public with a press release and ribbon cutting ceremony to make it look like they weren't hiding anything.
Obviously, the West was already planning its anti-Russian coup of Yanukovych, who, of course, was totally independent and not beholden to Russia at all, just like Lukashanko, but whose ouster by fake NATO-funded nationwide protests was an attack on Russia. Why else would the US start building the bioweapons lab before they ousted the Russian backed leadership? So you see, this just proves they were planning on attacking Russia even back then!
They further covered their tracks by letting journalists tour the facility, and, most diabolical of all, had Russian scientists working there to diffuse suspicion.
Unfortunately, Nuland had to mention the top secret military program (the type of thing diplomats are always told about) because otherwise she could get in trouble for perjury. Now, you might say, "you can't get charged for perjury about classified information in public hearings," but they probably didn't classify it to keep it secret. Very suspicious.
:roll:
Your blind faith in capitalism is noted, but the charge involved impoverishment, not a failure to get richer.
Why not "Stop, Ukraine". "Stop, Putin". "You will have to raze out city to the ground" - Zelenskyy (Sky News) . I this suicidal or not? I don't see this as an exit strategy.
As for Putin, I do not see an exit strategy, let's see how smart he really is to get out of this one.
I quote below an obviously a pro-NATO/US website (not necessarily pro-Ukraine.) Propagandists are smart, but they don't have to be smart in a world where people can't tell the difference between RT and FOX news. Intentions will usually show. Hope you read between the lines.
Quoting Hot Air
Ukrainian government in exile - is it true? Here is what CNN says:
.
Quoting CNN
How about this instead?
Think that'll fly? :) Not likely.
No. Not likely at all. That's rather the point. If we were talking about what the deal ought to be then it'd be.
1. Russian military fucks off and leaves Ukraine alone.
2.... there is no 2
...but as this isn't a Hollywood film, Ukraine has to choose between the deal on the table or continued bloodshed.
Since the deal on the table represents what is de facto the case already, it's nothing short of warmongering for agents outside of Ukraine to be encouraging them continue their defence instead of taking it.
So I guess the International Centre for Counterterrorism, Chatham House, and Professor of Defense studies at King's College don't know what they're talking about. If only they'd come to you first.
https://icct.nl/event/negotiating-with-terrorists/
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/01/we-do-not-negotiate-terrorists-why
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5177-faurenegotiating-w-terrorist--a-discrete-form-of
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2007-01-01/negotiating-terrorists
You going to fight him are you? Or are you going sit in your fucking armchair and agitate for more Ukrainians to die upholding your naïve principles?
On the contrary, it is war mongering for you and the other guys #trollinforPutin to support the aggressor like you do, since if Putin leaves this conflict with whatever territories he wants, it would give incentives for people to invade their neighbour the world over. Your "surrender already" line is the most dangerous for the world, one that leads to many many wars.
Territories he already has. He's asking for Crimea which is de facto already part of Russia, and independence in Donbass which is already de facto the case under the Minsk agreement.
Quoting Olivier5
And if Putin wins with NATO powerless to stop it? What message do you think that will send? We can all come up with contingencies which would be bad.
That he already sized by war, yes. He can lose them too.
Quoting Isaac
NATO is not willing to get involved, which is not the same thing as being powerless. If Putin won this war, it would have the same effect as the Soviet suppression of the 1956 revolution in Budapest, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968: quash democratic aspirations in this part of the world for a generation.
All territory is seized by war.
Quoting Olivier5
And you think that's a good thing?
Indeed, and all territory can be lost by war.
Quoting Isaac
Nope. I think that's a bad thing, reason for which I'd rather see him lose this war.
So what's it got to do with your argument?
So far we have.
You: Ukraine should keep fighting because a bad thing could happen if they agree to terms
Me: But a bad thing could happen if they don't agree to terms
You: Yes
A bad thing could happen if they agree to terms, a bad thing could happen if they don't. So your argument for why they shouldn't agree to terms can't just be because a bad thing might happen if they do, can it? You need to provide more than that. You're trying to justify continued war here. All the bloodshed and destruction that goes along with it. Such justification needs a little more than a balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences.
If Ukraine fights on, it has some reasonable hope of regaining territory and forcing its will onto Putin. I suppose that is why they keep it on. What's your explanation?
Yep. It also has a reasonable hope of losing hundreds more of its people and not getting anything more than it's already got. Again, simply presenting one of the two options doesn't constitute an argument for it.
Quoting Olivier5
I didn't ask you why they keep on fighting. I'm quite well aware of their motives. I might well feel the same way if I were in their shoes. I'm asking you why you encourage them and vehemently suppress any discussion of alternatives.
You said...
Quoting Olivier5
Let's look at this claim in the light of...
Quoting Olivier5
So . Your claim is that other countries, seeing that Ukraine fought back, will be deterred from invading in a way that they wouldn't be if Ukraine agreed to terms? Why would, say China, assume , say Taiwan, would copy whatever Ukraine choose to do here? Why would Ukraine's response give them any insight at all into what Taiwan - a completely different country - might do if invaded?
I could understand your suggestion if it were about the international response - that would apply to Taiwan as much as to Ukraine - but the international response seems not to be what you're talking about since you're clear NATO won't get involved, so we're talking purely about Ukraine. why on earth would the specific circumstances in Ukraine influence something like China's strategic decisions about Taiwan?
Do you imagine the intelligence agencies reporting all their highly specific details about Taiwan's military capabilities, political powers, economic buffers etc, deciding the time's not yet right to invade on the basis of this complex military and economic assessment... and then thinking "ah...but Ukraine lost it's war...maybe we'll have a crack after all"
'Good luck with that.' he ironises. Perhaps a (non-consequential) moral principle is what you need, lacking omniscient foresight? Perhaps a free society is worth dying for, worth risking nuclear war for?
Indeed. And then goes on to do exactly that...
Quoting unenlightened
So Ukraine's win will result in a 'free society'? How has that in any way sidestepped the "balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences"?
As has already been shown, Ukraine's performance on the corruption index was on a par with both Russia and Belarus (Russian puppet). Reconstruction is already being linked to crippling IMF and EMF loans tied to restructuring away from social welfare toward freer markets. A NATO-friendly Ukraine would certainly destabilise the region and open it up to greater influence from America (whose track record on 'freedom' is shady at best).
I can see a very minor gain at best (poking Putin in the eye), for a tremendous loss of life and absolutely no guarantee the exact same gain couldn't be achieved the following year anyway by more effective sanctions and trade restrictions based on demands for greater democratic institutions in Russia.
I think it's very problematic invoking a kind of virtue ethics when it comes to the action of entire countries. Countries are artificial entities of law, they don't have moral interests, there's no moral component to Ukraine keeping its current territory. There is, however a moral element to the prevention and cessation of war.
You just keep going, long after you stopped making sense. That's interesting.
You bring up some good points I'll try to respond to later.
However, with all the different threats of the conversation overlapped, I think I'll briefly structure the argument myself, certainly @Isaac, and others, are making.
The first question is who are we talking to?
This is a discussion ... Putin's not in this discussion, the war on the ground is not going to won on social media. It doesn't matter how many retired generals and colonels the West puts on TV to say Ukraine is going to win (which they base on absolutely nothing), if Ukraine simply can't win. The more-or-less official position from actual Western officials (who do have lot's of intelligence and so can base their statements on something) is that Ukraine can wage an insurgency ... but that assumes losing the conventional war. US won the conventional war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Now, is this offer to the Ukrainians, to turn their country into an Afghanistan or Libya style failed state a good faith offer? Does it serve Ukrainian interests or does it serve the US interest to "bleed the Russians" by giving them an Afghanistan, which Western officials aren't even really coy about stating is their goal and strategy.
Furthermore, is years or decades of insurgency--which the most fanatical elements (who have no qualms about murdering anyone on "their own side" who disagrees with them; and the whole point of an insurgency is to have a murder machine, so if all you have is a murder machine every moderate looks like a nail needing murdering) will quickly take over, meaning the neo-Nazi's will run it--really a good outcome for Ukraine? Does that really serve any Ukrainian interests?
This is the policy: pump handheld missile systems into Ukraine which cannot possibly win the conventional war with Russia who will just "see your javelin and raise you thermobaric destruction of the entire area" and, critically, infantry cannot possibly assault dug-in locations, so any area the Russians want to defend they will be able to defend ... but if the handheld systems can't win the conventional war, what's their real purpose?
1. Advertise the effectiveness of these weapons for weapons sales. Conflicts are first and foremost an advertisement for different weapons systems, and this is the only reason every EU country is "sending their weapons" as they'll want not only those sweet, sweet views on facebook but also the positive association built up in social media between "Ukrainian resistance" and "peace loving". In 2 weeks, ATGM's and Manpads have become symbols of peace. But at how much Ukrainian blood pays for this advertisement?
2. The US policy, as described by Nuland before the 2014 in a leaked phone call discussing the coup and "who's their man" they'll place in power ... is "Fuck the EU". This war indeed fucks the EU in all sorts of ways. EU leaders seem to just love getting fucked by the US, more or less drop their drawers and bend over every time the US comes to town. Ok, American's can smile about that, but does it help the Ukrainians?
3. Give Russia they're "Afghanistan" (aka. their own constant arms commercial ... which also creates instability putting upwards pressure on oil prices and pretty much all commodities that then pay handsomely for said war commercial).
Now, given this purpose of US, NATO and EU policy ... is that somehow excusing Russia.
Certainly, Russian could have just lead with it's own economic sanctions of it's own (that could have actually prevented war, see how long EU could last without gas).
The difference is that bad mouthing Putin in some online group think is mostly false (as a truly evil person in charge of thousands of nuclear weapons would use them all tomorrow) and is not constructive anyways ... it's not going to change Putin's mind.
If you can't talk Putin out of the war effort for just "moral reasons" and no concessions from anyone, then it's basically like just talking to a big rock that's blocking your road.
You go to other people who could help you move the giant boulder and, if Western media is to believed as a sane basis of decision making, then people just join in your frustrated expletives about rock ... but aren't going to help you move it, but for sure the rock is fucking obstacle, is somehow a righteous movement.
So you go back to the rock and yell at it directly as that seems to be what everyone wants, but the rock isn't persuaded to move.
So you go back to the group of people that can help move the rock and they're just like "holy crap, fucking bitch ass rock fucking with your jive train, you totally have a right to move that rock, I'm posting this to social media right now,"
No amount of social media posting is going to move that rock. When you realize this you go back are like "ok cool, appreciated making me the greatest hero social media has ever seen for defending my right to move the rock from the path out of my house, but the rock is still there." Ok, feeling that they may indeed be hypocrites, they start supplying you with the tools to move the rock yourself (and posting that on social media while doing nothing to change the rocks actual location), and it's not really a question about tools but of man power and team work. You have now a bunch of stuff, and the rock is still there.
So you finally start complaining about no one actually helping you. What do they say?
"Woe, woe, woe, hold your horses," (which if you had you could maybe have moved the rock, but you don't have and you can't get because anyone seen giving you horses may start World War III), "We didn't cause this problem, you have a right to move the rock, and we totally respect that and totally want you to move it to get your truck out to go do your work and live a normal life, but we have nothing to do with the rock, rock did that to you. Did our policies lead to the rock falling off the cliff and landing in your driveway to begin with, sure maybe, but we're in the here and now and ontologically speaking we're not rock, rock is over there and we're over here; totally different things and not connected in anyway."
"Go talk to the fucking rock."
Well this is my understanding of a non-consequential morality. One does what is right with the understanding that it will usually fail; that no good deed ever goes unpunished. This is why what is right is different from what is expedient. Ukraine fights and probably loses, because 'better dead than red'. Or perhaps, better to die in the gas chamber than to operate the gas chamber.
... Or it's possible one of its many generals can read, maybe even Putin himself can read, and they've actually bothered to read, at least one of them one time in a decades long career in the military, the classic text of strategic warfare.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
"In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity"
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."
"Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment?—?that which they cannot anticipate."
"""
There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.
Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain.
"""
"Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley."
"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle." (... maybe why Putin made a reasonable offer before the war started ... maybe would have just accepted people accepting his offer.)
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.
Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting." (this obviously didn't happen, but could have in those more-or-less calm first days of the war; it's literally only the social media encouraging bloodshed without understanding anything that prevented a negotiated settlement in my opinion.)
It all comes from this Chinese book this guy wrote back in the day ... but, certainly an inferior civilization we can just ignore.
This is very worrying. Notice how specific weapons have been provided, as if to see how they work, without changing anything? Anti-tank weapons. Hand - held SAMs. As I mentioned Ukraine asked for some weapons they never got.
First thing, Zelenskyy's options
1. Fight the Russians back
2. Stop the Russian advance and offer a ceasefire
3. Fight to the end.
4. Accept a ceasefire on mostly Russian terms
Putin aims to deny him options 1 and 2. 3 is an option that needs no negotiation. 4. May just save the day, and Ukraine can re-build.
Quoting jorndoe
How about
Russia halts military operations in Ukraine
Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
[s]Ukraine change its constitution to enshrine neutrality[/s]
Ukraine acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory
[s]Ukraine recognize the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states[/s]
Ukraine agrees to UN Peacekeepers in the east (proposed before, turned down by Russia)
These are good:
Russia recognizes Ukraine as an independent state
Russia rebuilds (or pays for rebuilding) what they ruined in Ukraine
Russia returns (or pays for) what they took from Ukrainians
However they are extremely dangerous to the forces that want to distabilise the region and put pressure on Russia. An Ukraine- Russia alliance will be a very strong bolster against any other country or bloc. Not acceptable.
Joining NATO to be taken as a separate discussion and agreement.
The inability to Russia to create a modern vibrant economy similar at least to it's former Satellite states in Europe and similar to the Baltic states shows how Putin has failed in economic terms. Or put in another more stark form: how many of the politicians that have lead the these states in Eastern Europe or the Baltics have become multi-billionaires when in offices or afterwards?
None, I guess. The closest to steal billions is the Yanukovich, the Pro-Putin ex-leader of Ukraine, whose ouster played a major part in the events in 2014. The whole reason for Ukraine desperately wanting to join the West is that they can see with their own eyes that joining the West has been a better option of those ex-Soviet countries that have had the ability to do that.
Corruption is a cancer and deeply institutionalized corruption in the form of a Kleptocracy, which Putin's Russia is, has been quite detrimental to the country. Basically only high oil prices has saved the Russian economy. And a dictator that focuses on wars of conquest and building up his military won't solve it.
It's whimsical you then start to defend the largest robber baron of our times.
That does not make it right. Meddling with elections and installing your glove puppet as President may not be classified as a battle, but the morality of the idea is questionable. Are lives lost the only measure or is the freedoms lost also to be counted in the list of casualties?
War brings evil intentions to light. That is what it is for.
The inability for Russia to succeed has always been a source of joy for the United States and the most glorious moment was the destruction of the USSR. The ability for China to succeed, however is a problem that has only one solution: when you are losing the race, push your challenger off the road, like it is done in Formula 1 sometimes, allegedly.
Almost like it's exactly that.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Predicting Russian victory is not a moral justification for Russia's actions.
It's simply necessary to evaluate decisions of other parties, including Ukraine, of what to do about it. If you can't talk Putin out of the war for purely moral reasons, to give up and accept defeat, then trying to do that is just wasting time and not going to save a single life.
What matters during the crisis is what to do about the crisis; the blame game is something that is only morally justified once the crisis is resolved. Starting it before is morally abhorrent and, tacitly assumes, the crisis is actually desirable (you're not doing anything to help anyone in the crisis, so the alternative is that it's actually desirable to score political points and accomplish other objectives at the cost of the suffering and dying).
"Fighting to the last man" with insane civilian casualties and damages to people's homes and livelihood, is only morally justifiable if that last man can win or then the enemy is going to literally rape and kill everyone anyways; no one's proposing either of these possibilities.
Finland is praised as the archetype resistance to Russian imperialism ... yet Finland was literally part of the Russian empire for a century, and owned by Sweden before that. If Finns had this ethic of fighting to the last man ... no Finn would be alive to fight the Soviet partisans in WWI and the Soviet Union itself in WWII. Sometimes you need to live to fight another day, that's the first lesson to be learned from Finnish history.
And the Finns themselves are only there in the first place, because they invaded and took Salmi lands, so it's the kettle calling the pot black to begin with (and the Salmi are still alive and still have some lands because they too didn't fight to the last man).
There have been people's with a fight to the last man ethic in all circumstances, but history being full of variables, they are no longer around.
I agree. One acts in a way that is virtuous regardless of consequences.
Quoting unenlightened
The problem is Ukraine is not a person. There is no virtuous course of action for a country because virtues are the sorts of things people have, not the sorts of thing countries have. The people in Ukraine, the political leader specifically, have to act as virtuous political leaders, they have to exhibit the virtues a political leader ought to have - protection of the vulnerable, willingness to take unpopular-but-right decisions, taking just account of future, as well as current citizens... those are the virtues of a politician. Playing to social media to heroise oneself at the expense of innocent lives is not a virtue.
As soon as you invoke 'freedom' as a goal you are moving into consequentialist ethics because you have to have made an assessment of which course of action will lead to it. Kill the enemy, or talk to the enemy. Both could potentially best maximise 'freedom'. Fighting and talking are both virtues depending on the context.
Fighting for freedom in of itself is clearly a virtue, but it requires one to pick which side is 'freedom' and which isn't. That's precisely the problem I've been trying to discuss. Ukraine/US/Europe are no white knights. They're not the forces of freedom fighting the forces of evil. They're mired in corruption, oppression, and deceit. The fact that they are less so mired than their enemy doesn't suddenly turn the situation into high contrast black-and-white and no simple 'fight to the death' narrative can properly fit the battle between Western economic tyranny and Russian political tyranny.
Calling them both as bad as each other is not 'defending' one of them. Calling one worse than the other is not 'defending' one of them.
'Defending' someone consists of claiming their actions to be justified or the accusations against them untrue. If you can find a quote where I've said any such thing about Putin then crack on, otherwise fuck off.
I believe there is no moral justification for war. There is a moral justification for protecting you country. I am not justifying Russia's actions - not morally.
There are other justifications : the argument from freedom as in 'freeing the Iraqi people from oppression'. Preserving Russia's security is another example. These may be based on disputable facts, but they are justifications no less.
This is what I was trying to point out: there are many basis for justification: in the current context where war is not a crime, war can be justified : reasons can be given for starting a war, and the populace will largely accept it: why? Economic competition, ideology, religion, etc.
People have to demand that their governments rule out war as an option, forever.
Quoting World Population Review, CIA Factbook
Interesting information. It just shows how things can change over the years. I like the status quo, though. That means no imperialisms.
Likewise, presenting another option does not constitute an argument for it.
Quoting Isaac
Oh stop lying, I'm not in the mood. I don't and couldn't suppress anything and you know it. Stop lying. It will do you good.
Totally agree, that's my anarchist dream for sure.
But unless you can convince Putin of this anarchist philosophy today, we need to do other things if we want to avoid killing or traumatizing for life even one child through what we can do; letting that child be killed of traumatized knowing that we could have done something, but didn't because we rather blame Putin for it ... is political opportunism and not any morally justifiable action. The morally justifiable actios is: How do we actually avoid as many children being traumatized or killed as we can.
Evacuating children out of sieged port cities ... by boat, can take literally no time nor any political capital.
The reason Mariupole is reported on without ever showing visually it's a port city is that nobody asks ... why don't they just evacuate them by boat?
This is never attempted because Azov brigade is defending the city and does not want civilians to leave, and exposing this fact will call into question the West actively supporting Azov brigade for 8 years.
The West doesn't want Putin to have a "easy win" that shows he does not want to kill civilians for no military purpose with unfortunate but necessary collateral damage, and is happy to agree to let them be evacuated by the EU by boat: the safest, common sense, way to evacuate people from a coastal area ... especially when the alternative is a 1000 km Lassie style adventure through a war zone.
The escape from Dunkirk wasn't a long arduous trek to Portugal.
Yet to understand this war of conquest one shouldn't forget the culprit.
Quoting boethius
Your so sure the Ukrainians cannot force Putin to the negotiating table? Putin is already talking to the "neo-nazis", so I think his denazification attempt hit some bumps on the way in just two weeks.
Quoting boethius Ukrainians have already surprised them. Kyiv was estimated to fall in 90 hours, that's less than in 4 days.
Quoting boethius Then you simply fight the war. And see how long Putin is willing to fight it and what are the peace terms. Or look how much the Ukrainians are willing to suffer before accepting Putin's demands. Or do we basically have in the end an armstice and no peace agreement, just like in the Korean war.
Many things are open.
Quoting boethius
17000 antitank weapons in less than a week is actually help. You can already see Ukrainian troops with British/Swedish weapons (NLAW), German weapons (Panzerfaust 3) and American weapons (AT-3, Javelin). They did however mess up with the Polish MiG-29s. And what Ukraine would need is medium range surface-to-air missiles. The aid isn't just talk. The US Congress passed just two days ago a bill of 13,6 billion USD to Ukraine of which 6,5 billion USD is military aid. Just to put even this into perspective, Ukrainian defense expenditure was from 1993 to 2020 was somewhere like 2,3 billion USD and last figures put it at 6 billion USD in 2020. So just two days ago, just one country (the US) doubled that. Then there is the military aid from all other countries, which include United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Estonia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. And the European Union.
And then there are about 20 000 volunteers going to help and fight in Ukraine, which isn't so crucial, but shows how people have reacted to the conflict. Yet it is the Ukrainians themselves that have to defend their country from this attack.
Let's say that the inevitable victory of Putin hasn't been declared yet.
:grin:
Status quo inevitably changes, our actions participate in determining where it goes.
And why did Finland manage to defeat Soviet partisans (the Reds) and then (not defeat, still lost in a negotiated peace deal ... because claiming victory as part of the deal would not have made Stalin happy about and so the war would have continued and Finland would be part of Russia right now) successfully avoid full invasion?
A lot of people were "part of the team" but basically came down to one military leader.
Marshal Gustav Mannerheim.
Who was this guy? A lieutenant general in the Russian Empire up to 1917!
So trusted by the Czar that he was entrusted to:
[quote=Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim]With a small caravan, including a Cossack guide, Chinese interpreter, and Uyghur cook, Mannerheim first trekked to Khotan in search of British and Japanese spies. After returning to Kashgar, he headed north into the Tian Shan range, surveying passes and gauging the stances of the tribes towards the Han Chinese. Mannerheim arrived in the provincial capital of Urumqi, and then headed east into Gansu province. At the sacred Buddhist mountain of Mount Wutai in Shanxi province, Mannerheim met the 13th Dali Lama of Tibet. He showed the Dali Lama how to use a pistol.[/quote]
This is the kind of experience you need to win a war with an empire. (And again, Mannerheim didn't "win" because he knew no emperor would ever accept that.)
I haven't said it's inevitable. I've made clear only Ukrainian military commanders can know their plan and chances of victory and further loss of life has some military purpose.
However, what I can see is Russia achieving relentlessly strategic objectives. It's reported now that Kiev is indeed encircled or then nearly so. If Ukraine had the means to create even a "stalemate" in conventional warfare then Kiev would not be nearly surrounded. You cannot lose critical strategic objectives and claim to be winning a war.
And, based on my own military experience, there is simply no way to win the sort of conventional warfare Russia is waging without armor and the heavy logistical supply lines armor requires.
Yes, Ukraine can harass and ambush Russian armor and make losses ... but Russia still has more of it.
There is no such concept of strategic retreat ... that's just called retreat.
I remember an interesting quote which a historian of Finnish 19th Century gave me. During the war of 1809, when Sweden lost finally Finland, a Russian general was asked asked if he needed more troops to pacify the Finns. He responded: "I don't need troops, I need more medals!" Medals to give the Finns. And Finnish history clearly tells how this all is seen: Finland was given autonomy, it was raised from the position of being just the Eastern provinces to a Grand Dutchy, that wasn't technically part of Russia. It was granted to have it's own Swedish laws and it's own institutions, even a small military for some time. The rumblings among the Finns started only when Russia started to take these away.
This example shows just how you successfully can annex land. Yet in the case of Ukraine, Putin has done everything the wrong way. Before it bullied the Ukrainians, the annexed Crimea, tried to instill a civil war in 8 provinces and succeeded in two in the Donbass. Then he has called the whole country artificial and the current administration neo-nazis that have to denazified. Then he made the obvious error of thinking that Ukraine would fall easily with a rapid stroke and that the West would be as dumbfounded as they were in 2014. Nothing could unite better the Ukrainians as the actions that Putin has done now.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Actually, the US had similar hopes with both China and Russia. It hoped that economic growth would create a striving middle class that then would "naturally" lead these countries to join West. WIth China there's a multitude of examples where American officials hope that the integration to the World community and economic growth will lead to democratization. In the case of Russia, they pinned their hopes on Yeltsin.
Well, The Chinese communists...stayed as communists.
And after Yeltsin, they got Putin and the siloviks to lead Russia.
We'll see. Similar war as now we haven't seen. So there can be surprises. The fact that Putin is willing to talk with the "neo-nazis" does tell something.
Exactly. People treat everything as some capitalism vs [insert alternative system here], when almost everything boils down to, in any form of government and economic system, low or high corruption. Even the most outlandish systems could work if there was low corruption. Even an autocracy could in theory work if there's little to no corruption. The thing is that some systems are better than others to grow corruption. A power more concentrated in the hands of a few generally generate more corruption and this is why states with constitutional free speech, functioning democratic elections (i.e without any part manipulating the outcome) and functioning legal system generally have much lower corruption.
Instead of people just having ideological ideas thrown around, maybe people need to look at what generates the best quality of life for their citizens, while also not making it into a black and white fallacy where the negatives of capitalism are used as some kind of argument for why some high corrupted government that puts a boot down on free speech is better.
The most basic thing is to acknowledge that for a functioning society to be good for its citizens it's based on free speech and democratic elections (with no party manipulation). We still don't have any tested systems in the world that long term has worked better. Any opposition to this need to provide an alternative system that has been proven to function better. It's not even based on capitalism, all of this is based on a society being able to challenge the people in power and replace them if they don't meet the people's will. As a foundational system, any nation that removes these foundational pillars will eventually become a less functioning state.
The whole criticism about capitalism is that it leads to corruption of the democratic process. That's the whole point.
Yet authoritarianism protects that corruption from the safety valves of a democracy... like people getting fed up with their corrupt leaders then voting somebody else to lead the country.
For example voting as a president a comedian that has played in a sitcom where an ordinary person accidentally becomes a president. :wink:
Democracy can fight corruption, not always but still, while authoritarianism basically just protects it.
Totally agree ... I wouldn't say classical authoritarianism is somehow a better democratic process.
Again, the criticism of the kind of capitalism we actually have is that it simply displaces state authoritarianism with authoritarianism within multi-national corporations, what Chomsky calls "Private Tyranny", of which states become beholden to and enforce this private tyranny, instead of responding to the needs of citizens.
You're forgetting a little something...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-ukraine-war-numbers-casualties-refugees-aid
549 civilian deaths
between 2,000 and 4,000 Ukrainian armed forces, national guard and volunteer forces killed.
According to the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, the invasion has resulted in more than 2.5 million people fleeing Ukraine
It's not enough for you to simply say that life in Ukraine would be better than life under Russian puppet governance.
It has to be 500 civilian death's worth, 4000 soldiers death's worth, 2.5 million refugees displacement's worth. It's not like picking out a better colour of wallpaper.
Just give me a single metric of life in Belarus (for example) that you think is worth 4000 lives to pay for. But not just that, a metric which cannot be achieved by any other less deadly means.
And yet, it can work well in a society like in Scandinavia. I'm guessing that you only focus on the US now, but that's just one of many democracies. If there are laws and constitutional articles that focus on lowering corruption, it also protects democracies from growing corruption. Yet, corruption is still greater in nations without a free market and free press. Part of democracy is to have free speech and free press, those aren't disconnected from the government system. Even in a nation with high corruption like the US, the press and free speech can take down corrupted officials. That cannot happen in nations without it. A democracy without free speech and free press is a sham democracy, which is how Russia's "democracy" has been viewed over the course of the entire post-Soviet era.
That capitalism could lead to corruption of the democratic process is not an argument against democracy being the best form of government we have in the world to date. Comparing a completely mud-dirty shirt to a fresh clean one and then saying "you can't say one is cleaner than the other" based on the fact that you found one small dirty spot on the clean shirt just makes everything into a "black and white" fallacy.
That's why I live in Scandinavia.
Then you know what I mean.
Scandinavia is not an example of how "capitalism works", it's an example of how socialism works and a "free" market (heavily regulated and large limits to private capital in the democratic process) can add some value to a largely socialist state.
Finland deciding simply to not have any homeless people at all ... is not some capitalist ideal.
But you've yet to address the fact that people in Russia are all much happier than people in Ukraine.
... See what we can do when we just make shit up!
Ukraine index of corruption ranks it 123. Russia is ranked 120. Russia is less corrupt than Ukraine 2021 figures, by an independent assessment agency https://risk-indexes.com/global-corruption-index/.
It's pointless arguing unless you're actually going to address reality. The reality is that the Ukraine you're talking about fighting for is more corrupt by independent indices of corruption than Russia.
They don't want to live under the boot of Russia and Putin. They fight for their right to be free, they fight for their will to live in their country under their own free will. They don't agree with you, even if they're getting killed, they don't want Ukraine to be part of Russia and it's Russia who's killing them.
If a killer killed half your family and then said to you that you all need to live under his rule or else he kills everyone. With a chance to fight back and regain freedom, would you either accept his rule or would you try to fight back? You might accept living under his rule, you might dance around as his puppet, but people with experience of that, with a history of that, might just want to fight back in order not to erase all progress they've made so far to be where they are today.
The question at the core of your argument is really if it's worth fighting for freedom or not. You conclude that no, it's not worth it. With the risk of going into a life of totalitarian repression, this is more favorable to you than risking your life for freedom.
Ukrainians, however, seem to disagree with you. And I disagree with you. The reason is that the rise of a totalitarian power has over the long term in history led to more bloodshed than the concentrated bloodshed during a war. There's a reason people fight for their freedom, there's a reason people stand up against people like Putin. And it's my moral conviction that fighting totalitarian powers is always the right thing to do. For others and yourself. In my perspective, setting such powers lose by not standing up against them will never lead to freedom for anyone, it would lead to a worse state of the world.
Yet, Scandinavia's free market system is still capitalism. Your argument was that capitalism corrupts democracies, then it should corrupt Scandinavia as well since we still have a free market and live under capitalism. Neoliberal ideologies of capitalism corrupts, but we don't have that, not in the sense that the US has. So it's not this black and white thing, capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is first and foremost that nations who reject true democracy are worse societies and it has been proven over and over again in the world. There might be a better system of government, but so far we haven't been able to invent one or tested one. So until that happens, true democracies will be better and more peaceful than other forms of government.
Quoting Isaac
You cannot just keep arguing ignoring reality. It is not 'freedom' that's the prize for winning and it's not totalitarian dystopia that's the result of losing.
You go on and on about verifying everything with facts but you've presented absolutely zero evidence to support your claim that a victorious Ukraine would be some kind of bastion of freedom, nor that an independent Donbass would be the authoritarian nightmare you describe... Not a shred of evidence.
I've provided evidence from independent agencies showing barely any difference between them as far as corruption is concerned and you given nothing at all to counter it.
And none of this even touches on how 'free' a Ukraine would be after being devastated by another year of war and crippling reconstruction loans.
Your hysterical 'visions' don't count as evidence.
You''re just playing with words, and the global "capitalism" that Scandinavia is still a part of is destroying the entire planet, so doesn't actually contribute to quality of life in Scandinavia.
Scandinavia is not a capitalist system, and the argument to keep health care private, money in politics, unequal education resources to children, destroy the environment ... all because you can still point to something in Scandinavia and call it capitalism and so take credit for quality of life here due to social institutions and money out of politics, built by socialists, is a pretty bad argument.
Using Scandinavia as some form of apologetics for capitalism generally speaking (that is killing the entire planet as Russia kills some Ukrainians, the former a far worse crime by pretty much an infinite factor) is nonsensical. An honest analysis would look at what policies are the basis of Scandinavia success (free and large investments in public education, public health care, insanely strong union protections, regulation of everything to be confident "free market" actions are not harmful, public transportation, defended by the "as socialists as you get" conscription system) and who advocated those policies: private equity and CEO's? Or socialists and anarchists of one form or another?
But it's also way off topic. The criticism of US, NATO and EU policies in the current war in Ukraine is not some vague criticism of "capitalism" it's a criticism of their actions right now.
That "someone is worse" doesn't matter. Can I kill 100 people just because someone has killed 101 people? Or let people starve even if I have the means to do something easily ... because, technically, other people created that starvation situation?
I live in the EU, I can affect EU policy, and if it's just letting Ukrainians die for politicians to masturbate each other on television and advertise the effectiveness of their arms industry, I'm going to complain about the actions and decisions of my "leaders" because there's a point to doing that.
Hating on Putin accomplishes nothing and, the whole Western media doing that for 2 decades, is what leads to a situation where Western leaders don't care about any sort of diplomatic process with Russia to avoid human suffering, because their friends in the arms industry will make bank due to "conflict" with Russia and there's zero consequences as people actually truly believe that counter productive policies that result in war and starvation are justified as long as you it comes with a little #KillPutin and social media circle jerk around that equally counter productive wishful thinking (that, if anyone did it, could easily result in some worse outcome).
Russia is worse for the climate, tho: all those hydrocarbons they export for burning. Russia is destroying the environment, so the should be nuked immediately.
It's the people that buy it that burn it, and it's far cleaner Russian gas and crude than tar sands and fracking, could actually be a credible "bridge" to a renewable system there was a credible plan to have actually done that and good faith cooperation with Russia (which is what Russia wanted until 2014, alternatives to SWIFT were created after not before).
Russia didn't spent billions on Nord Stream 2 as some sort of trick.
It's completely irrational from a peace making or clean energy perspective to not use that new pipeline to displace coal. If Ukraine loses out on some transport fees (that are "free" money that go right into keeping the politics in Ukraine corrupt), it could be supported with far better development policies that put pressure on corruption.
Furthermore, not all hydrocarbons are equal. You need flexible and variable natural gas turbines that can rapidly compensate large variations in the grid due to renewable energy unpredictability, if you want more renewable energy.
Russia has what the EU needs to implement it's anti-Russian clean "independent energy" policy.
Once you actually have a significant amount of renewable energy, with variations compensated by natural gas, then you can start to invest in energy storage to displace natural gas.
There's really only one way to do this, and we need Russia help.
Global environmental catastrophe creates strange bed fellows.
Well they could hardly do that if Russia wasn't making it available. They're definitely a significant contributer to climate change, so per Isaac's theory, we'll have to sacrifice them for the greater good.
I'm pretty sure that's not Isaac's theory, but, sure, nuke Russia, US and China to implement your world saving policy if there's no diplomatic way to achieve those ends from your point of view.
Nuclear war, at some point, is actually preferable to continued environmental destruction. At least there's trees around Chernobyl.
As long as it kills all the humans, that's correct.
That’s silly. But it’s also silly to “consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern”, to stockpile bio weapons, in labs in Ukraine. No amount of sarcasm will alleviate that one.
With the war slowly escalating global nuclear war is becoming more likely each day. The advantage of nuclear war over environmental destruction is that nuclear destruction is quicker to solve the environmental human infestation problem. Fortunately cockroaches will survive to carry on their species.
I'm still not talking about capitalism, that's what you brought up. I agree with you on the point of it destroying the planet, but that has little to do with my point on true democracy being the superior form of government in terms of peace and quality of life for the people.
Quoting boethius
US, NATO and EU don't do anything with Ukraine right now. Everyone tries to help Ukraine in any form that isn't military. What are the actions by them right now you are criticizing? That they don't do enough or that they help Ukraine with material and the refugees?
Quoting boethius
That wasn't what I said now was it? I objected to the simplistic conclusion that capitalism leads to corruption. I objected to it because corruption needs other failures of government before capitalism can corrupt it. My argument was that a state with strong constitutional power of democracy, with free speech, free press and elections that aren't manipulated by the parties involved can have a capitalistic system and still not become corrupt. That capitalism alone doesn't corrupt.
But you seem to confuse what I say with it being some defense of capitalism. It's entirely possible to point to grey areas of a matter without going into a black and white fallacy. I can dislike capitalism and still point out a faulty causality in an argument about it.
Quoting boethius
What has this to do with what I said? And what is it that you want them to do exactly?
Quoting boethius
They've been "hating" on Putin because he has created a corrupt government and limits people's free speech. He imprisons opposers, poisons others, shuts down state critics. There are tons of reasons why he deserves criticism, just as we've been criticizing Trump and other bad politicians and governments. That this is some unjustified "hate" is bullshit. Of course people in power who misuse and abuse should be criticized. Appeasement mentality leads to things like Nazi Germany.
You cannot be diplomatic with someone who acts under other ideals than diplomacy. There have been plenty of peace talks now, plenty of diplomatic hands reaching out, but he and Russia don't care.
What exactly do you think leaders of the world have been doing when talking to Putin? Nothing works, he repeats himself over and over with no diplomatic balance other than "give me what I want and I'll back down".
That's not diplomacy, that's an ultimatum. If you want diplomacy, tell me how to be diplomatic with someone who's not diplomatic during those talks. You ask for the west to be diplomatic, but when Russia isn't acting according to diplomacy, what are you going to do?
It becomes the equivalent of a crowd shouting"What do we want? WE WANT PEACE! How do we do it? WE DON'T KNOW!"
Jesus. You are really are out of ammo. As if the reasons why I have said that Ukrainians want to join the West is something that I've yet not addressed.
Why do you think the Ukrainians had the Maidan, the Revolution of Dignity?
Why do you think they have had earlier the "Orange Revolution"?
Why did they elect a comedian and went off with a totally new party to rule in the last elections?
The fact why Ukraine has desperately wanted to join the West has been explained again and again to you, but you seem not to get it. I have said over and over again that the Ukrainians have been fed up with the corruption and the poor state of the economy, and this is the reason why they have looked at joining the West. Because the other possibility is to accept Putin's imperialism. It hasn't been some astro-turf operation conducted by the US.
I'll repeat again. The politicians leading Poland or other EU member states have not stolen billions of dollars of their nations wealth and then continue as if nothing. A reason why they have had so much hopes for the EU.
Enough with your bullshit.
We should really join as quickly as possible. Yesterday was a better time than today and tomorrow is worse.
Yes, it's literally a joke that our government is still talking about neutrality as they do. Times have changed and we have to act with more dedication of defense than before. I mean, it doesn't matter if we're in Nato or not if there's a nuclear war. It's not like bombs all around us won't destroy us anyway. So any defense against traditional warfare is better than risking us being the next "proxy nation in order to keep Nato away".
When we both send arms to Ukraine and have already NATO troops training in our country (and B-52s training to mine potential invasion beaches), I think the whole neutrality thing is patently absurd. Huge portion of Finnish members of Parliament are afraid to yet to say anything about their own view about joining NATO.
It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really.
I have no interest in why (some of) the Ukrainians want to remain outside of Russian control. I'm not questioning a Ukrainian. I'm questioning you, why you want them to, why you think they should continue to fight and not accept the terms on the table. It's ludicrous to just say you want them to because they want to. Putin (and some Russians) want to occupy Ukraine, do you support them because they want to? And do you honestly think there's not a single Ukrainian who wants to accept the terms. Not a single Ukrainian who want to be part of Russia, even? So it's not about what 'Ukrainians' want - as if they were some amorphous mass (insulting in itself). It's about what some portion of the Ukrainians want - a portion you've chosen to support.
You've chosen a side and I'm talking to you about your reasons for choosing that side. I'm not asking about that side's reasons for being that side.
As subservients of course, judging by the rhetoric alone.
It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor.
There is another view, possibly inherent in the worlds' religions, some of them, that wars and the human condition are actually a process of growth and self-actualization or purification in some way, a sort of spiritual evolution that involves in pain, sacrifice and death.
I am being very vague here, I do not want to highlight any religion.
To put it another way, war is a crash course that forces us to look at deep moral questions. It is learning by trial and error, better no war, but at least we learn who we are.
Here is a thought:
Quoting Grayling
Progress...
There is the other thought, a great theme for a sci-fi novel, of an 'invisible war' where people are conquered and enslaved silently and secretly through ideas and propaganda of hostile nations. Maybe it has already taken place.
How about supporting the right for a nation to defend itself? How many nations can defend themselves against an invasion? The Swiss, for example, I have read, have each citizen trained to fight:
However, the same article states:
I don't get it.
I support that. :up:
All of Ukraine are the aggressed. Do you think all 41 million of them think the same thing, have the same priorities, the same plans, the same ideas about where they want to be and how they want to get there? No. No matter how extensive your sources, you're only going to be sampling a very small and highly biased cohort of the entire population. We know opinions vary in Ukraine because some Ukrainians are actually fighting on Russia's side.
So it remains that sides are being picked. It's nothing to do with 'siding with the aggressed' that's just bullshit virtue signalling. If people naturally sided with the aggressed they wouldn't buy their fucking t-shirts sewn by 8 year old debt slaves would they? They wouldn't buy their mobile phones with cobalt mined by 5 year old kids. They wouldn't buy their cheap fucking crap from Amazon despite their factories treating workers so badly they actually have a measurable death rate. No, I think it's been tragically established that the world's current crop of humans don't give a fuck about the oppressed, they do, however, show a sickening concern for conforming to whatever Facebook say they should now pretend to care about. Yesterday it was covid victims, today it's Ukrainians. Maybe, if they wait patiently enough the 700 children who died from poverty just in the time you and I have been writing these posts might get a small corner of the front page, but I won't hold my breath.
I do not follow threads on the Ukraine crisis written here. I go to TheInternationalrelationsforum.com or Theconflictresolutionforum or Themilitaryhardwareforum
Of course not, but they don't need to be all clones for one to feel sympathetic to them. Why side with the aggressor?
I can't think of a single reason to side with the aggressor.
Again, can't think of a single reason why not.
It seems to violate Putin's vision (not his eyes) and likely the same for some old-school Russians. But, hey, if they're genuinely scared of NATO, then OK, a concession, to reach a more stable (perhaps even prosperous) situation...?
An amendment? (peacekeepers = :up:)
The victims of the invasion/bombings are still the Ukrainians on the ground, not Putin or his Kremlin generals, or other Muscovites.
Correct. And this tendency is exploited by all propaganda operatives worth their salt. Hence the almost automatic recourse to claims of "genocide" on both sides. The inevitable result is that, irrespective of the facts, whoever happens to shout "genocide" loudest, or has the better propaganda machine, will tend to attract the most attention and support ....
Why then do you question @ssu about why he's chosen their side?
Andreas Georgiou writes: Ukraine Invasion: A Dress Rehearsal for More of the Same Around the Globe
You'll find if you want to know something about what I've written, a good start is to read what I've written. I've underlined it, to help your struggles with comprehension.
Quoting Isaac
Let's not forget that the election campaign run by Zelensky was mostly virtual using social media channels and YouTube clips, and with the backing of Kolomoisky’s media network.
If you control the media, you control public opinion. Members of Kolomoisky’s party UKROP campaigned as candidates for Zelensky’s party.
By all accounts, Kolomoisky is basically a mobster:
Who is Ihor Kolomoisky? - The Spectator
Though Zelensky and Kolomoisky are supposed to have grown apart since the elections, Kolomoisky’s party continues to support Zelensky’s. And as a matter of fact, Zelensky’s approval ratings as president had sunk to 31% before the conflict.
How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - New Statesman
So, I think we can see that he isn't much good as a president and that he is obviously profiting from the conflict ….
Positive side> bump in approval ratings; negative> country destroyed and probable assassination by Putin's goons. A quick cost-benefit analysis tells me one of you is incredibly stupid.
Well, as I have nothing to do either with Zelensky or his approval ratings, I doubt very much it's got anything to do with me.
The fact remains though that his approval ratings have reportedly gone up from 31% before to 90% after the conflict. As with anything else in life, you win some and you lose some. In any case, he could have avoided the conflict by accepting Russia's requests, as apparently suggested by Naftali Bennett:
Russia-Ukraine war: 'Bennett wants us to surrender,' says senior Kyiv official - Middle East Eye
PS Incidentally, there seem to be signs that some agreement may be reached within the next few days:
Russia and Ukraine give brightest assessment yet of progress in talks on war – Reuters
The question is whether this could have been done earlier in order to prevent unnecessary death and destruction ...
Odesa’s Defense Stiffened by Belarusian Volunteers
STEFANIE GLINSKI FOR FOREIGN POLICY
MARCH 13, 2022, 10:54 AM
For hundreds who fled Minsk’s oppression, Ukraine’s fight has become theirs.
ODESA, Ukraine—As Ukrainian army and territorial defenses resist a Russian invasion that has entered its third week, a small legion of Belarusians has joined the defenders, saying they would like to help combat a regime similar to the one that forced them to flee their own country.
Thousands of Belarusians are estimated to live in Ukraine. Many fled their homes after Belarus’s anti-government demonstrations in 2020 and 2021, which resulted in large-scale crackdowns and mass detentions of protesters. And hundreds are believed to have joined the Ukrainian defense forces so far. The majority of the volunteers work alongside the freshly created territorial defense units or offer auxiliary services.
In the critical Black Sea port city of Odesa, a group of about 20 Belarusian men has been deployed. They say there are about 30 more volunteers in the city. Here, they help secure the city center and are on the lookout for possible Russian saboteurs and spies. They check documents and set up checkpoints, saying they won’t let the Russians enter a city that has become their home as well. For more than a week, Odesa has braced for a Russian assault, including from the Black Sea, that has yet to arrive. In the meantime, residents have stiffened the city’s defenses with old-fashioned tank traps and sandbag barricades. ...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/13/ukraine-belarus-territorial-defense/
Yes. I was asking why.
Quoting Olivier5
But you just said...
Quoting Olivier5
...which is it, the will of the Ukrainians as a mass or the will of the Ukrainian government? And if the former, how on earth did you find out, what with there having been no polls, referenda, or election manifestos on the matter?
Seriously? You just unquestionably accept whatever any commander in chief decides? When Trump was commander in chief of the United States did you adopt the same unquestioning policy toward his decisions?
I don't really care if we're at each other's throats or calmly disagreeing. I prefer the latter but I've little expectation of that from you. What I'm much more interested in is your reasons, which you seem frustratingly reluctant to provide.
First you say it's because you support Ukrainians - then when I point out Ukrainians are not an amorphous mass who all agree, you say it's because you always support whatever the legitimately elected leader thinks - then when I point out that would have applied to Trump you change the subject...
It should be a simple question. Why do you think the Ukrainians should keep fighting and not accept the deal?
It's not because "that's what the Ukrainians want", the Ukrainians are not an homogeneous entity all of one mind and you've no way of finding out what they want anyway...
It's not because you just always trust elected leaders to know best, you wouldn't be prepared to extended that principle to an idiot like Trump...
So why?
from The Hill about sanctions on Russia
You see? You are 'frustrated', or pretending to be. Why are you so angry all the time? What do you care soooo much about my reasons? When did you start caring for other folks?
Quoting Isaac
Trump was Putin's puppet. He wasn't legitimately elected. You can't compare him with Zelensky.
Quoting Isaac
Because Putin cannot be trusted, for one. A deal is nothing to him. Because the Ukrainian forces aren't broken yet, for two.
At least the sliding has been noticed.
If you think that's bad, you'll be shocked to learn the US government "stockpiles" dangerous pathogens all over the United States, including the last surviving smallpox viruses outside Russia. Not only that, but it partners with the Canadian government to do so in Canada. The UK, Germany, and France all do this to, as does Russia.
Wealthy countries tend to fund labs in poorer ones. France operates a lab in Gabon. Russia helps fund one in Belarus, and is helping with the opening of one in Kazakhstan. It previously contributed to the lab in question.
What possible excuse could they all have for this?
Well, the claim is that emerging new biological threats, such as tuberculosis that is extremely resistant to antibiotics, need to be collected and safely stores. The reason is twofold.
A. So you can test cures (e.g., experimental antibiotics) on them, and;
B. So you can track changes in pathogens, build out a database on lineages, and try to track down the origins of new diseases of note.
Now, B does not necissarily require keeping the pathogen alive, but A does. They do other stuff with live cultures too. You can edit their genome to try to see how potential mutations will effect the virus, you can test out what will make the virus more virulent, so that you can spot dangerous mutations when you see them, and you can also figure out ways to make them less dangerous (which has obvious uses). Note, the point here isn't here isn't to develop a super bug. We don't know enough about pathogens to accurately predict how a change will effect the disease caused by a pathogen. Gain and loss of function tests are used to find out more about what mutations might do to a disease.
These experiments entail growing more of the pathogens and infecting human tissue or animals with them. This is a prerequisite for developing cures. Our current modeling technology is not at a point where you can just get the genome and preform accurate experiments for treatment using a computer simulation.
For obvious reasons, research on the most dangerous pathogens is only done at the very highest security labs. This would not be the Ukraine lab.
These facilities are how new variants of COVID-19 have been identified and vetted so quickly. COVID is very contagious and endemic, so we get tons of data on how new strains effect people from public health systems, but for rarer diseases, growing the pathogen is the only option for learning about it.
The alternative is to know nothing about extremely dangerous diseases, such as Ebola, until there is a major outbreak. I think the last 2 years is a very good case for doing more of this type of research.
Lineage tracking helps determine where an outbreak started, which can aid contact tracing and stopping a pandemic (see MERS and SARS).
There really isn't any reason for the US and USSR to keep smallpox samples. Canadian scientists rebuilt a similar virus, so smallpox could likely be ressurected if necissary for anything.
Weapons samples have generally been destroyed, but some do still exist. The weapons, as I've pointed out, just aren't very useful outside of terrorism.
The reason samples are kept is to be able to trace methods for their production, and in theory, to test countermeasures for them, although I don't think anyone is publicly doing this due to the risks. Having samples of anthrax weaponized in Iraq allowed the US to conclusively show that the anthrax attacks after 9/11 were not from Iraq (or were at least made very differently).
Of course, who the fuck knows what goes on in secret. The Soviets and later the Russians were trying to combine smallpox with other virulent diseases, which caused a scientist to defect, and they also had a few major leaks that killed people, so we know of those ones. The US declassified older projects, so we know of some of those too.
These projects are generally dumb ideas because obviously any super disease will end up in your country too, making them a bad weapon, and they don't make for nearly as good deterrents as nuclear weapons. Mostly, they were created due to too much funding going into defense budgets and people wanting sci-fi weapons. As far as public documentation is concerned, funding stopped less out of moral concerns, than the fact that it wasn't money well spent in terms of effective military weapons.
It would not totally shock me to know that the US makes bioweapons, although if they do it'd probably be in small quantities for research, since there is no use case for them. I'd put to odds fairly low though. There is way more other shit the generals want.
It makes no sense that they would do it in a low security lab in a foreign country with foreign scientists (including Russian ones) though. They have top end biosecurity facilities on a US military bases for that.
As @Olivier5 said, it's up to the Ukrainian government to decide what to accept as terms for armistice or for peace. How Ukrainians perform in the defense of their country will guide what options the government will have. If they accept a deal with Putin, that hopefully should be made from a position of strength: that continuing the war after rebuilding the army, isn't a valid option for Putin. They know far better their situation. Ukrainians have every just reason to defend their country from an hostile invasion. And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread.
And anyway, since you rely far more on the disinformation of Putin, perhaps in your attempt to be "objective", this is quite meaningless.
:up:
People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking?
Ending a 200 year old policy that has been so successful that Sweden avoided two World Wars is naturally a big decision for any prime minister. But the fact is that the decision has already been taken. Every shred of neutrality has already basically gone. NATO trains in Sweden and Sweden has participated in NATO operations like in Afghanistan and Libya. Sweden isn't neutral and even Swedes should understand that. Just like we should do ourselves. It's not like during the Cold War when some secret guarantee was done between Sweden and the US.
The thing is that Magdalena is wrong. NATO membership wouldn't destabilize this area. The area has already been destabilized and without NATO membership or bilateral defense treaty, there is a huge opening for Russia to destabilize the situation with both Finland and Sweden. Just consider the possibilities:
a) hybrid attacks: already happening here. Problems with GPS interference in the eastern border and cyberattacks for example against organizations sending aid to Ukraine.
b) hybrid attack II: Sudden flow of refugees to the border like Belarus did with Poland. Was practiced already on the border with Norway and Sweden.
c) Sanctions: Finland could be easily squeezed by oil sanctions. Russian oil is about third to one quarter of Swedish oil imports. To anticipate the effects of an oil embargo from Russia and to get the security of supply to cope with this possibility is needed. Yet this option is declining as both countries are already cutting their ties to Russia.
d) Military actions. Perhaps an naval blockade (like in Ukraine) wouldn't be noticed as an act of war. Perhaps would go down into the category of "special military operations". Or then just sink Finnish / Swedish ships and blame it was done by the Americans as a false flag operation (many would believe that nonsense). Or then the classic invasions of the Gotland and/or Åland Islands. A bit difficult now at the present as everything is in the Black Sea.
The problem is one can throw all kinds of possibilities around what would be the reaction of Russia, but the real fact is that all those options, the most ugly ones, will simply persist and be totally possible with minimal risk for Russia, if our countries just stick our heads into the sand and believe that saying that they are neutral gives them security.
You have to ask from the person directly.
But if the West doesn't oppose military annexations (which neither should the UN accept), then naturally there's an opening for anybody to be retro-imperialist.
If there was a mistake that the US did, it was to promise "in the future" membership of NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. That the Baltic States could get into NATO is a real blessing. But just as I'm discussing with @Christoffer the possibility of NATO membership of our countries, it would be quite dangerous to apply for membership and then get an answer "You will get in sometime in the future". I guess they have learned that now.
Not me, as far as I recall.
The dangers of appeasement? You were offended, weren't you?
There is a big difference between "stockpiling" 1 small sample of an organism in a very cold freezer and "stockpiling" a few hundred pounds of the organism. There has been a debate in medical/scientific circles about whether the last surviving samples of the Variola virus (small pox) should be destroyed or saved--ever since the disease was eradicated in 1980.
There are some samples of the 1918 influenza virus (which was much worse than Covid-19) which were recovered from a frozen body in Alaska. It might be the case that some thawing human body mighty contain the smallpox virus. In that event, it would be good to have a sample for comparison purposes.
I'm not in favor of keeping a leading killer in the cooler. Eventually, mistakes will be made. The same goes for Poliomyelitis, a disease which (like smallpox) has no non-human animal reservoirs) has been all-but eradicated. Once it's gone, we would have little need for the actual virus.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Tuberculosis (TB) is hardly an emerging disease. Over the centuries it has been one of the leading causes of death in the world, and still kills about a million people a year. True enough, multi-drug-resistant strains of TB have arisen, along with multi-drug-resistant strains of Gonorrhea and various other disease-causing bacteria.
Anthrax is another disease that has appeared in long-frozen bodies, this time animal corpses. Anthrax Bacteria are very dangerous, though the disease can be treated in many cases.
I don't know which disease would be the ideal candidate for a biological weapon. Besides, nukes are so good at killing people, why invent a biological weapon that once set loose would be impossible to put back into the box. And if we decided that germs were too dangerous, there are always effective gases and high explosives.
The conventional wisdom is that China is supposed to start playing the role of global peace keeper. They want to be a super power, so that goes with the job.
Ah. So you actually thought Joe Biden was lying about that. That kind of blows my mind. Why on earth would you think that?
I believed Putin would not invade. I was wrong. I believe Zelenskyy will give in at some point.
Quoting jorndoe
Nor Zelenskky.
[i]The Ukrainian constitution grants the Russian parliament veto right regarding Ukraine becoming a NATO member
Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine[/i]
That will not work, one country cannot rule on affairs of another sovereign state. Russia recognized Ukraine as a sovereignty once before, it can do it again.
Ukraine has to promise to 'postone joining NATO indefinitely' . To put it bluntly, they can make a false promise, and break it, somewhat like the Minsk Agreements. What does he have against lying, really?
Some sort of Non-Agression Pact (NAP) would be nice.
Still not out of 'odd' territory though. You're saying as long as the election was good, you don't question the decisions of elected leaders. That's a highly unusual position.
Quoting Olivier5
So you can't even try to negotiate with someone you don't trust? The only option is to fight? Don't you think that creates a dangerously antagonist world. Every leader who doesn't trust another ought resort to war rather than settle disputes by talking?
And how do you see this whole 'trust' think playing out? If Putin surrenders and says he'll withdraw all his forces, should Zelensky continue shooting Russian soldiers - after all you can't trust Putin, it might just be a ruse, If Putin offers an Humanitarian corridor (finally), should Zelensky ignore it and take the opportunity to shell Russian positions anyway, after all you can't trust Putin. Are you literally going to ignore all diplomacy in this and just advocate killing as the only option?
Quoting Olivier5
That seems self-defeating. If you'd only support talks once you've thoroughly exhausted the military option. Isn't the whole point of diplomacy to ensure disagreements are handled exactly the other way around?
If you've no intention of answering the question you can just say so. You don't have to waste your time writing another puff piece.
And here is the reason never to vote for another president because all their decisions are always right as long as the right process was followed.
According to rumors on the street, a couple Ukrainian mayors have already been napped and replaced by Russian puppets. If not for numerous onlookers and potential outrage/martyrdom, I'm guessing Zelenskyy would have been in constant mortal danger. He might still be, though, to some extent; sure ain't far-fetched.
On another note, if China gets involved by aiding Russia, then why not Europe, NATO, ...? Otherwise, it seems like another descent into Rule of the bully. Ukraine still isn't a member of NATO, like Putin demands.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/03/exclusive-kremlin-putin-russia-ukraine-war-memo-tucker-carlson-fox/
Treasonous c***t.
And I really, really hope Zelensky survives. I expect the worst but I will definitely shed a lot of tears if those bastards take him out.
Yes, we can now add legitimately sitting elected leaders to the list of people whose decisions we apparently ought never question.
It's little short of terrifying the way we lurch from crisis to crisis with each one being used as the latest excuse not to question the power of authority and the flow of wealth to the ever richer.
Although, frightening though that trend is, I suspect @Olivier5's latest manifestation of it was more a random grasping at post hoc rationalisation than any serious attempt at a global geopolitical strategy.
Yeah! Why not...let's have a fucking World War, we haven't had one in ages, it'd be laugh. Poking Putin with a big stick for 20 seems to have finally got him on board with the idea, let's see if we can't get Jinping on board too. Bagsies on the B61-12.
Invaders set the tempo. They do as they please, or they're stopped. Maybe you hope they'll stop by themselves, just a bit of collateral damage?
Quoting Isaac
No, let's not. (You can stop drooling now. :smile:)
That's a lie.
I am saying that I respect the legitimacy of Zelensky, that he is in charge of a country at war, and that I don't want his job. I will respect his strategic choices. I am not going to question his decisions from the confort of my living room. I have no information, no legitimacy and little interest in second guessing him. From what I can see, he is doing a fantastic job.
Now, does that explain my taking side, or do you still not understand?
Just saw this, also on Mother Jones:
Report: Putin Threatened to Arrest Google Exec Over Pro-Democracy App (Mar 12, 2022)
It's a trend.
Yep, and Elvis is still alive too apparently
Lest anyone's in any doubt whose agenda you're all slavishly promoting
Quoting https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/10/27/weapons-execs-lament-losses-from-afghanistan-exit-tout-dod-budget-increase/
Oh dear, withdrawing from the war in Afghanistan looks like it's going to hit the bottom line...But wait...
Quoting https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/03/29/lockheed-cites-great-power-competition-with-china-in-bid-to-consolidate-engine-market/
Phew...Tensions with China have 'come along entirely at random' to save the day... But will they be enough...?
Well, what stroke of luck...
Oh and if @Wayfarer's still adding to his "Treasonous c***t" collection
Tensions in Eastern Europe, really! Who'd have thought it...
For anyone with any kind of shred of human dignity who can't believe their eyes, I'll confirm - yes, the CEO of Raytheon did indeed just refer to the prospect of multiple wars as "opportunities for international sales".
Europe and the US are aiding Ukraine alright
Ahh, such a tough guy adding your "moral support" to the fight.
Neither @Isaac nor my position is "surrender already", but to do diplomacy in a credible way, in particular the EU.
For example, I've already explained many times that only Ukrainian commanders know their military prospects and if further loss of life is justifiable.
However, what we can know is that Mariupole, a port city, is easily evacuated by boat and the EU could, at least try, to negotiate that ... but it doesn't. So, we can be pretty certain that diplomacy is not a priority to avoid further loss of life but that further bloodshed is desired on all sides, certainly the Russian side too, but also the EU, NATO and US actions are consistent with both desiring and doing everything possible to have more bloodshed and actively avoiding any actions that would reduce bloodshed (such as negotiate evacuation of port cities ... by fucking boat).
You literally say:
Quoting Christoffer
So, what are you talking about?
I hope he does his job and makes decisions that favor Ukraine's well being, present and future.
Does anyone see any other rational choice than to agree to stop fighting? From what we can see, it seems a good idea, but we may not have all the inputs he has.
So what possible reasons would a rational human being have to keep fighting at this point? We are discussing reason, not Ukraine now.
Why the EU? Why not China or Zimbabwe do that? What's the unsaid assumption here?
And the Russians are not letting civilians leave the city by road. Why do you assume they will allow a sea evacuation? Their game is to kill civilians as a way to pressure Ukraine. They want civilians dying in Mariupol. That be why they bomb them...
Yep, and it's not limited to external agents either...
Quoting https://theintercept.com/2022/02/11/ukraine-lobby-congress-russia/
Courage?
Quoting magritte
Nuclear war wouldn't kill us all, and at some point continued environmental destruction would, by definition, kill us all as we need an environment to live.
Of course, Nuclear war would also be highly damaging to the environment, so a double edge sword to deal with environmental issues. I don't think we're at that point yet, but if we let the environment continue to degrade, the social chaos this will lead to, in my opinion, will inevitably cause a nuclear war. We're this close already ... and there's not even a global famine (at least not disrupting the countries that have Nukes).
But this seems off topic, could make an interesting other thread though; certainly brings the high stakes of global ecological catastrophe to useful comparison.
It might contain useful information, like CNN news, or it might offend you, in any case here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5mFuDu70z4
Much of what is there can be fact checked. The importance thing is not to accept it as truth, but use it as a starting point for looking for it.
Courage has to have a reason for its exercise. What do you want to achieve with your courage?
Quoting Olivier5
The guy lies and misrepresents others' positions all the time, using sarcastic aggression to do so.
Carried along by his own apparent obsessions; to score points and win an argument.
I had intended to stay out of this, and will probably regret this post.
However, I have something to say; inspired by you and others, thanks.
( propaganda art and media portrayal, perhaps too 'rosy' for some)
***
Painting pictures of war, the creative spirit is eternal. Same issues. Different perspectives.
I was linked to this Assyrian wall relief, by a good friend.
Commissioned by the victors. Note the refugees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oP_G7_4jMk
One shocking photograph of the Ukrainian war circulated around the world:
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/09/ukraine-war-airstrike-hits-mariupol-maternity-hospital-17-reported-hurt
A Russian airstrike devastated a maternity hospital Wednesday in the besieged port city of Mariupol amid growing warnings from the West that Moscow’s invasion is about to take a more brutal and indiscriminate turn.
The ground shook more than a mile away when the Mariupol complex was hit by a series of blasts that blew out windows and ripped away much of the front of one building. Police and soldiers rushed to the scene to evacuate victims, carrying out a heavily pregnant and bleeding woman on a stretcher. *
It reminded me of this painting:
https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/wounded-angel-by-hugo-simberg/
'The procession passes through a recognizable landscape, that of Eläintarha, Helsinki, with Töölönlahti Bay in the background. The pathway along Töölönlahti Bay remains there to this day. In Hugo Simberg’s time, the park was a spot popular among the working classes for leisure-time activities. At the time, many charity institutions were located in Eläintarha park;
in The Wounded Angel the healthy boys are carrying the injured girl towards the Blind Girls’ School and the Home for Cripples.She clutches a bunch of snowdrops, symbolic of healing and rebirth.'
----------
* Update:
Quoting Guardian: Russia-Ukraine War Latest News
How would Putin depict that on his wall of shame? He wouldn't.
Let the snowdrops grow...for some kind of a re-birth.
But I fear the philosophy of politics, the history of war, hardly gives one hope for the future.
Courage, mes amis :victory:
They should too.
This is classic whataboutism.
The reason to focus on EU / NATO and US policy is because:
A. They have the most leverage with Russia currently. Russia's top demand in Ukraine doesn't join NATO and so NATO has what Russia wants. Likewise, the sanctions are from the US and EU and the whole point of sanctions, diplomatically, is to create leverage. Germany can open the second pipeline that would be good for Germany, Russia and the entire EU.
B. These parties nominally claim and have voters who not only claim but actually believe, unnecessary loss of life should be avoided, and so criticising people who claim to want to do something ... but aren't, is a lot more productive than criticising parties that make no such claims. If you look at India and Africa media: a pretty strong theme is that this is a white person problem that white people are crying about and not their issue, go fuck yourselves (certainly a stronger theme than in the Western Media).
Now, if you want more carnage and want a 20 year insurgency for Russia to deal with as that would be some sort of "cold war 2 win" than say so. If you care about Ukrainians then you should want the best resolution possible to Ukrainians.
More fighting could help get Ukrainians a better deal ... or it could make it that the deal must be worse for Russia to justify the further loss of life that Ukraine insists on. "Morally supporting" Ukraine losing lives, traumatising children (and everyone else), losing homes and livelihoods, to "stick it to the Russians" is not helping Ukrainians, it is harming the Russians with Ukrainians as a tool to do so.
Maybe Ukrainians have a way to "win" the war with only handheld weapons, and maybe we'll see that.
However, distributing small arms to civilians is just distributing random death to visit those civilians. Media complained of a mortar attack on civilians ... but a guy with a riffle was literally in the foreground of that video (the subject of the videographer).
Professional soldiers would not just wander around a civilian area in range of mortar fire. Professional soldiers will try to keep the fighting away from civilians even at some risk to themselves.
So, this policy is a bloodlust policy with zero military benefit.
Likewise, not trying to evacuate civilians from coastal areas ... by a fucking boat, is a bloodlust policy.
Neither of these policies are Russian. Obviously, Russia has bloodlust too driving their policies, but they at least make reasonable offers that are preferable to further blood being spilt at each step. If US, Nato, EU and Ukraine had counter proposals that are "more reasonable" then they could credibly blame Russia for everything.
Fact of the matter is, one Azov brigade, from my point of view, can easily justify invading a country to destroy the entire armed forces and institutional structure that tolerates an Azov brigade. This argument is, as far as I can see, completely valid one.
It would be Putin appeasing these neo-Nazi's by not invading, not us appeasing Putin by not-pumpin-weapons into Ukraine that we don't care enough to have join Nato or send any troops to defend.
And, the military support to Ukraine during the civil war phase was predicated on an "officially" Azov brigade wasn't doing any fighting, but journalists went and demonstrated that to be false. The West was supporting neo-Nazi's fighting a war. I don't actually like neo-Nazi's, Putin simply has a point on this particular issue, which has been documented by the Wests own media since 2014.
What a bizarre post. In the latter half you graphically depict how gruesome and appalling war is, what a tragic impact it's having on the Ukrainians... Yet in the first half you support those looking to continue the war and condemn those advocating stopping it immediately.
So which is it? Is war the bloody nightmare to be avoided at all costs, or is it a necessary tool, to make sure Putin is put in his place - the death and destroyed lives merely unfortunate but necessary collateral damage?
It's just...
Quoting boethius
Your eyes are clouded. Your vision distorted. Your 'So which is it?' questions ridiculous.
I've no more to say to you.
On a philosophy forum? Caring about someone’s reasoning? How strange! :D
That is simply false. China has greater leverage right now.
Quoting boethius
So the Chinese don't care about Mariupol as much as, say, the Finns, so the Finns should either stop caring, or send a boat to evacuate Mariupol? Otherwise the Finns implement "a bloodlust policy"?
Mmmmokay.
Do you care about the civilians in Mariupol? If yes, why don't you charter a boat and go save them, you bloodlust politician?
Quoting boethius
They have anti-aircraft batteries, a few planes left, some armor and artillery. They are not done yet.
His passive aggressive tone is getting old. It's also a bit disgusting to debate the Putin trolls here, so I think you do well to stay out of it. It's like fighting a pig in the mud.
Quoting Amity
I think it does. European history is full of war AND PEACE.
(The Guardian today)
Baroque Music for War and Peace in Europe during XVII Century -- Jordi Savall conducts Hesperion XXI Capella Reial Catalunya / Concert des Nations.
From the start of 30 Years War (1613) to the Peace of Utrecht (1713).
0:00:00 1613 Attack of Hungary by the Ottoman Empire -- Turkish March (Anonymous)
0:04:00 1614 Massacre of Jews in Frankfurt -- Complaint in Aramaic
0:06:35 1618 Start of 30 years War -- Samuel Scheidt: Gaillarde Battaglia
0:10:13 1624 Spanish Siege to Breda -- Lope de Vega
0:13:40 1635 Peace of Prague -- Johann Hermann Schein: Zion Spricht
0:20:02 1636 Richelieu War Declaration against Spain -- Philidor: Pavane pour la Petite Guerre
0:24:44 1645 War of the Ottoman Empire against Venice -- Dimitrie Cantemir
0:28:44 1648 End of 30 Years War -- Johann Rosenmueller: Siehe an die Werke Gottes
0:35:48 1645 Civil War in England -- John Jenkins: The Newark Siege
0:42:30 1659 Pyrenees Peace -- Jean Baptiste Lully: Jubilate Deo
1:00:10 1669 Venetians Expelled from Crete -- Dimitrie Cantemir
1:03:30 1669 Venetians Expelled from Crete -- Francesco Cavalli: Requiem
1:08:37 1678 Nimegue Treaty -- Jean Baptiste Lully: March from Armide
1:12:40 1697 Ryswick Peace -- John Blow: Praise the Lord
1:18:10 1700 War for Spanish Succession -- Joan Cabanilles: Battalla Imperial
1:24:08 1711 War of Ottoman Empire against Russia -- Vasily Titov
1:29:22 1711 War of Ottoman Empire against Russia -- Dimitrie Cantemir
1:31:48 1713 Utrecht Peace -- Handel Jubilate
Encore:
1:37:58 Arvo Part: Da Pacem Domine
But I thought...
Quoting Olivier5
...and...
Quoting Christoffer
...and...
Quoting Wayfarer
So I assume you're all dead set against this so called 'peace deal'?
Nope. Sometimes a leader needs to make painful choices.
So when I asked, and you replied...
Quoting Olivier5
You meant what...?
Thank you. I'll bookmark it and listen later :cool:
It might give some hopeful perspective to all of this...
But doesn't it kinda show what I mean?
It's a never-ending cycle. And we are never truly at peace, are we?
When you think that humanity has progressed...
... positives can be wiped away with the stroke of a pen. Or worse.
Bonne Chance! :sparkle:
That is true, sadly. Thanks for the usual wise words.
The Ukrainians know that better than anyone and I expect them to ask for some guarantee. I'm not in the secret of those negotiations... Let's see what happens.
I see. So you've been arguing against my view that Ukraine should accept a deal, for the last eight pages...what? By accident? Was your account hacked by a rabid warmonger? I hate it when that happens.
:up:
I'm told that ''Right back at ya!" in French is "Retour à vous!"
C'est vrais?
Might come in useful if ever I need to wear a negotiator's hat :wink:
Maybe your own mind was hacked by a rabid warmonger? Because I did not argue that Ukraine should never sign any deal. I argued that they might have good, rational reasons not to sign what the Russian side proposed. For instance, they might wish to negotiate a better deal. And to do so, they might wish to wait a little for the sanctions to bite, especially since the military situation appears to have stabilized.
For me war totally obvious with the television speech that Putin made on the 22nd of February, two days before the invasion. This was never a dress rehearsal, a training exercise to get the US to talk. And I had agreed with the historian Nial Ferguson's comment from January that the probability of war was 50/50, which is a really high probability. For example @Amity understood well the reality before the attack commenced. Others too.
Some insisted that everything was an American propaganda scare tactic, that all this has happened because of the US, well, they are still quite active. Just to refer one who before the invasion was launched, wrote about his intentions: "Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia."
I see. And those reasons have gone away now? Just as the media start reporting on peace talks. What a coincidence.
It's funny, but to someone who didn't know what an independent-minded and diligent thinker you really were, it might look a little like you were just polemically regurgitating whatever fervour happened to have gripped the popular media that day, changing your mind like a weathervane... But of course, we know better.
There have been plans to create more Donetsk / Luhansk type puppet states. Which will now be even more grotesque Stalinist theatre as when the People's Republics were formed in 2014 because of the footage of Ukrainians openly demonstrating against the Russians in the occupied cities.
I'm sure Putin has Victor Yanukovich somewhere ready to be implemented as President of Ukraine if he wants to follow the Stalinist playbook.
Other possible puppets do exist. The Terijoki Government or the Finnish Democratic Republic was such a huge success... for four months!
They are negotiating now, therefore the Ukrainians still reject the Russian proposal, as of date. And nobody even knows precisely what points they are negotiating so I am afraid your questions will have to remain without answers for now.
The whole debate is about which side people chose to support, remember? You wanted to know my reasons for supporting Ukraine. Well now you know. They are the aggressed, therefore I root for them. Zelensky was elected, therefore he is their legitimate leader.
But that's just me. Which side did you chose to support, and why?
Come on, tell us! I'm sure you're a hero in your own mind, battling strawmen left right and center!
I do also. And I hope that the Ukrainian casualties stay low, because there's a chance that they could be truly hideous. Yet that's the price to pay for independence and surely if there was any doubt of an Ukrainian identity when the Soviet Union collapsed, it is forged in steel right now, every day...
We've been through this. You can't support 'Ukraine' in a discussion about strategy because 'Ukraine' is not an amorphous mass all agreeing with a single approach. You supported some of the people in Ukraine and opposed others. Some people in Ukraine even supported the Russian invasion, you opposed those Ukrainians, right?
What you supported was an approach, a particular strategy, the one chosen by the elected leader. We've also already been through the silliness of the notion that you supported his chosen strategy simply because he was the chosen leader (it's not, in itself, sufficient ground). So it remains that you had reasons outside of his mandate, to support his strategy.
Quoting Olivier5
We've been through this as well. All Ukrainians are the aggressed. The ones who support Zelensky and the ones who oppose him. The ones who are prepared to lay down their life for their nation and the ones who've just had enough and would accept the Russian terms. Both are the aggressed. You chose one.
Quoting Olivier5
I choose the side of those who'd rather avoid all the bloodshed and horror of war than act out their Star Wars fantasies with a population of innocent civilians to boost arms sales.
I do think that the legitimate leadership of the Ukrainian people deserves support right now. If you want to support someone else, by all means do so! But your protestations that you don't understand my stance cannot be sincere. You ought to understand that I naturally and normally support the right, and in fact the duty, of legitimate leaders of an attacked nation to defend the nation and themselves. There is nothing hard to understand there, and nothing even remotely polemical.
You don't understand because you don't want to. IOW you are pretending. Manufacturing dissent.
Do they have a name? A leader? A phone number perhaps?
Which REAL, identifiable side do you support?
There are multiple ways a leader could defend their nation. Arming everyone and fighting to the last man in defiance of any offer from your aggressor is not the only one.
Quoting Olivier5
It's not a fucking football match. I support strategies that I think will be best for ordinary people. I don't follow 'leaders', I don't pick sides as if picking out which suit to wear, I don't require a social media movement to validate my assessment.
Quoting Olivier5
Isn't it obvious? There's no side he is willing to take. He'll invent this "innocent people" group, who are totally separate of the actions. I think those 2,5 million Ukrainians or those Russians fleeing Russia because of the developments in the country do have opinions about which side is at fault and which isn't.
Because there is an aggressor fighting a war of conquest and there is a defender, that is supported by the US, @Isaac will surely not pick either of them. Because @Isaac doesn't want to give any credibility to the US as being here in the role of being a "Knight in white shining armour", hence he cannot back up the Ukrainians.
Oh the horror of supporting here the Ukrainians fighting Putin! As if one then couldn't be critical of US actions in let's say in Yemen and the Middle East.
I've just been through this with @Olivier5. How can support for a particular strategy be support for 'The Ukrainians'?
'The Ukrainians' are not a homogeneous group all single-mindedly in favour of one approach.
Although Zelensky is of course a huge celebrity in the UK already...
Bradfield?
Zelensky?
Surely I'm not the first one to notice?
Manics not big in Australia?
Quoting StreetlightX
Well, there's Aragorn... or am I getting actual events and unrealistic fantasy stories mixed up again, there's been a lot of that going around recently.
Ooooh. Manics is big with me! But I didn't recognize him haha. I just listen to the music.
---
It's like - the Very Media Literate people here will tell you about being Very Careful about Propaganda, and then will also tell you that they will literally cry if something happens to this person who they did not know existed until a month ago.
I just don't even.
Oh good. I thought I was going mad for a minute there!
Quoting StreetlightX
This is so true, and also it cements loyalty in this unhealthy way, like there's an active desire, once the hero has been established, not to lose him to the grubbiness of reality so the ever-widening cracks get more and more desperately painted over.
Not to forget that this is like instead of Churchill (or basically Chamberlain), the British would have voted Charlie Chaplin to head their country in the war against Hitler. Perhaps Chaplin would have succeeded in that role perfectly, he surely was against fascism and Hitler right from the start and likely could have acted in a very serious role.
The victory of Zelenskyy (and his new party) just shows how fed up Ukrainians were in the corruption of it's political system. He has made errors, like not mobilizing the reserve basically only after Putin had launched the invasion. And I think that how his party has turned from supporting pure libertarianism to a more centrist approach shows that they were learning about the realities in the World also.
Now the crucial thing is not to overplay the Ukrainian hand in the negotiations or to give too quickly to Putin.
If you are in the business of nitpicking countries at war, sure.
Quoting Isaac
How does this work in practice? Let us imagine that Le Pen, funded by Putin, wins the French presidential elections in May and decides to invade the UK, with some unclear results to show after two weeks of war apart from a lot of civilians bombed in a few costal cities. French troops are closing in on London but inefficiencies, low morale and the spirited defense of brave UK forces are holding their advance. The French are calling in Islamist mercenaries from North Africa to help. But France is also placed under heavy economic sanctions that will certainly weaken it more and more as time passes. Now, at which point in this scenario do you advise your government to negotiate? And do you mind if the French keep a few cities along the coast which they have managed at great cost to liberate from UK nazism? Curious minds want to know.
These two do not preclude each other.
What's tiresome on this thread, which is why I'm not really participating anymore, is the inability of some posters to accept any form of criticism of the US and NATO policy for decades contributing to the current situation, which appears to be a consequence of the naive mistake of applying ethics to geopolitical politics. While I agree that preferably every country adheres to international law, and I'm the first to argue they should, the fact of the matter is that it's a mistake to represent international relations as governed by those rules, eg. there's a clear difference between what is done and what ought to be done. Let's not forget renditions, torture, illegal wars etc. that "our" side committed, we don't have a moral high ground.
I don't trust the Western narrative and won't unless it's corroborated by different sources and that generally takes a few months to clear up, considering how often we've been lied to. If I see Russians firing at a flat, then I'm wondering whether they were fired upon from that position and we've just not been shown that. I have no way of knowing but I do know we get maybe 5% of what's actually going on.
Indeed, he keeps making reference to scifi movies. He supports Ian Solo maybe?
At least I have tried to say where the US and the West has made errors, with the crucial one being promising to Ukraine and Georgia something that they wouldn't keep and hence putting both countries in a perilous state.
Yet it should be noted that totally disregarding the role of Putin and Russia is not only biased but simply wrong. Also to totally disregard the third parties as mere puppets is wrong. There aren't any monocausal issues in history and just blaming the West and stating that "I don't care" about Putin's actions isn't perhaps the smartest thing to do.
Quoting Benkei
One shouldn't then take for granted what Russia says either. There's so many blatant lies it is similar to picking up the truths in what Trump says. So going with the narrative that the Kremlin promotes is after a point a bit dubious. Likely the US can tell the truth when it fits their agenda. Similarly would Russia behave.
That aged well...
The only organisms useful as bioweapons are spore formers that will survive without extreme cold and isolation from the enviornment outside tissue, for example: anthrax.
Weaponizing those spores isn't about editing genes related to infection. It's about making the spores hold together in a super light powder that will spread through the air and get into people's lungs. Anthrax spores themselves aren't terribly dangerous because the risk of them getting into your lungs is quite low.
It'd be terribly effective in a large buildings' ventilation system. It's fairly shit fired in a shell because VX would kill people much quicker, as would conventional shells.
Aside from that, you have organisms that produce toxins, botulism for example. These just aren't as good as available nerve agents as weapons. The risk here is only that they are easier to make, so non-state actors could use them.
Communicable diseases are hard to deliver and it is impossible to ensure they won't spread in your population. I think we just saw great evidence of why they would be a terrible idea as weapons with COVID. Anything contagious enough to be sure to do a lot of damage is also going to infect your population and military.
Communicable diseases make more sense if you attack livestock.
Using communicable diseases on people or livestock is a strategic level, nuclear tier response in every sense, a thing other countries with nukes have stated would be conditions for a nuclear retaliation, so that's were they become fairly useless. Nuclear weapons deliver faster, act faster, are plenty effective, and are essentially means of intercontinental counter battery fire to destroy your opponents weapons. Thus, you would always use those first in escalation, since destroying the enemy's nuclear capability is the #1 means of security.
The Soviets always looked at communicable diseases as something you use with nukes. A way to hit the surviving rural population. It turns out to be incredibly difficult, impossible with current technology, to launch a relatively delicate virus into space, fire it down into a population center, and somehow get the organism to disperse in a way it has any chance of infecting people.
You're talking about organisms that are destroyed by sunlight in most cases and cannot survive long outside tissue. Not the ideal fragility for a deterrent. At least nuclear warheads take a decade or more to stop working. ICBMs are already hideously expensive to maintain in readiness, so you're not going to waste them on less effective weapons. The cost to modernize a vastly reduced US deterrent from today to 2029 is almost $600 billion (Russia's total defense spending for a decade).
We know from Obama era reports that the US nuclear arsenal was a neglected shit show. The arsenals that exist on paper are many times the number that exist in a state of readiness. This is almost certainly more true for Russia. When you can't afford to maintain current strategic deterrents, why would you spend on worse, more theoretical ones?
For strategic investments, the US is all about its Interceptors. These are even more expensive than ICBMs, and have an unencouraging 57% chance to bring an ICBM down meaning many have to be used for each target. Publicly, I think there is around 40, with a bunch more in production and the program has already cost like $130 billion. Any money for MAD related projects is going to get sucked up into the missile defense budget because now that they've successfully shot down ICBMs they've unfortunately made their case for spending even more ridiculous sums on a program that will always be too risky to test.
Whole point being, it makes no sense, especially in Ukraine.States don't stockpile huge amounts of samples and even if they did, said samples would be fairly useless as weapons outside of infecting spies and having them cough on people.
I don't know if you have seen Zelenskyy's latest interview with Vice TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpmglcRV71Q&t=319s
I can only say that Vladimir Putin knows, as we all do, that ensuring his Zelenskyy's safety is essential to Russia's aims. Making a hero out of him will be the worst thing for Russia and will make Ukraine more difficult to manage as a puppet regime.
Are there alternatives to puppets?: was Emperor Hirohito kept in place as a "puppet" after the Allies won the second world war?
I quote from the transcript. Draw your own conclusions.
The subtitles are not captured: so here I transcribed them as accurately as I could, check for yourself. (This part is marked as 'music' on the transript)
"We are thankful to NATO... but we wanted to be equal..apparently quality costs a lot"..
"I know they want to fight to the last soldier, the last military man"
"I would like to save our heroic soldiers"
"But we will defend our land as long as we can"
7:09
can you make a compromise with putin can
7:12
you trust putin
7:14
trust
7:15
oh no i trust only my family
7:18
i trust my family my people
7:21
now when we united our great
7:24
great people great nation i trust
....
7:35
we have to because to stop this war
7:38
how to stop this war only dialogue and
7:41
only dialogue with him he the president
7:43
of russia ...
Fox and Tucker Carlson are well loved by Russian propaganda.
https://russian.rt.com/ussr/news/974175-nuland-karlson-biolaboratorii-ukraina
"Fox host Carlson: Nulland in effect confirmed the existence of secret labs in Ukraine"
Actually, the most leverage on Russia has now China.
Russia is now dependent on Chinese imports, while for China exports from Russia aren't so important. That Russia now wants to get arms from China is a historical first. If true, it's a major change as before it has been all the time the other way around. To ask arms from China also shows that there have been true losses on the Russian side. And there's a multitude of those pictures of destroyed armour.
Try throwing rocks and swear words at ... Defense industry of Russia (Wikipedia), Russia and weapons of mass destruction (Wikipedia), Infographic: Which countries buy the most Russian weapons? (Al Jazeera; Mar 9, 2022), Rosoboronexport (has a number of Putin quotes towards the bottom by the way), ... :D The invader has taken an initiative. Words/rocks ... no difference.
Quoting Olivier5
Right, Ukraine seems to have overwhelming support faced with the invasion, as well they should (nations, organizations, smaller groups), almost from day 1. Russia doesn't, as well they shouldn't.
Quote spam ...
The Russians have free rein in Ukrainian airspace to monitor and bomb. (Including bomb civilian areas; must be kind of "boring" for the pilots?) Maybe that's all the advantage they need.
Quoting Benkei
At least Putin's demands don't seem like fake news. No NATO membership for Ukraine, ... It's something to take to the talking table.
Here's an interesting map showing also NATO forces in NATO countries. And refugees. Also the higher military units, like the 1st GTA (1st Guards Tank Army).
Quite similar to the Finnish Defense University's map, so that's two different references portraying a similar situation:
So why...
As ever your point is as clear as mud.
The problem with lobbying (I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this) is industries using financial influence to bring about policies that wouldn't otherwise come about.
That Russia has arms manufacturers is irrelevant because, as we're regularly reminded, Satan himself is in charge of Russia in an autocratic dictatorship, so we're not really concerned about the influence the arms industry might have. If he wanted to increase their wealth, they wouldn't need a war as a pretext, he could just order a dozen jets just to sit on the tarmac.
That effective?
Republicans love him. You're the only one thinking in supernatural terms. Weird.
Quoting Nathan Akehurst in the Jacobin
In my country, suddenly we can afford £350/month per refugee. Two weeks ago we apparently couldn't even afford the dignity of not drowning them.
Because Nuland is not a CBRN expert either. Obviously, the Russian messaging on chemical and biological weapons resulted in some DoD analyst having to throw together a report; the type of thing you present to Congressional intel committees.
The threat of a bunch of conscripts seizing a BSL lab is pretty obvious. It's full of dangerous pathogens that require professional training to secure. You don't want military personnel blundering through it.
Since they have no evidence of CBRN threats in the area, this is probably the only bullet point outside "Russia could shell positions with anthrax, sarin, etc."
The whole exchange is likely staged, a way to tell the media "we're worried that Russian messaging about CBR might be evidence that they are planning to use CBR." Open hearings after closed ones are where Congressmen like to give themselves ego boosts by answering pointed questions about things they already know the answers to.
The conclusion about the messaging is dumb anyhow. Russia has been accusing the US of building biolabs in countries they want to influence for years. Generally it was the lab in Georgia. Apparently those secret bio weapons aren't worth invading over or something...
Yet...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Which is it, uneducated blunder or pre-prepared propaganda piece? If you're answering the question "does Ukraine have biological weapons?" in a preplanned attempt to ensure the world is abundantly clear they don't, do you not think "No" might have been quite an important part of any answer?
Do you think there was some meeting where Nuland's advisor was saying,
"Now, Victoria, they're going to ask you if Ukraine has biological weapons. They don't of course, and it's vitally important that you make it absolutely clear they don't",
" OK, so I should say 'no' then"
"No, that would be too obvious, we've got an elaborate double bluff planned..."
"...?"
Why would they do that when...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
...and...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
...?
You just seem to want to have your partisan cake and eat it.
Perhaps you could clarify. Are biological weapons so useless that there's little need to stockpile them (in which case, why are we hyping up the threat of the Russians using them), or are they a viable weapon the Russians might use (in which case, why wouldn't America want to keep a stock somewhere with plausible deniability if they're found)?
You might get to decide whether to do something or not.
An excellent opportunity for Machiavellian evil capitalists, wouldn't you say?
I suppose you might scrap it all and hope for the best.
Or, do you think everyone agrees to scrap it all? ?
George W. Bush said "Russia is not the enemy". George Bush, Tucker Carlson...Donald Trump... all Republicans. It seems like a partisan thing here, but not to worry, each person will decide who the enemy is and whom to vote for.
NATO was a thing of the past then.
Quoting George W. Bush, May 24, 2002, White House Archives
My emphasis
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-growth-rate
Per capita income is better.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2020 was $3,727, a 1.76% increase from 2019.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2019 was $3,663, a 18.27% increase from 2018.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2018 was $3,097, a 17.27% increase from 2017.
Ukraine gdp per capita for 2017 was $2,641, a 20.7% increase from 2016.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/UKR/ukraine/gdp-per-capita
And for Russia:
[i]Russia gdp per capita for 2020 was $10,127, a 11.92% decline from 2019.
Russia gdp per capita for 2019 was $11,498, a 1.86% increase from 2018.
Russia gdp per capita for 2018 was $11,287, a 5.29% increase from 2017.
Russia gdp per capita for 2017 was $10,720, a 23.15% increase from 2016.[/i]
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita
The war won't help in the short term.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/adam_tooze/status/1503494235311456260[/tweet]
You can't negotiate with bad faith. It's why the whole thing started anyway: a party that makes clear that they are only willing to deal in bad faith makes thereby clear that they understand only one thing: lethal force.
Sometimes, you do, and sometimes, you do have some say in the terms of engagement, even if you're the weaker party.
The only ones one really has to fear are those who value only things money can buy and who dismiss everything else. One is in even graver danger if one is that way oneself.
I'm not following what's going on in the war. Who did bad faith?
It is generally accepted that having standing armies means that those forces can be used any any way that is seen fit by that nation: there are no laws concerning that. There is the United Nations, but as we have seen, it may be better to manage things outside of conflict.
Accepting the current borders is a tacit agreement to the forcible means by which they were established.
The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.
Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval....
The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.
The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
[b]Theoccupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.[/b]
The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
(My emphasis)
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
This is simply false.
NATO has far more nuclear weapons than China, far more and more advanced aircraft (could make a "no-fly zone" or help the Ukrainians directly if it wanted to), far more intelligence capabilities, and EU and US and co. are together far larger economies than China.
China also has leverage, but China is a totalitarian state in a "special friendship" with Russia right now and clearly backed the invasion ahead of time (frustrate the US "pivot" to Asia).
You should probably learn something about the world before discussing world affairs. Corporate truisms, as @Benkei as so aptly pointed out, are not an actual basis of understanding pretty much anything at all.
This is the pattern of the war, as Russia needs to setup forward operating bases before going to the next objective.
Russia has only committed 10% of it's standing army to Ukraine, and so can also rotate units in and out of the war as well as reinforce if it needs.
No doubt Russia has suffered losses, but so too Ukraine. We can't really evaluate relative losses and operational capacity of each side with the information we have, we can only really evaluate general strategic situation (such as Russia doesn't have a fuel problem in any fundamental sense, but Ukraine may), strategic objectives that we can be sure have no strategic or tactical reason to give-up. Obviously, Ukrainians would have prevented the encirclement of the capital if they could have.
This narrative that the Russians have "stalled" makes zero sense. Had Russia failed to siege Kiev (the biggest single strategic objective), ok, then clearly a big stall, but it didn't fail. Reporters are essentially reporting Kiev is now under siege. It may not be completely surrounded, but if it can cover the Southern gap with artillery fire then it becomes significantly harder to resupply Kiev.
It is completely expected that Russia is consolidating this strategic gain to then workout their next move and the logistics for that. Had Russia really been stalled in their encirclement of Kiev, then likely we would have seen some big move on a second priority, but insofar as Russia was making progress then strategy is a very "eye's on the prize" game, and they would prioritize completing that objective with only a defensive posture and easy gains everywhere else (to keep pressure on Ukrainian forces, pin them down and tie them up to avoid them reinforcing Kiev).
There was an attempt to cut off the North-West salient, which simply revealed a long defensive completely straight line of defense the Russians had built up to protect their encirclement.
The evaluation metric the Western media is using of how much land Russia "occupies", makes zero sense. If you want to trap the enemy forces and encircle them (common sense strategy), then the goal is not to just take and occupy a lot of land, but to take the land required for encircling.
What we see now is the start of the next phase of Russian salients forming to encircle Ukrainian forces in the East, in multiple ways and multiple levels.
Again, maybe there is some surprise counter offensive in the works that will rout the Russian forces, but it seems to me an essentially impossible military task.
Ukrainian forces also need water, food, fuel, ammo and to get at least some sleep; there is zero indication that Ukrainian supply lines are working better than the Russians.
A. you don't need to be a CBRN expert to have such experts in your staff somewhere who have told you the state of bio-weapons.
B. if she's just talking nonsense as she's not an expert and the answer requires real expertise to answer, then she would have just said "I'm not an expert".
The question does not require being a CBRN expert to answer.
The lengths you're willing to go to try to deflect from the core thing: Q. is there bio-weapons in Ukraine A. non-no-answer, is truly remarkable.
And your long explanations of the difficulty of bio-weapons for tactical purposes, which have a lot of good info and point ... as @Isaac points out, only undermines your case, such as:
1. If there's no tactical reasons to have bio-weapons such as viruses that seem to be included in what Ukraine has/dad, then the only possible reason is for strategic purposes such as starting a pandemic for whatever reason. This would be the only rational explanation of why the CIA would be running bio-weapons labs in Ukraine or then letting Ukrainians, very potentially neo-Nazi's do so.
2. If the Russians have only non-communicable diseases like anthrax to use tactically in an invasion of Ukraine, there's not really any bio-research that helps against that. We know where to find anthrax, we know what it can do, it's more a mechanical (i.e. gas masks) than biological problem in dealing with an attack.
3. Considering the difficulties in bio-weapons development that you point out, there is zero legitimate reason for Ukraine, ranked more corrupt than Russia, to be working on any bio-weapons research of any kind. If there was some legitimate bio-weapons "defensive" research Ukraine "like super needs" it could be done in the United States at a secure lab run by people literally at the top of their field and qualified to work with insanely dangerous pathogens (and even then we worry about the risks and lab escapes do happen), and whatever reason Ukraine could legitimately have ... would also apply to the US who would therefore do that research with far more funds and skills, and just tell the Ukrainians whatever the defensive info is (... like the basics of CBN gear and usage? which, I've done, and is basically put on your gas mask and your rain suite ... and tuck your sleeves into your boots and gloves and hope not to die a terrible, terrible death ... so critical defensive information supplied? You really need bio-weapons research labs for basically the only defensive thing you can do in a tactical situation?).
Again, only Ukrainian commanders can know if they have military objectives that can be feasibly attained.
Diplomacy is then informed by this military situation. If you are losing a war, you have less and less leverage as the war goes on. Hence, if one wants Ukrainians to selfless sacrifice themselves and their country to bleed Russia and create a new cold war, then you need to convince both Ukrainians and the whole world that they are winning, even if you know they are losing.
However, obviously NATO and EU also knows Ukraines chances, so Western media repeating over and over the idea Ukraine is "winning" is ... maybe true, or then maybe a lie to justify pumping more arms into Ukraine.
For, the moment the Western Media says that Ukraine has lost militarily the immediate followup question is that "isn't sending more arms into a lost situation creating more bloodshed for other purpose and also a 'low-blow' to the Russians that will be retaliated against us sooner or later" (if you think the Russians will forget ... you haven't met many Russians). And, indeed, the entire purpose of the rules of war is that fighting is done with honor and integrity and rationally based to protect civilians, to avoid cycles of retaliation. Regardless of who is morally / politically, correct, one side wins and one side loses in a war, and fighting with honour avoids drawing things out longer than it needs to be (sometimes decades) which then create cycles of retaliation and no peaceful building.
Sure, the Taliban eventually "won" ... but are Afghan civilians really better off due to all the cowardly civilian-clothed ambushes and suicide bombings the Taliban needed to win an insurgency?
Which is an exemplary case, for whatever we think of the morality of the US invasion of Afghanistan (who had nothing really to do with 911), imagine the state of Afghanistan today if the Taliban followed the rules of war and accepted defeat and there was no insurgency? Regardless of the initial war and it's reasons, imagine what 20 years of peace would have built in Afghanistan. So, Taliban are certainly morally responsible for that outcome even if the US invasion not justified to begin with ... but, of course we know ahead of time there will be an insurgency and Jihadist fighters aren't going to follow our little rule book, so US is responsible for the outcome as well on that account.
So, a useful contrast in terms of what the rules of war are even about in the first place, but also Taliban insurgency serves as a contrast to conventional warfare. The Taliban did not win a single conventional style battle against NATO, and didn't "win" in the end in any military sense, just tired NATO out essentially.
Both Afghanistan insurgency and first person shooter games, it seems to be most people online base their understanding of the Ukrainian conflict.
This basis of understanding leads to, for example, the narrative of the day that "tough guy" foreign fighters are going to arriving in Ukraine and that matters; as you just need a bunch of tough guys with riffles and shoulder launched missiles to "do tough guy shit" and win battles. The mental image seems to be that tough guys can go out with a riffle and a bottle of Jameson and "find the enemy" and shoot them.
First misconception with this mental image, is that you mostly don't see the enemy at all in conventional warfare, at least not in the sense that you can then just shoot them with a riffle.
Conventional warfare is not fought on the basis of tough guys, although they can play a role, but is mostly a positional battle between artillery and the logistics to supply that artillery. It is a "system" and not a individual first person shooters bravely fucking up the enemy.
The core thing first person shooter games lack as a basis to understand real warfare is the mortar. Of course, you could have a mortar team in a first person shooter game, but it would be insanely boring to be on said mortar team. Which is why in every single conventional battle, pretty much anywhere on the world, you will at least find assault riffles and mortars even in the poorest military engagements (at least on the winning side).
The system of mortars and rifles is already insanely more dangerous than just assault riffles, and you can't just "throw a bunch of tough guys together" and work a mortar team. It takes real training and skill on several levels.
On television we sometimes see soldiers casually dropping mortars into tubes that go off and explode somewhere, but this is not the whole "team" and, hopefully, they aren't just firing in the general direction of the enemy but actually at something. The whole process starts with an observer and his communications side-kick, who sneak around and find a target. If all goes well the observer figures out where the target is on the map, the communications side-kick then gets that information to the calculator guy, usually at the command post wherever it is but he can also be just hiding under makeshift umbrella in the rain. The "gold standard" of communication in this context is a wired line that sends (little) signals, but could also be just communicated by sneak. Anyways, the calculator guy works out the direction and the distance, takes into account wind speed and rain, and therefore the angle and additional powder / high explosives (mortars go like 20 feet with just the shotgun shell that sets them off), and whoever is in command approves the strike, and then this information is relayed to the team running the actual mortars. The actual fire team then needs to work out how to get the mortars in the right direction and angle (this is not some trivial task, and starts with setting up a guide stick as a reference direction, but sight on a mortar is not fixed in space and so moving the mortar around moves it off the guide-line which needs to be compensated for), and then the mortars are backed with powder / high-explosive required, pins removed and away they go.
Obviously, this whole process is in the context of some officer having some workable plan, we hope.
Now, the difference in accuracy between a good mortar team and a bad mortar team, and the difference in the observer (of which the whole process depends) not-getting-killed first and getting-the-enemy-killed first, and the time to setup, camouflage and setup a adequate defense of the mortar battery / escape plan, is really immense. A good mortar team can not only avoid getting killed, but can achieve the accuracy of the mortar, which on relatively short distances on a windless day can be a few meters.
Observer can also observe where rounds land and so send back corrective instructions (which are then very quick to process).
There are also other weak links in the chain such as the communications guys and calculator guys.
Point is, takes a lot of training. However, the result is that indirect vertical-ish fire can be brought down on an enemy position such as directly into their trenches. Also, mortars going off in the general vicinity (fire for effects) causes people to hide and the opportunity to maneuver or then tactically retreat.
Mortars can also fire other kinds of ordinance like anti-tank mortars, anti-other things, and giant flares that case a shadow at several kilometres. When assaulting a position at night, what feels save may not actually be safe if a artificial sun goes off overhead and you're totally visible and come under immediate mortar fire. We don't see the US using flares in an insurgency as A. they have really good night vision and so B. if would only give the opposing side an advantage. However, in conventional warfare flares are insanely useful to defend a dug in position.
The point of this long explanation is that this system takes a pretty long amount of training to use effectively and the tactical upgrade from just guys with riffles is immense.
From this basic riffle / mortar system, the purpose of bullets is mostly to pin down enemy forces to then hit them with mortar fire. Nearly all bullet firing in conventional warfare is suppressive fire for the purposes of striking the enemy position with indirect fire.
A war system then builds up from this, mostly just doing the same thing. Artillery serve the same basic purpose of mortars but against harder targets or farther away and requires the same basic info chain, and the basic purpose of air power is to both observe and substitute artillery strikes. Armor comes in precisely because the bullets and indirect fire system is so effective, sending a wave of infantry just get slaughtered like in WWI. WWII was totally different because armor can be concentrated to break through enemy defensive lines. And so, since armor is so amazing effective against the basic bullets and shells game, air power became so critical because it's armor's biggest weakness.
"Peak armor" was certainly the Nazi's invasion of France, and ever since then significant effort has been put into systems and tactics to defeat armor.
However, all these other way more expensive systems, such as planes and missiles of different kinds, is all happening at the end of the day to get tactical advantages (information and strikes of key things / critical moments) needed to make defensive lines of infantry and mortar/artillery cover (as bullets and shells are insanely cheap compared to cruise missiles and jet fighters).
The basic thing you want to accomplish in conventional warfare is surround your enemy cutting them off from reinforcements and supplies. So, in this basic strategic situation of lines of infantry supported by indirect fire, the counter is to break through the line at some point creating the problem for the enemy of either abandoning their positions and falling back to make a new defensive line (costs time and energy and gives up ground) or then risk being encircled. Hence, the counter offensive is critical to be able to deploy, but this requires armor and / or air power (who can both show up to the fight in a relatively short amount of time). You can't easily send infantry by foot to reinforce a position twenty kilometres away; the battle maybe over by the time they get there, so you need vehicles, civilian vehicles are extremely vulnerable, so you may need armor personnel carriers to even get reinforcements to the battle front requiring reinforcements.
The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that talk of "hundreds of thousands" of Ukrainians joining the fight may not be effective in any conventional military battle. Pretty much the only thing an untrained conscript or civilian can do is simply wait in a trench or some urban trench-like location for the enemy to arrive.
Hence the pumping in of ATGMs and Manpads which can be used by infantry individually with even minimum training, and does not require a coordinated team. However, these weapons can only slow the enemy as they are great to ambush armor, causing losses and caution, but they cannot really be used to assault a infantry line (insane waste of money) nor can do anything about relentless shelling of your own infantry positions, and, without good logistics, ATGM's may run out in a given location allowing the enemy to break through with armor that then no one there can do much about.
I don't know where you read that nukes gives you leverage to free civilians from a mad man, but it is not true. Nobody is going to threaten nuclear war if the civilians of Mariupol are not allowed to leave the bombed city... Just watch if you don't believe me.
Your total lack of clue would be amusing if you weren't perorating about bombed and dead people.
This is what this whole nuclear escalation situation has been about ... that Russia has nukes, and so too NATO. And it is this nuclear standoff that creates intense motivation for Russia to want Ukraine not to join NATO in the first place (if NATO did not have nuclear weapons, and Russia did, Russia may not be so concerned about NATO).
You do not understand how negotiation works.
Leverage does not mean "threaten", it could but it could equally mean what you have that the counter party wants, with only implied threats that go along with not reaching a resolution (which in most negotiations don't exist as you just go to the next supplier, bring in the next interviewee, if you fail to reach a deal with the current one).
Russia wants a commitment that Ukraine doesn't join NATO, that's the biggest chip in play, and not only could NATO give this commitment directly it can also pressure Zelensky to accept that (for instance, by informing him he isn't getting into NATO anyways nor getting a NATO no-fly-zone).
It's the biggest chip in play because NATO also has a whole bunch of nuclear weapons. That's the basic geo-political question being sorted out in the Ukraine war: how far is both Russia and NATO willing to escalate to a war, and at one point does escalation go nuclear. For example, pumping in ATGM's and Manpads is an escalation, in response to Russia's escalation of invading the entire country, but that was not sufficient to go nuclear ... but, seems everyone agrees, the next escalation by NATO of a no-fly-zone would likely be responded to first with tactical nuclear weapons, first in Ukraine and also maybe in the air to take out superior NATO planes the easy way, and then maybe even in space as a giant EMP, which then means NATO can only respond to this escalation with tactical nukes of it's own, which can easily destroy all the Russian positions in Ukraine, leaving Russia with the only "viable" (from a military perspective) way of responding to that with a strategic nuclear strike on NATO cities inviting a similar philosophy about that.
Leverage is what you have or what you can do, you don't literally have to say it in a negotiation.
Russia is a aware that NATO has nuclear weapons. One thing Russia wants is better protection from those weapons, which Ukraine joining NATO doesn't accomplish, and so this is part of NATO's leverage in the situation.
Keep licking Vlad's balls, for all I care.
NATO and EU represent more nukes, more conventional military power (both direct and indirect by supplying Ukraine), and more economic power than China. Therefore, they have more leverage than China in the situation.
China also has leverage, and I hope they too use it to deescalate and help end the conflict, but to say China has more leverage than NATO in a military situation ... is to say Russia fears China's military power more, which is untrue.
Russia needs China to deal with the military leverage (pumping in ATGM's and Manpads) and, even more so it's almost not comparable, the economic leverage of pulling Western corporations out of Russia all of a sudden, requiring substitutes for those technologies and equipment and services in the short term.
However, if China had more economic leverage to begin with ... it would have already out-competed all those Western firms using the "efficiency" of the communist approach to capitalism.
This strategy is discussed on Fox news, just saying the public is aware (or some of the public).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/newslondon/gen-jack-keane-on-russia-ukraine-war-russian-forces-are-trying-to-encircle-kyiv/vi-AAV0top
Yes, when I say "Western media" I mean the dominant narrative, but there's definitely exceptions.
And, of course, even the journalists are sometimes clearly not believing anymore the assurances Ukraine is "winning in some way". I saw this video the other day of a guy explaining to these two news anchors that NATO is working on supplying Ukraine with Russia's S-400 system, and explaining how great a system that is ... and news anchors were clearly just like WTF is going on.
Are you advocating that NATO nukes Moscow to save Mariupol? I'm not against it, but it could be a bit odd, logically speaking, to kill millions of civilians here in order to save thousands of civilians there.
That's actually incorrect.
Armed forces and land forces are quite different.
Russian Ground Forces consist of only 280 000 troops. If you have 190 000 in Ukraine, that's basically it. Putin is not sending the personnel of the Air Force or the Navy or the Strategic Rocket forces to fight it out in urban combat in the streets of Kyiv. The only option is to start calling in reservists.
What has to be understood that Putin truly is a dictator, and just like Saddam or Ghaddafi, he is scared about the Armed Forces being a monolithical power in Russia. Hence Putin established the National Guard, the Rosgvardiya, in 2016 and with 340 000 men it is far larger than the land forces component of the Russian Army. It is headed not by a professional soldier, but by Putin's loyal judo friend Viktor Zolotov, who by education was a turner( someone who shapes wood) who then became a bodyguard of Yeltsin and befriended Putin. The National Guard is basically for crowd control and domestic security, although they naturally have also been in the fight in Ukraine. Then there is the FSB that has about 160 000 to 200 000 border guards.
About Zolotov, Navalnyi (now in jail) irked him about the Zolotov's personal wealth (corruption). His response:
This is totally from the dictators playbook. Have opposing factions in the security realm so you cannot be overthrown by a military coup. Of course the arrangement is detrimental for fighting a large scale war, but that's not the principle idea that dictators like Putin have in mind.
(It doesn't end there. For example Russia has separately even armed Railway troops, a force of 28 000)
I just explained it pretty clearly. The whole basis of Russia wanting Ukraine not to join NATO and commit to neutrality, is because NATO has nukes.
Hence NATO has this leverage vis-a-vis Ukrainian neutrality because it has nuclear weapons.
I just explained that "leverage" rarely means "threaten" in a negotiation. Indeed, the only time you directly threaten someone in a negotiation is when they don't already understand what you're capable of and so not already acting in a rational way according to that.
Peace and resolutions are usually obtained through constructive dialogue focused on positive outcomes, with what people can do to each other if negotiations break down something everyone should already know because they put at least some effort into understanding the situation they are in.
I like your reasonning. Indeed, we need to make use of our strengths. Once Moscow is levelled off into a glow-at-night parking lot, Putin will be more likely to let the poor folks in Mariupol leave the city, right?
... I've heard a lot of Russia analysts mention this 1/10th figure.
Russia could also use it's conscripts and reserves, even if it's saying it won't right now.
There's also number of tanks and equipment etc. as part of the "force".
But, from my understanding, the personnel committed to Ukraine currently include logistics and support units. Looking at Aljazera's info graphic it seems to me 1/10th is a reasonable assessment.
Keep in mind a significant amount of Russia's military hardware will be in fixed forward positions, that it could go get and move into Ukraine if it wanted too.
Except for cruise missiles, Russia is not about to just "run out" of anything else anytime soon.
But maybe this figure is wrong, but you'll need to breakdown your analysis, as clearly 10% and 90% are pretty far apart.
The basic fact is that they don't have a reserves similar to fight a conventional war. And Putin surely cannot send all of his National Guard and all of the FSB border guards to Ukraine and leave Moscow and St Petersburg just being taken care of by the local police.
Then there is the issue of how well these forces are capable of conventional combat. How well do forces that basically are for crowd control and imprisoning ordinary people, are able to fight the Ukrainians armed with those NLAWs and Javelins. A bit different from rioters throwing rocks. They also don't posses so many main battle tanks and heavy artillery.
Neither me nor @Isaac or @Benkei (to the extent he's criticizing NATO / EU as well) have defended Putin's decisions morally.
We are simply being realistic that we cannot convince Putin to just give up on the war and turn Russia into an participatory devolved direct democracy somewhat loose confederation of cantons as a resolution to the problem of Ukrainians dying and children dying and being traumatized for life.
And, we are simply being realistic that, regardless of what we think of Putin or his moral character, using NATO planes in the air and troops on the ground is simply not going to happen due to nuclear weapons.
Does this mean Ukrainians don't have a right to fight? None of us have said so.
However, if you're going to fight in a war for your country, you'd probably want that fighting to actually serve your country and not be one big NATO arms demonstration.
If Ukrainians have a chance of winning (which we've been debating in good faith and I'm not saying your wrong; Russia itself orchestrated the most famous and consequential counter offensive in all of history ... so, maybe it's possible with weapons and tactics we've never seen before) that obviously affects the evaluation of the purpose of continued fighting.
"A bit more fighting" might increase leverage and get a better deal in a lost situation, or it might simply solicit a far worse deal.
It's precisely because Germany fought for 4 years instead of only to Christmas, that the allies imposed the humiliating and financially impossible Armistice, as a retaliation for not giving up sooner, which then resulted in Hitler proposing to "fix that" and then the cost of fighting to the death (including children soldiers) was the partition and essentially direct administration of Germany for many decades.
It does not go without saying that further resistance and "holding out" as long as possible is better for your country in this sort of situation--maybe, or maybe not.
On top of the military situation, there is a political situation. Even if Ukraine can't actually stop Russia relentlessly achieving it's objective, there is of course political consequences to Russia for continuing the war effort, mainly the sanctions. To evaluate this we need to know how the average Russian sees things, which we have little information on so decisions based on them "rising up" any day now is, at the least, a big risk to take.
The biggest sanction we could do is shutting off the gas ... but we're not about to do that.
I'm not accusing you of that! I'm only making the point that it's wrong to say only 1/10 of Russian forces are deployed to Russia. There isn't the 9/10 to be deployed there.
The analysis I've seen of the Russian overall military position is they are still garrisoning their usual border positions, in particular close to Georgia but also in the North-East and West.
I have seen no one add up the personnel they're committing in the way you describe.
However, one must include their reservists as part of their overall force and their stockpiles of armor and artillery etc. The proper way to do things is weight each person / equipment in terms of battle readiness and effectiveness.
I agree maybe 10% is too low ... but nearly 90% committed to Ukraine seems too high.
I was just responding to your mention Putin as a dictator, which I initially interpreted as just moral condemnation, so wanted to make that part clear. However, if it was just to point out the units committed to protect Putin, then I agree with your point.
However, we seem to be on the same page. I'm not saying 9/10'ths could be thrown into the fight.
My point is that the troops can be rotated out of the battle space. This is a large strategic advantage.
First, front line companies, or units, or individual soldiers (depending on the situation) can be rotated back to rearguard / Russia / Crimea for just basic sleep recovery and then just sent back to the front line if needs be or then for the next company to rest. Just as even US soldiers in the Middle East do some patrol or fight a battle and then rest up in the "green zone"; they are still in a war zone but have safe space to rest and aren't literally sitting in a trench for their entire tour. It maybe counter productive to send soldiers to relax on the beach, but sleep is a basic need and difficult to do with constant explosions.
Whatever the force committed to Ukraine, it's not some absolute figure, but just "at any one time" Russia can support so many troops in the war. If companies become ineffective they can be rotated out with a fresh company with just a few train rides. For example, let's say 35% of troops of some base have been requisitioned for the war in Ukraine, as things go on, they will start to be rotated out with the fresh troops still on base; still 35% from that base committed to the war, but different people. Keep in mind many professional soldiers "want" to go to war and use their training and get experience and have stories to tell. The morale level of conscripts sent in on the first day by surprise (as mentioned, so Ukraine doesn't mobilize) is not indicative of the moral of the entire Russian military; which also can explain why Russia didn't organize it's best (as that would signal imminent invasion and preemptive mobilization).
Likewise, lightly injured soldiers can be sent back to base as part of the garrison and maybe have some productive things to do in an arm sling, and so can be replaced with a fresh soldier.
Lastly, soldier that die can be replaced by recruiting more soldiers.
The point of this fact is that a war of attrition with Russia needs to take their overall force into account.
Of course, not that Russia is willing to fight until the destruction of their whole army, but that their overall force outside the battle space makes "force repair" far easier in a purely military sense. As with the United States, likely the political tolerance for losses is reached far ahead of a purely military tolerance (mainly due to nuclear weapons, Russia doesn't actually need to fear an opportunistic invasion by a neighboring empire or upstart, unlike basically any time before nuclear weapons).
Quoting boethius
Well, 90% of 280 000 is 252 000, hence even if you take into account the National Guard units fighting in Ukraine, not so much is committed to Ukraine. But it's logical that they cannot withdraw troops for example from Kaliningrad and leave other places totally void of troops.
Quoting boethius
Or then start calling in the reserves.
It's likely that units made from reservists will need at least few weeks or a month to train and to get synergy. Deployments of fresh troops doesn't happen in days. So basically I think for Putin to hold talks, have some kind of cease fire might be a good option. In order to reorganize the forces to a next push. Yet the thing is that during that time the West can replenish the Ukrainian forces too.
Quoting boethius
Ok. Actually it wasn't meant as a moral condemnation (even if Putin deserves all the moral condemnation there is).
No, the fact is that dictators and authoritarian regimes are basically scared of their own security apparatus and hence they divide the apparatus to various competing organizations. Saddam Hussein had his Army and then his Republican Guard. Even the Saudis have the Army and separately a National Guard made of largely tribesmen. Now a sparsely populated Saudi-Arabia with Iraq (at the time of Hussein) and Iran would logically need a powerful army. But for the monarchy a powerful army is an internal threat: there could be an Arabian version of colonel Nasser who throws out the corrupt monarchy. Hence the division of the defense forces into separate organizations. And the traditional example would be the Third Reich with the Wehrmacht and the SS.
To put it bluntly, joining NATO gives a nation absolute impunity, because any military action, whether sanctioned by the UN Security council or not, with our without just cause, cannot be responded to by Russia in kind because that would mean attacking a NATO member, which is tantamount to attacking them all, including the United States.
This was Putin's point when he suggested that if Ukraine joined NATO, they could attempt to take back Crimea and he would not be able to do anything about it.
Come to think of it, a good strategy would be for everyone to join NATO and paralyze Russia's ability to use their military ever again. Whom is Russia going to have left to attack? China?
How does the civilian population figure in all this? Surrounding a city and asking the civilians to leave seems like a good strategy but the combatants are unlikely to let civilians leave combatants in any case may not be wearing uniform. Isn't it reasonable to expect civilians to be prevented from leaving a battle zone?
Talking of siege:
However, almost all of this overlooks an uncomfortable truth. The truth is that while high-end wars between nations have decreased, war has certainly not gone away, nor is it getting any less violent. Furthermore, when looking at the conduct of warfare since the end of the Soviet Union, one thing becomes very clear—the siege is a defining feature of modern warfare across the globe. When hearing the word siege, it is easy to let one’s mind wander to the time of kings and castles, trebuchets and battering rams, but that is to overlook the frequency of sieges in modern warfare. In fact, a brief survey of history illustrates that the siege is a defining feature of the late 20th and early 21st centuries; perhaps today is the siege’s golden era.
https://www.ausa.org/publications/reemergence-siege-assessment-trends-modern-land-warfare
Ok, well we'll see, but I have not seen any similar analysis that Russia is engaging a majority of it's total force.
Quoting ssu
Yes, Putin committed to not conscript anyone for the war, but there will be plenty of reservists wanting to become full time soldiers. The Kremlin does not have a short term war financing problem so it can simply start hiring more troops, especially pre-trianed (to some degree) reservists. Especially with the sanctions causing deep recession in Russia there is certainly plenty of people looking for a job.
Of course, this doesn't instantly replenish the force, but mitigates losses and frees up existing full time soldiers to replace with new recruits.
Point is, Russia can "tap" their reserve force without technically using any reserves, as it can just convert reservists to professional full time soldiers.
Quoting ssu
Agreed, some force is necessary to protect the Kremlin from revolution.
What mattes in the rules of war is who's to blame. Russia also has video cameras and as soon as the war ends will start to justify their military decisions based on the intelligence that they had.
If Russia wanted to kill civilians it could just drive a thermobaric multiple rocket artillery launcher up to the front lines and fire everything it has into a city center, or just carpet bomb cities relentlessly.
However, it's not doing that, and so will state that it conducted the war to minimize civilian casualties, although some collateral damage cannot be avoided (same as the US says), and that it's offers of civilian corridors were good faith and maybe will publish video of Ukrainians breaking these cease fires. Russia may also simply prosecute / discipline some soldiers who "broke it's rules of engagements"and pay reparations for those "errors". From there is will get all technical legal all sorts of details needing investigation, and, therefore, drop out of the news cycle and that will be that.
That's why countries want into NATO; way easier to be defended by the largest military block on the planet.
Quoting FreeEmotion
The problem with this is that, sooner or later, in particular unstable regional powers, but generally speaking, diplomacy breaks down and push comes to shove. May also not be clear who fired the first shot.
By letting in unstable nations with their own regional ambitions, if not today perhaps tomorrow, then war inevitably follows and NATO won't actually respond to some cluster-fuck regional shit-show. I.e. in NATO, plenty of nations will abuse the position, NATO won't do anything as otherwise it will just encourage more abuse, and so the Article 5 will be undermined and the alliance start to fall apart in a practical sense.
I think Putin's actions can be defended if, as he has said, Russia is fighting for its survival. As the world's greatest military power that won the cold war, it is only rational to beat down any nation to the size you want it to be so it stops interfering with your foreign policy.
That may not be morally defensible.
Is Russia fighting for her life? Does the 'invasion from the West' bring reminders of the Nazi invasion that cost so Russia so much? To the first question I simply do not know. The answer to the second I can only guess.
Democracy may not be the answer as apparently the Russian population does not want Ukraine to join NATO. If it came to a vote they may even support war, or 'military operations'. What then of democracy?
A Pacifist would be bound to suggest to Putin some have suggested to Zednesnkyy: don't fight oppression, fighting will get you killed. Make some sort of a peaceful settlement with Russia and for Russia to make some peaceful settlement with NATO and live with it, until an opportune time to re-assert yourself.
So NATO is careful about who joins them as well, some sort of a balance.
Exactly why NATO didn't just let Ukraine in a month ago when a invasion "might" happen and "NATO's Ukrainian friends" could have easily been helped without any loss of life at all.
NATO can't have it both ways and say they care "oh, so, so much about Ukrainians", enough to supply weapons and expend the massive political energy to sell Germany on F-35's and chnage the entire posture and financial position of NATO overnight (which doesn't save a single Ukrainian life, but is obviously the priority and 99% all the actual big boy talk intra-NATO) ... but doesn't care enough about Ukraine to let them in the alliance, because that would be irresponsible (so why bait them with that in the first place again? someone please remind me), which is basically what the argument is, nor put much energy to negotiate in the interest of any civilians or Ukraine itself (just cheer on social media for Ukrainians to die to demonstrate the effectiveness of NATO weapons for the purposes of the arms sales that have already happened, are happening and will happen due to NATO pumping in arms into Ukraine to demonstrate their effectiveness and simply leads to Russia to escalate indirect fire, the reasonable tactical response to infantry that make themselves a nuisance--that any commander on the entire planet, including every single NATO officer, would do without question, which causes more collateral damage (which last I hear NATO doesn't even bother keep count of) that can easily be used to justify sending more shoulder launched systems to cause even more escalation and prolong the war causing vastly more death and trauma to, most of all, children.)
Imagine you have bully on your block, do people on that block moderate their behaviour to avoid getting punched by him? Of course they do. So conversely it must follow that if you actually want him to punch someone, you'd know pretty much exactly what to do to get that to happen.
Putin is a ruthless tyrant who's made no secret of his views about the proper place of the Russian empire in the world. My first years could haved worked out exactly what behaviours would light his touch paper, imagine what professional consultants in international relations could come up with.
And when a woman gets raped by that bully, it must follow that she did exactly what one needs to do to get raped, right?
Exactly. She was a woman!
She shouldn't have existed, hence then the rapist bully wouldn't have raped her.
And of course, it's bad what the bully did. But she really shouldn't have existed in the first place.
He wandered home wondering if he had any frozen peas in the freezer to nurse his black eye, and since he'd crapped his pants, should he wash them? Or just throw them away?
“Damn NATO", he mumbled.
Although the bully analogy is useful for the intended purpose of imagine I tell you guys I got a whole group of marines going to back you guys up, totally for sure, we're buddies, to go take on that bully. And then you guys channel your righteous rage that this bully is also a rapist or will soon be a rapist, and go to beat down on him (by which you mean me and my marine buddies that can easily do so).
Obviously, first you just start just pissing him off with symbolic gestures, like an SS battalion emblem as even though he's a bully he really hates neo-Nazi's as they killed his gandma ... ok, you pissed him off and he starts coming at you, and you guys start backing up like the raised arm batman meme waiting for me and my marine buddies to jump in front of you and take care of business, any moment now ... any day now ... gonna happen ... we're gonna do this. This is it. Today's the day. Any moment now.
Instead, my marine buddies and me toss you a few sticks to defend yourselves, which you totally have righteous cause to do and we get crazy mad likes for backing you up where it counts (to us personally in our ability to "slay puss", as us tough guys refer to copulation): social media.
That would be the analogy in evaluating the NATO's moral position. Definitely NATO starting "the process" with Ukraine and Georgia was a "we got your back bro" statement ... or then a deceptive tactic to bait Russia into a war to restart a cold war at their expense. One way to tell: does NATO actually have either Georgia's or Ukraine's back?
While you ponder that question, what "having someone's back means" (only talk and slipping them a shank in a fight they'll lose count?) ... perhaps consider there are also two sides to the story. How are we sure it's not Ukraine that's the real bully refusing to let people have their "right" to democratic self determination?
Deep cover Russian agent social media provocateurs?
I don't have any righteous rage. This is nothing new. Same shit different day.
Ok, well then re-imagine my little bully story but you're not motivated to do anything at all about the situation except for some purely academic analysis on the internet.
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure that on the basics, we agree. Maybe we differ on strategies for dealing with bullies, but we're still on a dead rock hurtling through nowhere on the way to nowhere for no reason.
As we pass into oblivion we whisper into the darkness: "we did the best we could..."
As @Cuthbert implied -- very philosophically -- about nuclear annihilation: it's not that bad; there is always the possibility that we will fail better next time.
It is also useful for the non-intended purpose of showing how immoral you guys are.
Very possible out positions are close. If you're sympathetic to @ssu position, then we are mostly debating different sides of the issue. Obviously he recognizes the Russians could win, and I recognize the Ukrainians could win, just by some big surprise we don't know about. My analysis is mostly based on the assumption that the arms Ukrainians have can't really assault Russian positions.
And, I'm sure with your experience you experience of the true scale of the carnage and trauma; if more can be avoided by talking then I think that should be attempted, and talk requires mutual understanding, so, in this case, understanding the Russian perspective as well as Ukrainian.
Of course a stalemate is possible, or peace deal happening at anytime, and who really "won" is up for a debate. A good peace deal mid-war, both sides can claim they won. For instance, both Soviet Union and Finland could make a legitimate claim to having "won" in WWII, and it's that kind of peace deal that is more stable than a WWI armistice type deal that humiliates one side.
I do indeed hope we both can say we do the best we can.
:blush:
Things are perhaps not as black and white as you believe.
Understanding the history, nuances, perspective and what in negotiation we call "legitimate grievance" is essential for a diplomatic solution. Likewise, the evaluation of the military situation influences whether one believes diplomacy is even "necessary" for your aims, and, if so, then what a reasonable deal would be considering the military situation (of which, we don't really know the true state of things on the ground, but need to make deductions from larger events and considerations).
Recognizing someone's legitimate grievance does not mean agreeing everything they say.
To bring up the example of police negotiators, if they are talking to someone who they are certain is the suspected murder, and the suspect asks for a coffee ... they are likely to provide it as it's a legitimate grievance to be denied a coffee as a police captive, likewise food, and, likewise, indeed, the murder itself can be motivated by legitimate grievances and police negotiators will recognize that to get the suspect to talk and admit to the murder and so wrap up the case with far less resources as well as satisfy their own and other people's desire to at least understand the motivations and events.
And, it's these police murder suspect negotiators videos that you can find plenty online, as it becomes public evidence in trial, that are probably the best examples of negotiation that are accessible. Corporations and governments also have good negotiators ... but they tend not to film it and post it online afterwards.
One of the key themes in these police negotiations is responding to legitimate grievances and opposing non-legitimate grievances (for example: avoiding a question). It's the only way to have a constructive conversation with a counter party regardless of the moral context. Even higher stakes is hostage situations which can be available online as well.
So, in the situation in Ukraine, just so happens that neo-Nazi's is a legitimate grievance. Now, as already discussed with @ssu a response to legitimate grievance doesn't mean "agreeing"; a legitimate response to a legitimate grievance can be proving it's not true, or then exaggerated or then arguing about it; recognition just means acknowledging it's important for the other person and that they have valid feelings about the issue that warrant engagement, not-recognizing would be just ignoring it (for example, maybe there simply is no coffee left and I can't have a coffee; ok, that would be a legitimate response and good faith if it's true, but not-recognizing my grievance about a coffee would be just to completely ignore my asking for a coffee). So, EU could "prove" there are no neo-Nazi's and the Azov brigade didn't do any active fighting as a paramilitary force, would be one response, just bad faith if there are neo-Nazi's and Azov brigade was doing parallel paramilitary fighting in Dombass outside a legitimate chain of command. Likewise, Russia's grievance about being threatened by NATO with nuclear Armageddon is also a legitimate grievance, as is our grievance of Russia's threat to us of nuclear Armageddon.
Says who, and to whom? There's no grievance without an aggrieved party.
Volodymyr Zelensky Says Ukraine Won't Join NATO
That is one heck of a realization and rather late in the day. The nation of Ukraine at peace with its neighbor Russia will be in a secure and strong position to build back better and profit from the outpouring of sympathy worldwide, which will put pressure of governments to invest in Ukraine and sell them arms. I can already see the "Buy Ukrainian" signs coming up. What's not to like about this?
Russian's are legitimately aggrieved by the neo-Nazi's killing Russians in Dombass. You can engage in apologetics for the neo-Nazi's, but that doesn't change the Russian's perception of them being neo-Nazi's and their perception of them killing Russians in Dombass and elsewhere since 2014.
But, you clearly haven't understood what the basic concept even is. I'll need to continue tomorrow, but maybe someone else will re-explain it to you
So the Russians decided to kill ethnic Russians in other parts of Ukraine, outside of Donbass.... Makes things more even, right?
Russian's really don't like the original Nazi's or neo-Nazi's, and the Russian government nor the Dombass breakaway regions have any evidence of any institutional integration with neo-Nazi groups nor any evidence of tolerating such groups existing in the first place.
We've already dealt with this strawman and also deflection from the self-described neo-Nazi's in Ukraine.
I assume that people on this thread know the general history of events, so the discussion isn't too complicated. (And obviously an American view)
That's the number of active duty troops as of 2020 per Wikipedia, but that would include both conscripts and professionals (Russia has both). By law, conscripts are not supposed to be deployed abroad, although there is evidence that the military are getting around this rule by any means possible. Still, there's been an outcry in Russia, and even an official acknowledgement that conscripts have been sent to Ukraine "by mistake." Some of these 18-19-year boys have only had a few months of basic training before being sent into battle!
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tells Russian soldiers to 'surrender'
MIKE SNIDER | USA TODAY | 52 minutes ago
"I know that you want to survive," Zelenskyy said during an address Tuesday. "We hear your conversations in the intercepts, we hear what you really think about this senseless war, about this disgrace and about your state."
That is why Russian soldiers should consider surrendering, he said. "If you surrender to our forces, we will treat you the way people are supposed to be treated. As people, decently. In a way you were not treated in your army. And in a way your army does not treat ours," Zelenskyy said.
You keep setting up these fake contradictions for yourself. "Biological weapons are not particularly good as military weapons," and "biological weapons can be highly effective at killing civilians," are not mutually contradictory.
Weaponized anthrax would work great at causing mass death used the right way, e.g. feeding it into the ventilation system of a crowded building, crop dusting a crowded sports stadium, etc.
It does not work particularly well when the target is dispersed military units who are outdoors, particularly if they are expecting an attack. Your crop duster will easily be shot down by MANPADs or your shell will disperse way less effectively out doors. You might kill some people, but a conventional shell likely would have done the trick too.
I suppose biological weapons could have a very effective military use, but the scenario there would have to be something like sneaking a spy into the enemy organization and having them somehow get access to a barracks air conditioning system, or something of that nature.
Imagine what the outcry is if they seriously try to then press reservists into going to war, those who have done their military service and haven't made any kind of contract with the military in this situation. Their moral sure will be high, especially when they aren't the age of the "average Fox viewer in the US". :roll:
[b]World BEYOND War is a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.
World BEYOND War was founded on January 1st, 2014, when co-founders David Hartsough and David Swanson set out to create a global[/b]
movement to abolish the institution of war itself, not just the “war of the day.” If war is ever to be abolished, then it must be taken off the table as a viable option. Just as there is no such thing as “good” or necessary slavery, there is no such thing as a “good” or necessary war. Both institutions are abhorrent and never acceptable, no matter the circumstances. So, if we can’t use war to resolve international conflicts, what can we do? Finding a way to transition to a global security system that is supported by international law, diplomacy, collaboration, and human rights, and defending those things with nonviolent action rather than the threat of violence, is the heart of WBW. Our work includes education that dispels myths, like “War is natural” or “We have always had war,” and shows people not only that war should be abolished, but also that it actually can be. Our work includes all variety of nonviolent activism that moves the world in the direction of ending all war.
Nice thought.
And it now seems off the table anyway — Putin's demand met. ? No Ukraine NATO membership.
, the Nazi thing wasn't in Putin's demands (other than used as a pretext/excuse perhaps). Either way, UN peacekeepers ain't up to him to decide, as he apparently thinks, only to go in with his bombs blazing instead.
Concessions given. Time for Putin to stand down, or at least chill out and head to the talking table? One could hope.
Chilling out for Putin likely means resupplying and rearming his forces. He'll likely at least push for the land corridor to Crimea, so Mariupol has to give. Kyiv? Now that swift regime change is out of the question, perhpas just to bomb it to rubble. As a "negotiating tactic". Kyiv has many of those high rise apartment buildings, so it will likely be in the end just as devastated like the some European city after WW2.
Yes, this seemed to me extremely likely that they'll just make reservists "full time" and so avoid calling conscripts (who don't want to go) as much as possible.
This may also explain why Putin has put so much effort into arguing Ukraine is already part of Russia, in case they need conscripts they can argue their defending Russian soil.
I have done a bit of digging into the numbers, all of which seem to come from US intelligence estimates and refer to troops "in and around" Ukraine, which includes the bases around Ukraine.
For me, these figures represented total personnel of front line soldiers and support personnel.
However, the basic point that however many troops in Ukraine at any given point, it's easy for Russia to rotate troops out of combat for rest and recovery, whereas very difficult for Ukraine will remain true even if 100% of Russia's troops were committed to the war (they would still rotate some percentage at a time for recovery).
The following video also gives a lot of context:
The critical part for understanding Russia's overall doctrine (at least what they are trying to do) is the explanation of the basic organisation of brigade and division.
Basically, they have a divisions that are meant for large scale offensives and permanent defensive positions (i.e. the division, if things go well, can supply itself indefinitely in the field), and then they have smaller brigades that are smaller and mobile with limited sustainability in the field.
(According to the analysts at least) the Russians do not believe in long defensive lines, but rather manoeuvre based warfare including a lot of tactical retreat to inflict losses and then rapidly retake the area in question.
So, however "good" things are going for Russia in terms of absolute losses and relative losses vis-a-vis Ukraine, it makes a lot more sense to me at least what the Russian's basic idea is.
They have "divisions" setup around Kiev and in the south to protect core strategic objectives (Kherson to cross the Dnieper, land-bridge to Crimea, and of course encircling Kiev). Everything else is consistent with this manoeuvre based warfare of brigades that have limited sustainability, so might break through create a salient and then retreat. The sign of a "failed salient" is encirclement of forward forces.
Another interesting part of the video is describing the toppest-top level strategic thinking (again according to them) of the Russian military, which is their belief that any large scale conflict will involve a first phase of basically lot's of missiles and quick strikes at key strategic objectives (and giant air war; but that would apply more to a large air-power such as NATO) and then after that chaotic phase, a second phase of more prolonged warfare, where it is the side that adapts best that will prevail.
So, it definitely appears to me that this doctrine has been put into practice; it's of course up for debate how well it has worked and extremely difficult to evaluate based almost solely on information Ukraine side chooses to public.
I am aware of this, I mean they will first try to recruit conscripts as full time regular soldiers voluntarily, as you describe, before conscripting people (i.e. force people who do not want to volunteer). The conscripts we've heard about so far were active duty conscripts that were thrown in to the war. Active duty conscripts train in the context of regular forces and bases (there's no separate base just for conscripts), as it's regular full time soldiers and officers that train the conscripts but also the regular forces train to deploy and manage conscripts in war games.
So, to use conscripts without calling it conscription, you just need to hire them as full time soldiers. For the active duty conscripts that got sent in with regular forces, I guess Kremlin is calling this an "error"--but of course it's purely just a PR thing, no one's "suing" the Kremlin over it.
Of course, there's a limit to how many people want to volunteer, but they'll certainly exhaust the voluntary recruits first. And by voluntary in this context, I mean someone wanting to join regular forces, not "volunteers" as has been labeled foreign fighters (by both sides).
Definitely if they need to start forced conscription, this would be a sign of strategic troubles.
However, a military recruiting like mad during a war is not unusual, US marines are recruiting all the time.
Should also be kept in mind by everyone that conventional warfare produces a lot and a lot of casualties on a very wide spectrum of injuries. During my own training I was several times inured / exhausted to a point of 0 combat effectiveness, but then recovered in a week or two after a doctors note; and this was just training and more or less "sports injuries" without anyone actually shooting anything at me. So in a real war you're going to have all these "sports injuries" and limits of exhaustion, likely a lot more, in addition to shrapnel and bullet wounds and psychological limits as well. The stress of just training for war has a big effect, and there's basically zero trauma of anyone dying or actually trying to kill you.
So, all this affects the Russians, but so too the Ukrainians, and pauses are not just to resupply and buildup forward operating bases, they are also to wear down the enemy psychologically, physically, allow small wounds to get infected etc.
And being able to rotate out troops to infirmaries in Russia, even for small wounds or psychological recovery, is an immense strategic advantage. Soldiers that do "break" you want to immediately send somewhere far away so it doesn't take time of effective troops to manage and affect their morale.
And people break all the time just training for conventional warfare, so, I can only really imagine what a real conventional war is like.
One guy on our base broke his foot with a chair, to get out of the experience. This other guy (far more intelligent) just refused to speak nor do anything other than eat and go the bathroom, he'd just lie in bed, and progressively higher ranked officers would come and yell at him--even the commander of the entire base, so the legend goes--until they finally let him go do civilian service after two weeks (once the army "has you" they won't let you go easily, if they believe you can actually fight--of which they prefer your opinion on the matter not to count).
And, the motivation to break people down (especially in basic training) is extremely high, as from the officer's point of view the people that break are not only not-effective soldiers and just a combat liability ... but are somewhat likely to shoot you if you give them a riffle and bullets. But these are still just simulations that don't even get remotely close to the psychological pressures of a real war.
With any luck, Ukraine can save part of their wheat harvest, that should take place in June I think. If the conflict last longer, the harvest will be compromised, with significant repercussions on food prices and possibly famines in a number of food-importing countries.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/ukraine.html
https://www.ft.com/content/b60387ea-d3f4-4819-aa53-77e86e4d5094
Navalny, President Putin’s most vocal domestic critic, was jailed last year after surviving a poison attack he blames on the Kremlin.
He now faces embezzlement and contempt of court charges and has been put on trial at the prison colony outside Moscow where he is already serving a 2.5 year sentence.
“I request that Navalny be sentenced to a term of 13 years and a subsequent two years of probation,” the prosecutor, Nadezhda Tikhonova, was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.
The prosecutor asked for Navalny to be sent to a “strict regime” penal colony, which would place him in much harsher conditions with cellmates who are repeat offenders.
The prosecutor also called for him to pay a fine of 1.2m rubles ($£8,685.).
“You can’t put everyone in prison. Even if you ask for 113 years, you won’t scare me or others like me,” Navalny said in court.
You can read the entire article in context.
Quoting Wikipedia
Even if true about the cannon fodder, which is certainly difficult for us to know, is this leverage Ukraine has on Russia, or leverage Russia has on Ukraine and the entire world?
Thanks for these insights, always pause for thought someone describing something happening today ... about a century ago.
Reminds me of a passage from Marx about how the "liberal" party of UK, whatever it was called at the time, just represents the aristocrats and their fellow rich friends that benefit from economic liberalisation and getting rid of the rest of aristocratic privileges, and they'll never deliver on their "ideals" of freedom and equality and the rest of it; that it's all talk and you'll never see actions no matter their majority in parliament ... it will always be close but "shucks, can't do it".
As always, the same info can mean many different thing to different people. For Ukraine, it means that their goal ought to be to perdure and keep Kyiv in particular for another 6 weeks or so. Pressure will ease after that and might even inverse, with Ukrainians able to take back territory. But 6 weeks is a long time, so they need to pace themselves.
For the Russians it means they need to come to a decisive victory no later than end of April, otherwise they will emerge as losers. Time is not on their side.
For the rest of the world, I think one important take-away point is that it is too early to write off the Ukrainian wheat harvest.
Completely agree.
However, Russia is also currently holding the world's food hostage. This is going to create a log of diplomatic pressure from all sorts of countries on NATO to resolve the crisis.
On-top of the Ukraine-Russian military struggle, there's also this battle of wills. Russia is hurting from the sanctions ... but the whole world is hurting from the sanctions as well as commodity price increases. At some point, various "neutral" governments, that NATO still "needs" to deal with for various reasons, are simply not going to care who wins or loses the fight ... only that their people are gong to be able to eat.
What we can be sure of is that the whole situation is tense.
Legitimate grievances are rarely directly addressed in a resolution, rather compensation is represented in some way to make the deal acceptable.
For example, if a company screws up, they may offer you a gift card to "resolve the issue", they won't commit to writing that they accept whatever the grievance is has any legitimacy; it's their offer that represents that and their proposal to solve it.
Russia knows that the Ukraine and NATO will never admit to a neo-Nazi problem, so there's no use in negotiating that directly. Most leverage in a negotiation is implied. Someone much bigger and stronger than you shouldn't need to actually point that out if "you're in their seat".
If the Ukrainians cannot harvest their wheat, international cereal prices will go through the roof, unsettling governments the world over.
Completely agreed, and those governments will therefore soon want the conflict to be resolved one way or another.
The party (that they can influence) that can most easily end the conflict is NATO, by stopping the supply of weapons (or just negotiate behind the scenes, and then telling Zelensky to accept the deal or the arms supplies ... well, aren't necessary going to stop but, it would be a damn shame if anything were to happen to them once in Ukraine--there's a nice supply line of ATGM's here, I wouldn't want to see anything to happen to it, capiche, kind of remark).
Who's actually bluffing ... we'll find out soon enough.
Nope, it's Russia. NATO can do shit. And honestly, governments of food importing countries have very little political leverage because they are poor, aid-dependent countries. They are not going to pressure Russia to stop the war.
What will happen -- in the hypothesis of a long war affecting global food trade -- is the opposite, likely: food or hunger will be used as a weapon. How is that done? The Russians will try to famish people in Ukraine, for one. For two, use food aid as a diplomatic tool. So Russia may buy some political support by sending free food to some countries, while the EU and US do the same with other countries, in a clientelist fashion.
He was right. He remains right.
On a related note, it's been fun to see the world's largest room of war criminals condemn Putin, the war criminal, of daring to be their equal: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unanimously-condemns-putin-war-criminal-2022-03-15/
No doubt many of them will whine about Navalny while they wait with baited breath for Assange to be dropped on their doorstep by the British, all while crying about free speech and Putin's tyranny.
So they're hypocrites. I'd rather that than have them be silent about Putin's crimes (like some people I know).
I prefer to hear it. It honors the victims (for me, anyway). The ones who are silent spit on their graves (basically).
I haven't. But then, I'm not glued to Twitter as you seem to be. I'm making a fence out of painted shapes. It's supposed to look like a giant lichen. That's my hobby.
Some of the posters here should send their CV to RT and co, assuming they aren't working for Moscow already.... If you must help murderers spread their lies, you might as well get paid for it.
Reminds me of a NYT opinion piece I saw the other day.
He also comments on the use of conscripts situation and that they seem useless to him as front line soldiers.
It definitely could be a "send the cannon fodder situation" but from what I can tell we're not talking about a lot of conscripts.
For me, the buildup is over a year and conscripts will simply be integrated into the war games and training, so it makes sense to me that they'd just be deployed like everyone else, especially in a chaotic 1 week to plan situation (again, that has many cons, but means Ukraine has no time to deploy their own conscripts).
I think it's really difficult to evaluate what risk Putin saw in the current situation happening, and maybe none, but it seems clear to me that both Putin and Russian generals would want to avoid a Ukrainian sizable conscript deployment along the West of the Dnieper and Belarus border, with all the bridges wired to blow. Even if Russia then takes the East side it's not really a victory as that would be exactly Ukraine's strategy.
In any case, to understand decisions you have to know what risks they were intended to mitigate. There can be a lot of negative consequences for a decision, but if it mitigated worse risks then it may still be the best one, and certainly rational.
It's possible Russia is somehow losing, but it's also possible they are happy the West thinks they are losing so that Ukraine keeps on fighting so they can destroy more of their military capacity (the stated 'de-militarization" objective which Putin told the Finnish president was currently 'happening'). Of course, the negative is Russia is certainly experiencing losses, but without knowing how many and some idea of the acceptable loss level, it's basically impossible to evaluate the Kremlin's view of things and what motivates decision making.
This video is pretty good for that purpose.
I think the only people who are being inundated are people who watch cable news all day long. Get rid of your TV.
There's a good faith reason that journalists simply don't know the situation on the ground. At the start of the war there were journalists a bit everywhere and almost everything was documented on social media.
It's sort of the reverse of pre-telegraph times where the start of a war was the most confusing and word travels on foot and can be inaccurate and rumors spread on purpose by enemy spies and so on, and the reality becomes clearer only over time. And also "journalists" didn't necessarily exist at all.
However, there's also a bad faith reason of "map propaganda" in that if one wants to make the argument Russia has completely stalled ... one simply need not update the map for a few days to give that impression. Likewise, a pro-Russian source may do the opposite and so paint as much of the map Russian as can be possibly argued. So, whereas both pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian maps of the war started out largely agreeing, I have noticed they can now be really far apart (not just between different partisans but also even between the same partisans maps can now be very different).
There is one mapper that not only seems genuinely making an effort to be as objective as possible, but even makes videos explaining sources and confidence level of different reports as well as tactical implications and what's been reported about different battles.
It's so far the most insight into what's actually happening on the ground I have found so far, and where things are very unclear (basically still internet rumors with no confirmation) it at least gives insight into the tactical stakes in different battles and fronts (such as if the rumor is true what that may mean etc.).
I'll look this up. But do note that this was before the current war. What is totally obvious, coming from so many various observers is that Russia armed forces have performed very poorly. This has been really something similar as to the first Chechen War. And I think the political leadership and the highest military command is responsible for this. This is now undeniable. Yet now the war is moving on to the next phase. And this is important to understand.
Quoting boethius
I have to correct you here a bit.
The information isn't based on just what the Ukrainian side chooses to publicize. A lot of actors do have genuine reasons to get a realistic picture of the war. For example Finnish commentators don't have an incentive to go with the most favourable Ukrainian view and they truly have an incentive to get the most truthful picture of Russian warfighting abilities.. Do note that that the US and other Western intelligence did choose to make public their intel, which was proven right. As I said earlier, the objectives how Russia would attack and where it would attack was proved correct. The satellite imagery does tell a lot. And do note that actually the US intel itself has gone against Ukrainian information warfare with for instance noting that Belarussian forces have not engaged in Ukraine (which the Ukrainians earlier were briefly saying).
What should be noted, and is nearly not mentioned, is the Ukrainian side. Although they have made counterattacks, these have been small. And naturally they too have had serious losses. What is really lacking is that Ukraine would make larger counterattacks and surround larger Russian units and hence use as Finland did in Winter War the famous motti-tactics. Basically what has been reported is that some Battalion Tactical Groups have been stopped and have sustained losses. Here is the crucial issue as sooner or later Ukraine has to fight the war of attrition.
Notice that the map hasn't changed much for days. So at least the Ukrainian defense isn't collapsing yet.
What is worrisome is that many commentators are discussing the "escalate-to-de-escalate" option that Putin has. Some of it can of course be to stoke more Putin-fear, but seems that in many places people are thinking if Putin would use then the nuclear card to solve an imppasse, if it comes to that.
That's why it gives really context of what Russia's strategic doctrine may have been before going into the war.
The analysis is not biased by trying to interpret current events as it was done before.
Quoting ssu
I don't say otherwise, but most material just so happens to be published by Ukraine as basically the foundation of their strategy is the social media battle, to get international support, to get weapons and sanction pressure on Russia, so publishing material to support the narrative that they are winning, or inflicting serious unsustainable losses on the Russians, is critical for that.
Even observers tying to be unbiased may not have any unbiased sources. Sure, you're free to believe Western intelligence sources are just unbiased truth tellers if you want.
Quoting ssu
Motti-tactics were specific to the Finnish Boreal Forest North of lake Lagoda, where the Russians were constrained to narrow roads to move any heavy equipment or supplies through the forest; Finns could use their advantage of ski and other winter forest tactics to cutup and destroy these columns (including excellent mortar teams trained precisely due to the near vertical terminal descent of mortars perfect for hitting targets between tall trees). It should also be noted that the Soviet Union was still wary of and positioned for a war with the Nazi's and Stalin purged some 90% of the officers. So these weren't Russia's best troops and officers sent into said forest / death trap.
However, south of lake Lagoda there is more of an open plane of farmland that the Finns must defend a more traditional line against armor and artillery, but there's a big bottle neck between the lake and the gulf of Finland where a small force can hold hold a line against a larger force due to the constrained space making flanking maneuvers impossible and the entire region will be impassible mud for armor and artillery come spring--hence "the Winter War".
The situation was very different.
Quoting ssu
This is the basic pattern of the war, as forward operating bases need to be built, and defenses to protect them, to supply forces for the next step (otherwise armor just runs out of fuel as we saw in the first days of the war). Russia has a unit dedicated to building tactical pipelines for example, which apparently has been stealing tractors from farmers for digging and landscaping for this project.
The other reason there's a pause is that Kiev has been nearly encircled, which means the affect of this will be tested diplomatically and also strategy rethought considering this strategic objective being achieved (consolidate, move forces around, decide and plan the next military operations). For example, Russia may decide Kiev is encircled "enough" and so dig in where they are now to focus on other objectives, or decide to storm the capital, or decide to fully encircle the capital.
Lastly, there may not be a pause at all, but rather the next critical step is not taking more territory but something more subtle when looking at a map of the entire country.
Or maybe there's a pause as things are falling apart, and casualties and losses are unsustainable.
It's very difficult to tell, but a few days pause, even if literally nothing much was happening, may indicate a setback or may indicate Russia is simply preparing it's next major offensives and moving things into position.
All the anti-tank weapons are definitely clearly dangerous, but what we don't know is if Russia has developed effective counter tactics. Russia has had experience with a lot of anti-Tank weapons in Syria and developed counter tactics in that context, but the environment was very different and they weren't NATO's best in stock. We really have almost no insight into what Russian generals are thinking of these weapon systems (except obviously they'd rather them not be there; so, if they simply inflict unsustainable losses without any counter-tactic, then Russia will likely dig in where they are now; but if they, at least feel, they can deal with them somehow, then we may see major offensives demonstrating that confidence--I honestly don't know what the situation is with the ATGM's, except both sides are trying to learn and adapt, and they clearly haven't stopped Russian getting to wherever they are now).
Exclusive: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion
Also the West: "Give us all your money forever lol. Hope yall stay alive so you can pay it":
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/03/ukraine-foreign-debt-cancellation-imf-global-finance
https://www.ft.com/content/2c0d7a8b-a48b-4287-ac3a-376603347ba3
I fixed it for you
[i]UN court orders Russia to halt invasion of Ukraine
The International Court of Justice orders Russia to halt its invasion and says it is ‘profoundly concerned’ by Moscow’s use of force in Ukraine.[/i]
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/un-court-orders-russia-to-cease-military-operations-in-ukraine
[i]MARCH 18, 2003
The ICJ today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.[/i]
https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/
They are consistent, I will give them that
I expected that modern technology would have proven cumbersome tanks and even expensive airplanes obsoleted by this war. Movements of large machines can be tracked by satellites making them easy targets for attacks from the distance by small groups of scattered defenders armed with portable and shoulder fired rockets. I would not be surprised if the Russian army already lost 10,000 or more soldiers, and many more to come.
Well, The Germans did pocket whole armies when they attacked in 1941, so encirclement of enemy forces can be done basically anywhere. In Kiev 1941 there was one of those huge pockets resulting in over half a million Soviet soldiers being captured.
Yet such encirclements need conventional formations. The initiative, if small and slow, still seems to be with the Russians.
Is there a war going on? Maybe. Although I have seen numerous videos to suggest that it isn't. The specific videos I have seen "from the ground" are too blurry to confirm who is fighting who, or from too far away to make any sense of what can be seen. Yes, a tank was blown up, but from where and by who is not clear. Also, much of the footage looks very familiar to some war movies I have seen, too familiar. I have seen an interview with soldiers in which the soldiers did not know how to hold their guns, or how to insert a clip into the machine gun. Seriously bad actors. Also one showing a parking lot full of body bags, counting the dead, in which the body bags are still moving from the inside as the people in them get comfortable for the footage, one guy actually unzips the bag from the inside and wiggles around a bit and then rezips it up.
So what am I seeing, really? I have no idea, but any trust I had in media has long since died, so I will likely never know.
So why don't you shut up about it?
What if we all shut up about it? THAT would be great!
Either you are ignorant or you are not. Which is it?
How far, in actual distance, are you from the fighting? I am on the other side of the world, and I know, reliably, as much as I should while on the other side of the world: Nothing.
I have looked at the latest pictures available via media. I see blown up buildings. Empty blown up buildings. No bodies. No blood spatter. Very clean sites, all things considered. Sure there is smoke in the air from the blast, but no one is fleeing. No one is crying and bleeding. In truth, there isn't anyone to see at all. Just a picture of destruction and smoke, but nothing to suggest it was from a bomb other than the write up that says it was.
I have never seen a clean fight. There is always collateral mess, always. But not in these pictures. Curious.
French Canadian. Yep, nobody is perfect.
Why then speak about it? What is the point of going around flaunting your ignorance about a topic?
I could go to a reddit thread on, say, marple syrup and say that I know absolutely nothing about marple syrup, never even tasted it, nor do I trust it one bit, because I wasn't there when they drew it from the marple tree, was I? And you guys who think you know something about marple syrup are soooo fucking naïve.
That'd be fun. :/
Yes, but the Germans pocketed soviet armies using armor. Motti tactics are about encircling columns without armor, which was possible if the Soviets are stuck in long columns on roads through the forest and were also not prepared for Finnish winter.
And, as I've explained, the armor component to armor is somewhat secondary to the mobility part. If you simply can't get to the front without a tracked vehicle in a reasonable amount of time, then you can't reinforce a breakthrough to cut through enemy lines to encircle them.
In addition to just the speed problem, there's simply a limit to how much ammunition you can carry on foot, so even you do get to the front you maybe out of ammunition pretty quick, especially anything heavier than bullets (but they can go pretty fast too).
Quoting magritte
It maybe true Russia has suffered 10 000 losses or more. And in terms of casualties I would agree that's a reasonable figure. However, depends a lot on how casualties are defined; after a war it's usually killed and seriously wounded, but during a war the smallest of injuries can get infected and make you non-combat effective, even if you're back to basically 100% after a week in an infirmary.
These small injuries don't really matter in a conflict like Afghanistan (to US troops) as attacks are relatively infrequent, "low-intensity conflict" (compared to what's happening in Ukraine) and so they just go back to base and heal up and any given time there's some sick and wounded soldiers, but the don't accumulate.
However, in a high intensity conflict with shelling and explosions all over the place, people can get cut, concussed, fractured limbs or ribs, infected or just get sick due to stress and exhaustion, or simply reach their physical and psychological limits.
So, we'd need to know the statistics on these casualties, to decide if 10 000 is a big number or not.
And that's also the basic problem with all the negative reporting on the Russian military situation, it's really sparse data that doesn't give much statistical insight. The "Task and Purpose" video has a really good contrast (by someone a lot more qualified than me on these tactical issues) of a totally incompetent armor response to an ambush and a pretty competent response. It's entirely possible the incompetent response was because the tanks weren't even driven by a tank crew but just logistics people to get them to the front and it was believed the area was cleared (obviously a mistake).
However, ambushed don't take territory and unless they stop logistics completely, don't really change anything fundamentally. German U-boats sank plenty of merchant ships resupplying UK, but obviously enough got through for UK to hold out. In supplying some location where resupply can be targeted it's a question of if those losses are worth it for whatever strategic location is being supplied.
Quoting magritte
The problem is that everything has a counter. If you don't have tanks ... enemy use weapons and tactics that highly effective against an enemy without tanks, if you do have tanks they'll employ weapons and tactics to try to take out your tanks. Of course, you'll then try to deal with their anti-tank weapons and tactics and they'll try to deal with those.
Air power is definitely the tanks biggest weakness, and drones extremely effective air power for this purpose, so facing this threat counters will be developed, and then counters to those counters and so on.
So, to evaluate anything we need some statistical information of how much a given tank is able to accomplish before being destroyed, how many anti-tank drone missions can be done before the drone is destroyed (or drone command center targeted with cruise missiles), and so on. What we'd want to know is the Russian tank's survivability generally speaking in front line combat and against ambushes as well as the survivability of the crew.
We basically don't have any statistical information at all.
All we know is that Russia can take and hold territory in Ukraine pretty effectively, and regularly advances key positions, but we don't really know what the cost is to Ukraine or Russia. Are Russians regularly tactically retreating to inflict heavy losses ... or are Ukrainians methodologically tactically retreating to inflict heavy unsustainable losses.
We definitely don't know, my main purpose is to simply point out that Western media claims are totally unsubstantiated and can represent Russia winning as easily as Ukraine somehow winning.
However, my purpose is to point out that most, not necessarily all, but most of those posting here are, in fact, not informed past whatever the media has told them. They have chosen sides based on a sales pitch. That sales pitch is likely supported by whichever government is funding the media making the pitch, therefore it stands to reason that the pitch is designed to make you support a specific outcome: Ukraine: Good, Moscow: Bad.
I could show you the same pictures of blown up empty buildings and say "Aliens attack a theatre." There is exactly the same proof in the photo for my claim as the media claim.
Notice that there is no media coverage on how the Russians could be justified in their action? Nothing at all. Which is telling in itself: two combatants but only one side to the story? That makes no sense.
Also it is Maple Syrup. Not marple. Just letting you know.
I am not in the fighting, and so know nothing of what is going on, which I admit.
You are not in the fighting, yet believe you know what is going on and what is what. Very well, explain the empty buildings to me; still smoking from the bombings and yet with no people inside, no blood spatter, and extremely clean surroundings with no injured or fleeing people. Explain why it looks so very staged.
And my point is that you cannot possibly know that for a fact.
Some here may be on the Russian payroll and spreading talking points. And some others may be drawing from their own military or geographic experience, or have access to other sources than the media.
Don't assume that, because you are ignorant, everybody else must be ignorant.
Quoting Book273
See? I wasn't kidding when I said I knew nothing about it. But you knew something, at least you knew how it is spelt, and you corrected me. So my ignorance does not imply yours.
Likewise, your ignorance about Ukraine doesn't imply other people's ignorance.
I think the maps are accurate
Surely there is something you can be sure of, like if all sides report something, for example, you don't know what exactly. You may have to wait a few days for the dust to clear up, but propagandists usually live for the moment, and are usually careless about proof.
Then there are live pictures of Kiev. Surely that is real.
I have not. I have explained that I do not have decent information, and what I am able to view does not correlate to what I am being told. You claim to have better information than I do, yet, so far, have not been able to explain the discrepancies I have noticed. Either you are unable to do so, are unwilling to do so, or are unwilling to even look to confirm or disprove my observations. I am seeking a logical counter to what I see, and have not yet found it.
You're probably right that the Russians are not really bombing Mariupol and that in fact, the aliens from Mars are the guilty party here. Thanks for the heads up.
Not necessarily.
I have seen "live" interviews from Kiev. One had the soldiers that did not know how to hold their weapons, or how to insert a clip into a machine gun. Everyone looked very awkward and nervous, but not afraid or angry. Just really awkward.
The other had a reporter in the forefront of a parking lot "filled with the dead", lots of body bags, all neatly separated by about 6 feet, no fluid leaking from any, no signs of body fluids anywhere, and the bags moved from the inside. At one point over the reporter's left shoulder one of the body bags unzips itself and a guy in a toque repositions himself before zipping the bag closed again.
I saw the latest pictures of the theatre that was bombed in Ukraine. No one fleeing the building, no bodies visible, no blood spatter, no one injured. The building looked abandoned, yet there was smoke from the bombing in the air above it, and coming from the rubble. It looked much too small to house the 1200 civilians that were apparently housed there before the bombing. So what did I actually see: an empty, partially destroyed building, with no people involved at all. That I am clear on. Anything beyond that is speculation.
I agree. However, if our collective information source is the media, then our collective information source is questionable. If there is a solid, unbiased source of information I would be very interested in knowing what it is as I do not know it. Until then I will question what I see, and what I am being told. So too should everyone, but that is their call to make.
Would you have some recollection of the channel? Of the reporter? Any evidence to show or point at?
The pictures of the theatre are from BBC.
I have seen facebook posts with "live video" that have been cut straight out of older war movies, but that is facebook, so question the source eh.
There was no one in that building, it was too small to house 1200, there were no people anywhere, and no litter or garbage anywhere. It looked like a prepped demolition site. There is a person walking by in the video carrying a white plastic bag. The person is walking casually, as if bored. The aerial picture of the theatre has discrepancies from the video of the damaged building. As the aerial picture was taken (stated in the article) on march 14th this year, it should be considered to be accurate enough to use as a landmark for other surrounding structures visible in the video. Some are missing and other have different colours. This is what I mean by non-correlating information. Aerial picture, might be real. Video, real enough, it is a damaged building and some of it is on fire. Bored guy walking by after shopping seems a little off for a freshly bombed site. No emergency crews visible anywhere is definitely discordant with the narrative. Also discordant is no one needing assistance in the building.
Yeah, I have difficulty when there are this many discordant notes in such a short piece.
And maintain the West and NATO are sincere in their sudden concern for war victims ... feel free to explain how.
My guess is you are just confused and incompetent at doing such verifications. If you want to be sure, do travel to Mariupol and see for yourself...
What is your back ground, that you would judge me incompetent?
Information and knowledge management. It takes some competence to check information and from what I can see, you are lacking it.
It may take competence to check information, however, it also takes competence to assess a building for damage, structural integrity and the most likely place to find survivors. It also takes wisdom to determine when something is fucked in what you are seeing, so fucked that perhaps you don't believe what you are being told.
[sup]• Deepfake Zelenskyy surrender video is the 'first intentionally used' in Ukraine war
• Meta takes down deepfake of Ukraine’s President Zelensky surrendering
• Russian War Report: Hacked news program and deepfake video spread false Zelenskyy claims ? and Zelenskyy responds
• Deepfake video of Zelenskyy could be 'tip of the iceberg' in info war, experts warn
[/sup]
? Busted.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, and Russian free rein in the Ukrainian sky, eyes and bombers, makes it difficult.
, what you don't know can still kill you. But never-you-mind.
I have asked for a reliable, unbiased source of information. You have not provided any.
I have asked that you explain the discrepancies I have noted. You have not.
Which is odd, as with your purported background you should be in an ideal position to do so. Ergo, either you are not what you claim, you cannot provide the requested answers because they do not exist, or you are aware that I am correct in my general assumptions.
That's why the urge to have no-fly zones or an effective SAM cover. Yet I wouldn't call it free rein. In the way we have seen Russian Air Force roam around freely above Syria. Of course, there is the Ukrainian SAM defense network, basically from the Soviet era, but still somewhat potent. Likely it is tried to be preserved and used to inflict some losses. And likely still has the effect of Russians being cautious.
If my country really would have given something useful to Ukraine, they would have given those 20 BUK-M1 units to the country as Ukraine has the same missile system at use. But I guessed the Finnish units demolished. And one missile system put into a museum!
And, of course, Putin would be even more angry.
I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to be cautious about drawing conclusions based on sketchy & unverified news reports - BUT - Putin's claims/justifications have been extensively covered - at least here in USA. Just for example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/putin-ukraine-speech.html
You can legitimately say that this coverage is placed in a pro-west context, nonetheless any person can read what Putin is saying and draw their own conclusions.
Yeah, this seems to be a common theme here. I don't know anything, I don't believe anyone, I don't give a fuck, but I am going to bloviate at length anyway...
Or perhaps I couldn't be bothered to dispell your mistakes, which are yours to deal with. I am not in the business of educating careless cretins. I don't think you are well disposed to learn, anyway. You lack the necessary humility.
Exactly. Arguing from a position of ignorance is already ridiculous, most of times. But arguing that others know nothing because Joe Sixpack knows nothing -- now that must be the pinacle of imbecility.
https://t.me/zvezdanews/73170
Let's just hope that propaganda is all there is to this story. There are more than enough things to worry about already.
Could you post the link so we could see what the reporting is like?
Sure, yeah, I don't see how the proposals are mutually exclusive.
My basic thesis in this discussion is that two sides of the story are needed to reach a diplomatic solution.
Now, if Ukraine is going to win, and you care about Ukrainians, ok, no need for diplomacy, just let them "win" as the vast majority of Ukrainians seem to be in favour of fighting and winning and support Zelenskyy
However, if Ukrainians aren't going to win, the diplomacy now is almost always better than diplomacy tomorrow in this sort of situation.
Likewise, fighting to a stalemate ... only purpose is to then have a diplomatic resolution, so still requires both sides of the story (whatever we may morally think of any particular point or who's right and who's wrong or who's more right and who's less right and so on).
Quoting SophistiCat
Nuland literally answers this question about biolabs with with a non-no answer. If there was no bioweapons Nuland would just confidently state there's no bioweapons. Just like if she was asked if Ukaine had nuclear warheads and ICMB's ... she would just say "no, Ukraine does not have nuclear warheads and ICBM" as obviously it doesn't.
Things are not necessarily how they appear ... even the above video could be some deep cover Russian plant; difficult to tell, nothing is clear cut.
Honestly, you don't?
I mean the idea NATO doesn't give an actual shit about Ukrainians, ethnic Russians or whoever, in Ukraine ... doesn't exclude the possibility that the Kremlin also doesn't give much of a shit about ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
First, certainly the Kremlin position is any ethnic Russians still in Ukraine fighting Russia are traitors, just like the Kremlin position is any ethnic Russia in Russia in anyway opposing the war is a traitor. So, unlikely they care about ethnic Russians fighting the war.
For ethnic Russians on Russia's side, likely the Kremlin does care about them (whether genuinely or for propaganda purposes, feel free to decide), and for these ethnic Russians Russia would likely state they started the war super soft to get everyone a chance to leave and also cities and towns that are pro Russian to give up (which does happen) and the "humanitarian assistance" that Russia is at least bringing some stuff ... compared to the West pulling out of Afghanistan and cutting all food and and child care funding and just letting those children starve to death.
Obviously Taliban will do a little corruption with whatever is given to Afghanistan, but there's no reason to believe they wouldn't distribute food if we sent it, nor allow NGO's to distribute the food directly, nor any reason to believe that's not the right thing to do even if Taliban somehow stop any food getting to anyone; but would that really be politically viable for the Taliban, that we send food and they simply throw it in the sea? And ... West has pulled out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban take-over ... so it's not like there's some political demand or reason for sanctions.
NATO just straight abandoned their Afghanistan people and their allies (all those hearts and minds they did manage to win over) and have now let them starve.
And, think of the budget that would be spent to keep NATO in Afghanistan even a few months longer and how must funds it would take to keep getting food into the country?
There's no longer interest in getting food to our Afghanistan "friends" because there's no more arms sales related to the issue.
Also unlikely that they care about ethnic Russians NOT fighting the war either, because the civilians being bombed in Mariupol are in majority ethnic Russians.
You understand now? Putin lied when he said he cared for the lives of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. It was not a 'legitimate grievance', it was just an excuse.
That just isn't true. Read, listen and learn.
Take from the hungry to feed the starving’: UN faces awful dilemma
Agencies forced to cut back aid in Yemen, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Ethiopia despite growing need as funds go to Ukraine
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/17/hungry-starving-aid-agency-face-dilemma-ukraine-yemen-ethiopia-sudan
and here:
https://www.channel4.com/news/youre-asking-me-to-choose-which-children-live-and-which-children-die-says-wfp-head
A roughly remembered quote from the 3min segment:
" No child should die from starvation today, given the 430 trillions of dollars around the world".
Maybe, but I'm sure they would say "liberating" Mariupole from Azov brigade is for the greater good of ethnic Russians.
But how do you know what Putin feels? And it's a legitimate grievance any oppression, such as language suppression, of ethnic Russians, regardless of what Putin feels about it, his concern in negotiation is how it will play out for the Russian people who obviously do care about ethnic Russians.
Legitimate grievance just means there's a valid argument based on at least some facts that do exist, and not some bullshit made up argument.
But sure, you can criticise Putin, the Kremlin, the Russians all you want, doesn't suddenly white knight Ukrainians or the EU or NATO.
As I've explained, even a murderer, confessed to murder, can have legitimate grievances about a fair trial or sentencing or treatment by police and in jail. Having a legitimate grievance does not make a party "right" or "more right", only that it needs to be recognised, perhaps for moral reasons if we agree about the grievance, but for sure in the context of a negotiation. For instance, if the police suddenly need a murderer to testify against his mob boss or whomever, and the murderer has a bunch of legitimate grievances about conditions in jail ... maybe police are going to need to sort that out if they want a deal.
Of course, prisoner may push beyond what's legitimate (like a helicopter and 1 million dollars) and will obviously be turned down on those requests because they are not legitimate.
The first point about a legitimate grievance is that it matters to the counter party, so you obviously have to respond to it if you want something from the counter party, like a deal. Of course, then there's negotiation and a deal is reached or not, it's only the very first step which is trying to understand the counter-party's point of view and what they are complaining about and what they want and what they can offer.
Of course, if police don't want anything from a prisoner, and that prisoner is being mistreated, but there's nothing that prisoner can do ... then likely to just stay that way regardless of this mistreatment being a legitimate grievance.
Oh for fuck's sake :roll:
Don't bother tagging me, I am not reading your ignorant bullshit.
It's her own words, even specifies whatever these biological materials are, shouldn't fall into enemy hands.
We wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't a senatorial hearing.
People here have tried to argue things like "lab could mean anything" or then it's just normal bio-research or then it is bio-weapons research but that's totally legitimate and normal for defensive purposes.
But if you have a better explanation of Nuland's answer, feel free to debate that point of view on a debate forum.
Maybe consider the Western media attitude on this point that it can just be ignored ... is because there's no good answers that account for the facts and what's already admitted to by the US, not just Russia suddenly throwing stuff up on the internet.
Same problem with the neo-Nazi's, it's not just Russia claiming stuff, Western media has documented these guys since 2014, there's all sorts of reportages on them by all sorts of credible journalists ... in addition to what they self publish about themselves!
Totally agreed that anything coming solely from the Russians can be seriously doubted, no way to know if it's true or fabricated, the problem is the stuff coming from Western media and Western institutions. We can't just ignore what "our own side" says simply because it's inconvenient for hating the Russians more. And, of course, what "our own side" says makes the best propaganda for Russia ... doesn't mean Western institutions exposing or admitting to some problems or corruption or totally illegitimate intelligence operations, can't be discussed as that undermines the idea that only Russia is bad now, everyone else good, all Western policies and wars of aggression fought or backed we can just ignore the morality of now, the West pure now.
Thus, a disturbing, psychotic, visceral reaction explains his invasion. It isn’t just his wistful witness to a fading empire or anger over an encroaching NATO or paranoia of western influence that became his casus belli.
He invaded principally after Ukraine proper proclaimed a decommunization of its society. That was the straw that broke him. It is one thing to lose territory, to lose influence or to lose even power. But no true communist, those who see themselves forever as agents of social Utopia, can long endure the death of their spirit-the finality of their ideological soul.
He will not rest.
No he's not.
We can not exclude that there are competing views within the American establishment toward this war. Some maybe want to escalate the conflict between the West and Russia. Others do not want to escalate it further. Maybe "fuck-the-EU" Nuland is dog-whistling to the Russian propaganda and intelligence on purpose, to galvanize them and maybe offer them a pretext for becoming even more reckless. In other words, Nuland and the piece of establishment she represents could be doing their dirty job by exploiting such ambiguous declarations in public hearings.
Nuland is not commenting on the war, she's answering the direct question of whether there are bio-weapons in Ukraine.
And, this theory:
Quoting neomac
Is just more example of how bizarre apologetics for Nuland need to get to actually fit a theory to the facts.
Yeah, sure, maybe Nuland is trying to "galvanize them and maybe offer them a pretext for becoming even more reckless."
Certainly a good tactic, but the problem is that this is really not a good way to do that, as it obviously will play well to the Russian supporters of the war and consolidate support for the war, which makes the war less reckless.
Furthermore, if you did hatch such a plan, you wouldn't do the taunting in a senatorial hearing; the classic strategy for what you propose is to feed Russia false intelligence that can be easily disproved, denied or just ignored later.
So, maybe some elaborate prank ... always possible, or maybe "fuck-the-EU" Nuland just wants to do what she claims and fuck the EU by orchestrating a coup with neo-Nazi's, setting those neo-Nazi's up with means and resources and then institutional legitimacy, and then setting up bio-weapons labs for this neo-Nazi cesspool as she feels that's a good way to "fuck-the-EU" which is her stated desire.
EU has gotten fucked, has it not?
How do you know that it matters to them?
“It’s a paradox: it wasn’t Western Ukraine that was bombed — the main devastating blows fell on the cities of Eastern Ukraine, where more or less pro-Russian sentiments existed until February 24. Massive strikes were carried out in residential areas where the Russian-speaking population lives. Do you understand the absurdity? "We will now make you fall in love with the Russian language by bombing." It just looks ridiculous."
If they wanted a clear & unequivocal answer from Nuland, they would have asked for such an answer. But they didn’t, and also that can be seen as suspicious.
Quoting boethius
Feeding the Russian propaganda with half truths to increase Russian support will facilitate e.g. Russian use of chemical weapons in a "false flag" attack against Ukraine [1]. This would be an example of being more reckless.
Quoting boethius
I’m referring to a war of propaganda and how the Russian intelligence resources might be invested to feed the propaganda machine.
Quoting boethius
I’m just saying that one part of the American establishment might find some use in feeding the “neo-Nazi”, “bio-weapons”, “Russian genocide” narrative in a way that on their side grants plausible deniability while on the other side it can contribute to escalate tensions between Russia, Ukraine and EU.
Quoting boethius
As much as Russia, its useful idiots and its useless troll army.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-may-use-chemical-weapons-false-flag-attack-not-more-broadly-western-2022-03-11/
The senator was totally shocked that the answer wasn't no, and changed the subject to his next question (aka. damage control) that any chemical attack we can know ahead of time is like totally Russia, which Nuland then stops what she was saying to joviently declare chemical attacks Russia's MO.
Quoting neomac
It's not feeding Russian propaganda with half truths, it's a completely legitimate conversation about something "fuck-the-EU" Nuland said, and as someone who lives in the EU, I think it's pretty relevant to evaluate her testimony as potentially revealing her "fuck-the-EU" strategy.
Of course, any legitimate criticism by EU citizens of US official operating in the EU, will also be used for propaganda purposes by plenty of parties, doesn't render legitimate discussions "half truths feeding the propaganda"; indeed, it's only so amazingly awesome for propaganda purposes because it's a legitimate discussion. If it was out of context, minor official, nothing burger, then using it for propaganda can easily blow-back when the nothing burgerness is established. What's shocking in the Nuland testimony is there's no contextual ambiguity, she's a high official that would know, and she even disambiguates what she means by clarifying that what she's talking about shouldn't fall in the hands of the Russians and they're working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.
Quoting neomac
Yeah, obviously there's also a propaganda or "information" war going on, but the problem with ignoring legitimate issues of debate because talking about something may "help the bad person" is that ... how do you even know who's good and bad if truth is off-limits. I'm not advocating we should peddle in half truths, I'm advocating we should deal in truths. Obviously, any given truth is going to help certain people more than others and, indeed, could be extremely embarrassing to certain people and not others. Doesn't change the fact that it's true.
Quoting neomac
That's what would normally happen. What's so unusual is there isn't plausible deniability. On the question of neo-Nazi's the West and Ukraine defence ministry had the assurance to everyone that "volunteers" (aka. Azov brigade) weren't doing any fighting and, sure, aren't "really Nazi's". Journalists went to record them fighting (which would mean, if US was following its own policies, that Ukraine should not get weapons and training support). The spokesperson of Azov brigade itself clarified they only have "10 to 20%" members who are Nazi's.
Then, this testimony of Nuland you'd think would have some plausible deniability, but she clarifies she's talking about stuff the Russian's shouldn't find and they need to work hard to make sure the Russian's don't find it ... which is alarming and also just weird as to why they didn't take care of it if they knew the war was coming as US intelligence publicly claimed.
This is what's so odd in these subjects, is that you'd expect plausible deniability, which then, sure, whatever, who knows, but these issues don't have plausible deniability.
Quoting neomac
I do not claim the war is good for Russia. EU getting fucked doesn't exclude Russia getting fucked as well. But at least Russia is achieving something and getting at least whatever military gains they do get (even if it doesn't compensate the losses and sanctions, they'll at least get something).
What does the EU get? More or less the collapse of its immense soft power position in the world overnight, and nothing in return, except of course Russian gas.
However this Ukr. situation ends, one thing looks certain: afterwards, in the West, this low level of public discourse will be cemented as the norm that everyone must comply with.
The Russian demands fall into two categories.
The first four demands are, according to Mr Kalin, not too difficult for Ukraine to meet.
Chief among them is an acceptance by Ukraine that it should be neutral and should not apply to join Nato. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has already conceded this.
There are other demands in this category which mostly seem to be face-saving elements for the Russian side.
Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.
This is deeply offensive to Mr Zelensky, who is himself Jewish and some of whose relatives died in the Holocaust, but the Turkish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelensky to accept. Perhaps it will be enough for Ukraine to condemn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them.[/quote]
Indeed, perhaps it's enough for Zelensky to just publicly say neo-Nazi's are bad and should not have their own paramilitary brigades and bases, where they publicly said they'll kill the government if the Ukrainian actual military came for their guns.
The rest of the article is interesting as well on the other category which was the land issue.
[quote=BBC;https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754]
Still, President Putin's demands are not as harsh as some people feared and they scarcely seem to be worth all the violence, bloodshed and destruction which Russia has visited on Ukraine.
Given his heavy-handed control over the Russian media, it shouldn't be too hard for him and his acolytes to present all this as a major victory.[/quote]
Which is a pretty good insight on part of the state owned media the BBC.
Some Kremlin PR hack drafting respectable-sounding diplomatic soundbytes to feed to the media, meanwhile Putin's army is destroying entire cities full of non-combatants because his troops are too incompetent to win on a battlefield.
Take a look at what Putin's army is doing to Kharkiv.
This is literally the BBC ... yes, state media, but the British state media last time I checked.
Yes, one might suppose the level of destruction might disrupt the vision of a negotiated space.
I suppose we will have the luxury of determining the limits afterwards. Forensics work best on dead people.
In your cryptosoviet dreams.
The BBC and other Western media are starting to "prepare" people for a negotiated settlement ... whether to encourage that to happen or then it's already been "more or less" worked out behind the scenes. Keep in mind Russia and US still have the "nuclear emergency phone" so may have been having a totally parallel top level negotiation all this time.
We certainly don't know the facts on the ground, but Russia and US certainly have a pretty good picture. If Ukraine can't win, then both Russia and US certainly know that, and they may have already worked out "a deal" of some sort.
Negotiation between the big powers is always secret and they can always "horse trade" all sorts of stuff, certainly to the disapproval of everyone here.
At the end of the day, Biden wants to be reelected more than he hate Russians, and so he's "pro Ukraine war" when that boosted his ratings, and now that there's not only blowback but potentially a lot more blowback if the war continues, he / administration maybe willing to work out a deal with Russia (there's all sorts of diplomatic channels to "feel things out", but the nuclear phone would be the most "dramatic" and I assume has been used in all these nuclear escalation talks).
The big liability for Biden if the war is not resolved is that supporting Ukraine and denouncing Russia has played well in this phase, but if Ukraine loses then he looks weak, which is worse in American domestic politics and all these international relations considerations.
So, at this particular moment of the war, everyone, in particular US and Russia (the people with all the nuclear weapons) can call it quits and still say they won.
As I said previously, Zelensky is entirely dependent on NATO, therefore the US, to supply his army, so will accept whatever deal US tells him to accept.
I want to see a resolution because I don't like people dying. Morality questions are easier to discuss with people that are still alive.
This is literally what has just happened with cold war 2.0.
It's not a Soviet dream ... soft power didn't matter much in the cold war, but mattered a lot after the cold war, and again doesn't matter much in the new cold war.
EU doesn't have hard power, NATO does and it's lead by the US (which isn't even in the EU), so, as the worlds largest economic block, the EU had a lot more soft power in the global integrated economy as it existed before this war in Ukraine and schism in said globally integrated economy.
I see zero shock on Senator Rubio's face, voice, posture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvRpntmUIxs). The next question is just reinforcing the narrative that Russia can use the Ukrainian bio labs for a false flag operation similarly to what may have happened in Syria & Chechnya.
Quoting boethius
What is ambiguous may be that she didn’t say simply “no” right away. However the explanations she gave were enough to make clear that whatever was in that lab could have been weaponized by the Russians against the Ukrainian civilians (as it is claimed to have happened in Syria and Chechnya). And that also why she didn’t simply say “no”. Still the Russians and its troll army could try to play it against Ukraine b/c whatever can be weaponized against the Ukrainian civilians can as well be weaponized against the Russian army or philo-Russian civilians.
Quoting boethius
They took care of it.
Quoting boethius
Unity against a common enemy (Russia) and question their subordinate role toward an unreliable US. This awakening may be essential for EU's future survival and prosperity.
LOL. Any European coalition can beat this Russian army flat out. The Italian air force all by itself would blow those Sukhois out of the sky in a day, and then be able to bomb Moscow day and night. Not to speak of the French or the Brits. Even the Germans should be able in a few years to beat Russia single handedly.
If they can't beat the Ukrainians, they can't even beat Belgium.
Don't bother with him. I'm beginning to think there are people in here that are truly part of the Russian propaganda machine, apologists for Russia and this war. It's disgusting really. It's one thing to try and be unbiased, but I think that people have lived far too long in a world that's super-grey, with extremely complex variables making everything hard to figure out. And then something like this hits the world and people can't seem to think within something pretty crystal clear. It was long ago since we had someone so clearly the bad guy as Putin and people have such a hard time grasping that idea that they can only compare it to some Hollywood simplification. Well, it really isn't. The whole thing is complex as a piece of causality, but the players on the board right now aren't. I guess it was the same around Germany in the 30s, lots of people trying to point out the pretty clear reality of what is going on while some people just couldn't accept it. Especially after WWI and everyone trying to intellectually cope with the fallout of all empires collapsing and who to blame in that mess. So now people try to understand something without looking at what is going on right in front of their eyes.