Ukraine Crisis

Quoting neomac

It seems you weren’t following this argument either. So, let’s recapitulate, Ukrainians are fighting a patriotic war against the Russian invasion, you claimed that “defending one's nation’ alone is insufficient as a moral reason” because “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” In other words, the insufficiency claim just implies that one has more reason to fight against a greater oppressor, but it doesn’t deny that one has a moral reason to fight against a lesser oppressor (as much as having an insufficient amount of food doesn’t imply having no food). That was unexpected though because you claimed elsewhere that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral, so no moral reason at all ever.
To make sure you really meant what I understood about your moral reason insufficiency claim, I observed: “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” In my observation I used “fight Y” (e.g. fighting the Russian invasion) to refer to your “defending one's nation” for the obvious reason that this was what we were talking about and I too intend the Ukrainian war primarily as a patriotic resistance by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion. That’s why there was no need to explicitly mention “defending one's nation” in (2). Then you answered: “Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.” So by saying “yes” you were agreeing to all of this statement “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” And since you agreed with this statement it followed that you didn’t make the opposite claim.
So even if it were true that your response “it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself”, yet you agreed to my claim by saying “yes” and by using my claim to justify why you didn’t make a certain other claim. My objections to your position follow from what you agreed to in the context of that exchange, namely that “defending one's nation” is a moral reason however insufficient.

What a delightful construction. No doubt in your simple world it's the only possible interpretation of what has been an extremely long and complex exchange in a medium doubly flawed from the start (language and brevity). I can definitely see the attraction of erasing the distinction between the way the world seems to you and the way the world actually is.

Quoting neomac

We are past that. De facto circumstances in this case include also a conflict between American and Russian expansionism.

I'm at a loss as to why you're extracting weird rules from what was quite a simple moral statement, but in our continued exhaustive efforts to rule out every other possible interpretation prior to accepting the obvious one, I'll add that no, I do not mean that one must always be constrained by all the de facto circumstances either. I don't know how I can make this more clear. There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal.

I do not mean that all de facto circumstances are morally relevant, nor do I mean that in all circumstances all people are morally constrained by all de facto circumstances.

Quoting neomac

if you want to use a multi-causal explanation to support related claims you should go through the kind of analysis I suggested.

No. You offered absolutely no compelling reason why I need to do some kind of proportional calculation before talking about multiple causes. The suggestion was just absurd and remains so.

Quoting neomac

Then, are your moral claims arbitrary too for you didn’t give any reason for your choice of method to determine your moral claims, as far as I remember?

Yes. My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary.

Quoting neomac

> Who said anything about helping Russia win?

I am, based on what you support in a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, and other claims of yours such as “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”

So because I think the Russian terms would make a good diplomatic end to the killing and I don't like capitalism I want Russia to win? I mean, it's hard to take you seriously with that kind of shit going on.

Quoting neomac

The question is always the same would you support a patriotic fight or would you support surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? Yes or no?

The answer is the same. I'm neither an expert in these matters, nor someone whose opinion you respect so there's no reasonable circumstances in which you're asking such a question because you actually want to know the answer. You're asking it because you want the answer to form part of your counter argument. I know this, you know this. So the exercise is pointless because I'm only going to try and answer it in such a way as to head off your potential use of my answer in said counter-argument, and you already know that I'll do that in advance of asking the question.

Quoting neomac

I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

You brought him up.

Quoting neomac

Your questions show a poor understanding of what I’ve already said. Besides you could ask the last ones to yourself since you talked about “an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts” to make a point. I could elaborate my ideas further, yet the subject of this thread is the war in Ukraine not whatever unsolicited intellectual failure of yours I happen to witness. So let’s stay focused on the war in Ukraine.

So "no idea" then?

Quoting neomac

From this unnecessary yet plausibly motivated contrast, I had the strong impression you were implicitly supporting a regime change too. And that’s it.

The power of a good story...

Quoting neomac

> The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.

Then your objections were pointless.

My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

Quoting neomac

And yet you claimed: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer ‘because of some reasons’, then we might as well give up here. I’m asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.”
In other words, I’m in the right place for questioning your claims, as you yourself acknowledged. So suck it up and move on.

One's reasons for holding some belief and the factual accuracy of those claims are not the same thing. I believe very strongly that the earth rotates around the sun, but I have absolutely no data at all on the factual accuracy of that claim. I believe it because it appears to be uncontested by those who are qualified and have looked at the data. I trust them. My reason for believing the earth rotates around the sun is that it is the view of all modern cosmologists and in that field, I tend to just believe whatever they say. You are attempting to do the equivalent of analysing my beliefs on the basis of some actual measurements you made of the earth's orbit. I'm not in the least bit interested in that kind of analysis because neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to judge. If you said "why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism..." then we'd be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.

Quoting neomac

On a given topic, if one makes a claim, it’s on him to argue for it, if challenged (and also the challenge should be argued). That’s the game I’m playing in a philosophy forum.

Nonsense. What constitutes a 'claim', an 'argument', a 'challenge'... ?You set all these terms and their parameters to suit a narrative that you're playing out by your interaction here. It's just a role in a social game - you act out the script of the 'oh so rational analyst' because it's the badge you have to wear to fit the part in the story you have for yourself. The thousands of words, each with five or six different possible interpretations, the hundreds of sentences per post, each one possible to take in ten different ways, the dozens of choices about my intentions, my meanings, my objectives... You don't seriously think you make all those decisions on the basis of some cold mathematical algorithm do you? You interpret each one, each tiny possible misunderstanding each fork in the probability tree of possible meanings is weighted in favour of the preferred narrative, and each is so open to interpretation that within less a dozen such choices (of which there are thousands) virtually everything I've said can be moulded to fit virtually any narrative you care to come up with.

That's the game you're playing. We all are.

Quoting Benkei

If it does, I do hope nuclear winter and global warming cancel each other out.

:lol:

If you are in Russia, you can no longer watch this classic Soviet cartoon on Youtube (although Youtube hasn't been banned yet):



Kids explore the seas in a submersible named "Neptune" (sporting yellow and blue colors!) in search of sunken treasure. Instead they find a sunken Nazi warship with a letter Z inscribed on its side.


Quoting ssu

Basically Russian history tells us how we got here.

Come, ssu, get with the program. Who cares about Russian history? History matters only when it revolves around the US. Everything revolves around the US. America is so powerful that it dwarfs all other causal factors, in all matters, everywhere.

Enough about Russia and Ukraine already. This thread, like every thread having to do with politics and current events, is about America.

Quoting StreetlightX

It is absolutely legitimate to heap focus on the most destructive and powerful imperial agent on the face of the Earth, especially as a bulwark against those who continue to swallow Western propaganda wholesale while spouting off racist narratives as a matter of casual conversation.

Yet Russia's actions aren't Western propaganda, to put it simply.

Why do you think Finland and Sweden are now shedding it's foreign policy stance that one country since the Napoleonic Wars and the other for nearly all it's independence?

Quoting FreeEmotion

Russia has woken up, realizing everything is slip-sliding away from them unless they put a buffer stop of Ukraine and Crimea. Even so, there is no guarantee the West will destroy the rest.

Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.

So Russian imperialism is OK while Western imperialism is bad?

Quoting Olivier5

Another criterion may be whether the alliance is defensive or offensive, most of times. This is based on the idea legitimate self-defense against illegitimate aggression.

I believe in defensive alliances, not offensive. And alliances that really put emphasis on that between members, if they have differences, the military option is out of the question. This ought to be self evident, but that it isn't, you have the perfect example of the Gulf Co-operation Council. The GCC acted promptly when one of it's member was attacked (by then Iraq). Unfortunately in an area that desperately needs sound and peaceful policies, later the relations became so bad among the member states that one was nearly attacked militarily by others.

Which just tells something about how wars can happen when you have individual monarchs ruling their countries without no restraints.

Reply to FreeEmotion
I don't think it's that simple. The US use of nuclear weapons took place when they were new and an unknown factor in warfare. They were used before MAD, before hydrogen bombs and multimegaton yields, and before ICBMs allowed for global delivery of the weapons on a hair trigger. Their use in 1945 couldn't cause an apocalypse.

Their use was in the context of air wars that were killing significantly more civilians than the primitive nuclear devices did. They were, on the one hand, a game changer as new uses for them rapidly developed, and on the other, less deadly than other single US air raids carried out in Japan and Germany with conventional bombs. They also came in the context of the Axis and Allies having used indiscriminate air raids on each other for almost 6 years in Europe, and over a decade in Asia.

Maybe more importantly, they existed outside the context of a proscription against first use that has since been adopted by every nuclear power for most of a century now.

It's a violation of norms other powers don't want. China has no incentive in seeing Russia normalize the use of nuclear weapons. It could spark development by their neighbors, which would ruin its strategic position. It sees itself gaining ground conventionally in the Pacific Rim. Nuclear armed neighbors fighting in a world where using nukes doesn't make you a exile state would ruin all their long term ambitions vis-á-vis the balance of power. India also doesn't want nuclear use normalized for Pakistan, who is has a conventional advantage against.

The problem for would be allies of Russia if they use nukes is that they will create an incentive for nukes to be used on them. Right now official doctrine and agreements say that first users get exiled from the international community, and there is strong incentives to live up to that, at least initially.

Not to mention that it would be a sea change in Russian standing in the world and an excuse to push historic claims on Russian land (which Japan and China have). Both like to remind Russia every now and again that they are illegally occupying their land, and China has actually done something about it with a labor policy that has made the areas of the Russian Far East majority Han, and the entire Federal District around 12.5-15% Han since 2000, when almost no Chinese citizens lived there.

Quoting ssu

Just what is slipping up from them?

Russia is a fading star. One last bright flash and it is all over. I think they all feel this.

Quoting Benkei

The only way there is probably us the US and Russia negotiate a non-intervention treaty

That's a nice thought but I think it will have NATO laughing all the way to the bank. I think it is time Putin made a sarcastic statement that he was ready to discuss the terms of Russia's subjugation to the West and its final dissolution to a sort of a Russian speaking Iceland.

Quoting ssu

Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.

So Russian imperialism is OK while Western imperialism is bad?

Imperialism is bad, fighting against it is good, but costly, might as well give in. What I see before me is Western Imperialism. One response is for Russia to surrender - I suggest Versailles as the location, hopefully the same railway carriage is there but if it is any consolation the Nazis will be on the winning side.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think it's they simple. The US use of nuclear weapons took place when they were new and an unknown factor in warfare.

I missed that completely, thanks for pointing that all out: it's easy to use nuclear weapons when no-one else has them and they are low yield in effect. No threat of proportional response 'in kind' which a nice thing to have in a conflict.

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

Reply to FreeEmotion

No threat of proportional response 'in kind' which a nice thing to have in a conflict.

Right, and this is why low yield nukes; artillery shells dialed to a few hundred tons, man portable rockets capable of replicating the explosive power of the world's largest conventional bombs, etc. become unthinkable to use. An individual use isn't that qualitatively different from a large conventional strike, it's just far easier to use. However, the firepower advantage is so huge that you will force your opponent to also begin using nuclear arms. Conventional forces will be helpless against the onslaught of tactical nuclear weapons, and you'll quickly get to a point where lobbing strategic arsenals at each other is the only thing that makes sense, given a single howitzer can wipe out a division with a 5 kiloton yield shell.

It's actually more of a problem for powers like the US and China, who expect to have a conventional advantage in wars if tactical nuclear weapons spread since it reduces their comparable advantage. I have to imagine some of this played a role in the Chinese nuclear guarantee of Ukraine.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Russia is a fading star. One last bright flash and it is all over. I think they all feel this.

I really don't think all Russians accept or support Putin's imperialism. Some do, but I know some and actually many if not all of them are against Putin. Many were in shock about what Putin has done.

They might love their country and culture, but they feel utter contempt what their country is now doing.

Would you desire to have your countries politicians do "one last bright flash and it is all over"? I don't think so.

Quoting FreeEmotion

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

How were they kicked around? By inviting Russia to the G7 countries (to become G8)? At least by size of the economy South Korea or India would be more likely.

Ask first, just why do countries neighboring Russia that don't have Russian troops want to join NATO?

That kicking around and demonization happened after the wars Putin has gotten Russia into.

Reply to Benkei, such a deal would have to be negotiated by Ukraine (the invaded) and Russia (the invader). A bit hard to do with bombs falling (and the implied threat of ramping up military), despite concessions having been made in public for all to hear. Ironically perhaps, something nuclear missiles and NATO have in common is deterrence. Ukraine has neither, just ruined infrastructure, dead, etc, and apparently some war crimes committed. The ball's in the invader's court in that respect and has been for a bit.

Reply to Isaac, right, no such thing as simple here. The NATO thing was a primary concern though and has been conceded. Getting to the negotiation table is warranted (if that concern was genuine and primary in the first place). Otherwise... Peace was never in the cards? The invasion was inevitable? Long-term plan? :/ (I don't think rhetoric like "weak" and "decadent" is much of a rationale for war, just the usual hot air.) So far, Ukraine has lost infrastructure, people, freedom, but has kicked a good deal of invaders. Russia has lost soldiers, weaponry, freedom of press, trust/goodwill from several other parties, economics, but has inflicted damage on its targets, and is holding some areas.

Completely unrelated, I'm rooting for Sergiy S Tkachenko, an accomplished Ukrainian typographer that's put together nifty fonts and such. Otherwise occupied at the moment, though.

Quoting SophistiCat

Come, ssu, get with the program. Who cares about Russian history? History matters only when it revolves around the US. Everything revolves around the US. America is so powerful that it dwarfs all other causal factors, in all matters, everywhere.

Enough about Russia and Ukraine already. This thread, like every thread having to do with politics and current events, is about America.

:up:

Quoting jorndoe

Ironically perhaps, something nuclear missiles and NATO have in common is deterrence. Ukraine has neither, just ruined infrastructure, dead, etc, and apparently some war crimes committed. The ball's in the invader's court in that respect and has been for a bit.

Similarly to my country, Ukraine's only deterrence would have been it's will to fight and ability to cause losses to the Russian army.

A deterrence it actually had, but crucially nobody believed it would have.

Not after losing Crimea without one bullet fired.

That even the West that had assisted in the training of the armed forces for years now anticipated that the conventional war would last only days and then it would quickly become a guerilla war shows clearly that the West didn't put much faith in Ukraine.

Add to this a dictator whose outrageous gambles (annexing Crimea, intervening in the US elections, intervening in Syria...) have been extremely successful and haven't been costly and one can easily see why the deterrence that Ukraine ought to have had (as now it has show what it can defend itself) didn't materialize.

Reply to frank It would be chaos. The climate we’re used to had stabilised over millennia. Now it’s becoming less stable again fast. A nuclear winter would make no difference, or make it worse. But we’re past the tipping point now, so there’s no stopping it.

Quoting Punshhh

The climate we’re used to had stabilised over millennia.

It wasn't going to stay that way, though.

Reply to frank Yes, but with the effects of our modern civilisation it’s the rate of change which is different and destabilising. We may see some extreme weather events and growing in number.

Quoting Olivier5

It’s hardly “water under the bridge.”
— Xtrix

I know. NATO is evil. Evil. Evil evil evil evil.

I'm not sure how to take this. Is this what you believe or is it an attempt to mock what you think I believe?

If the latter: no, I don't think NATO is "evil." That's meaningless. I think the promises and assurances made by Bush/Baker to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward is not meaningless. I think that's very relevant, especially right now -- even if it's considered "water under the bridge" by most people in the west. The Russians certainly haven't forgotten -- and rightfully so.

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

(And, once again, in case there's any doubt: I condemn Putin's actions without question. I condemned the actions of 9/11, as well; was it also not relevant to understand the role of US foreign policy, particularly with Israel, in that situation? Is understanding how the Iraq war created ISIS and its atrocities? Or was that water under the bridge too?)

Quoting Punshhh

A nuclear winter would make no difference, or make it worse.

IF we have a nuclear war, hundreds of cities nuked, enormous firestorms all round the planet, you can rest, quite assured that global warming will drop to the bottom of the list of things to worry about. As Tom Lehrer put it back in the 1960,

Oh, we will all fry together when we fry
We'll be french fried potatoes by and by
There will be no more misery, when the world is our rotisserie
Yes, we will all fry together when we fry

Quoting Punshhh

But we’re past the tipping point now, so there’s no stopping it.

My guess is that we are beyond the tipping point -- but I have no data to back up the guess. (Please don't send me data; I'm old and have no time to process extra data sets.) Whether we are or not, we will likely lurch into successively more difficult climate events that will be difficult to predict.

Tra la la

Quoting Punshhh

it’s the rate of change which is different and destabilising

Absolutely.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I have to imagine some of this played a role in the Chinese nuclear guarantee of Ukraine.

Thanks for the clarification, I missed the Chines nuclear gaurentee?

Military hardware is one thing, but military personnel and higher officials - do they have to have different make - up from the rest of us? They have to be able to bring themselves to take actions which would incinerate large numbers of civilians at the touch of a button - do you have to lose your soul first?

Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In reality, the “duty” is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a lifetime. Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a significant source of trauma; trauma that is compounded by factors such as proximity to the victim and the type of weapon used.

One of the factors that Grossman explores in detail is distance. If the victim is far away and out of sight, the mental impact of the act of killing is far less. When soldiers can’t see the victims it is easier to remain in denial about the consequences of their actions.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201402/death-becomes-us-the-psychological-trauma-killing

Quoting ssu

Would you desire to have your countries politicians do "one last bright flash and it is all over"? I don't think so.

What I meant was that I see Russia as having one last chance to survive as a sovereign and independent nation. I am fine with living in a vassal state, but there is a certain responsibility of a nation to preserve its independence. I see no imperialism in securing a buffer state or two. Imperialism is sailing across the oceans to gain control over territory in order to gain wealth. England had 'colonised' about 80% of the world, before those in power realized their mistake.

Is Russia a free country in terms of its international relations? I think the little freedom it as a superpower diminished with the break-up. After all, superpowers have super powers, being able to see things others do not see, and able to leap over the edifice of international law and treaties in a single bound.

First-hand accounts and footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmzJr1oUjKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roeBgx3M5Eo

Quoting FreeEmotion

I am fine with living in a vassal state

Well I'm not.

Some utterly delusional people might think it's totally equivalent to live in Belarus or in the UK as if UK being an ally of US is thus "a vassal state" of the US. It's just preposterous and simply disgusting. Putin murders his opponents and has a created a totalitarian police state with now more political prisoners in prisons that the Soviet Union. So do you want your country to be a "vassal state" to him, because being a vassal state to Russia is what the definition literally means while implying that being in NATO makes you a vassal state of the US is this verbal rhetoric leftist "intellectuals" can use. So go to Belarus and notice the difference.

Quoting FreeEmotion

but there is a certain responsibility of a nation to preserve its independence.

Yes, that's what the Ukrainians are doing.

Quoting FreeEmotion

I see no imperialism in securing a buffer state or two.

Do you understand just how crazy that sounds? Securing buffer states is imperialist jargon.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Imperialism is sailing across the oceans to gain control over territory in order to gain wealth.

Imperialism is to assume you have a right for buffer states. Imperialism is to declare that another country is artificial, somehow incapable of governing itself and thus your country, as a stronger country, has the right to take charge of it and then exploit it because the weak have to fail and might makes right. Imperialism is to conquer more territory and subjugate other people. Because your better.

Russia just hadn't had that ocean that it has sailed over. It has had just an ocean of steppe and land to walk over through, but it's actions have been totally similar to the Western powers. The only difference is that while the Western Imperialist countries de-colonized, Russia didn't. It was preserved because of the Soviet Union.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Is Russia a free country in terms of its international relations?

You should ask yourself right now, is Russia a free country for starters and what it's actually doing.

Ask yourself, just why are Russia neighbors trying to join NATO? Or more basically, why they want to be

Because if you assume that Russia would have this natural right to have buffer zones or two, then you are defending that imperialism.

Reply to FreeEmotion

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

I’m surprised to hear this here. It’s back to front, upside down from the reality.

In reality “Putin’s duty to fight for the honour of his country”, is Putin playing the saviour of the people allegedly receiving hate from outside, so as to boost support and cement need for his autocracy to continue. This is strait from the autocrat playbook.

The idea that the Russian people have been kicked around on the world stage is also false. It may have happened more recently. But for many years before that, there had been many moves to be more inclusive to Russia, for example sporting tournaments have been held there, even an international football tournament was to be hosted by Russia at the moment. This is now cancelled. A colleague of mine who is a curator for the V&A museum in the U.K. was due to stage an important museum exhibition in Moscow prior to the Salisbury poisonings. Which was immediately cancelled at that time. There was lots of socio-cultural (along with economic) integration going on with European people.

It is solely the aggressive and accusative behaviour of the Putin regime over a number of years which has caused the breakdown in this cooperation, leading inexorably to this crisis. Behaviour taken from that same autocratic playbook.

Quoting ssu

Not after losing Crimea without one bullet fired.

Putin was probably hoping for a repeat of that when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022 - an analysis of Russian preparations and the current status of the conflict might throw up clues as to how short the war was expected to be in the eyes of the Russian top brass. They seem to be at their wits end now that stiff Ukrainian resistance has prolonged Moscow's annexation plans.

If anybody hasn't yet heard this eloquent response from the Kenyan UN ambassador, one should hear it. It was given just before the war actually started. At least he understands the connection of the current war to an imperialist past.

Quoting Agent Smith

Putin was probably hoping for a repeat of that when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022 - an analysis of Russian preparations and the current status of the conflict might throw up clues as to how short the war was expected to be in the eyes of the Russian top brass. They seem to be at their wits end now that the stiff Ukrainian resistance has prolonged the Moscow's annexation plans.

Add to the spectacular dismissal of the people in the FSB, who's job was to give intel about Ukraine. Obviously Putin was angry. Likely they had given him the intel he wanted to hear.

Yes, this is what extremely likely happened. For Putin, this was the launching of his own "Operation Barbarossa", a venture that will fail because the hubris from earlier success got to him, just as it one former German leader last century.

Yet it should be noticed that now he has de facto admitted failure and withdrawn troops from the Kyiv front totally. But if he would be a realist, he would a) forget and never mention 9th of May and set timetables and b) take the time he needs to reorganize his troops.

But the way the Russian system goes, it's likely that next offensive is made in haste. It takes a lot more than 50 days for Russians to really get their act together. Which in the long term is good as I truly hope Putin will endure a huge defeat in Ukraine.

Reply to ssu Thanks for that video, Great speech, short and clear. It didn't have to be like this... I haven't heard much from 'our' leaders of this wisdom. I speak, incidentally, from Wales, a vassal state of England; the self-styled "first colony" thereof.

Reply to ssu :up:

Quoting Xtrix

If the latter: no, I don't think NATO is "evil." That's meaningless. I think the promises and assurances made by Bush/Baker to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward is not meaningless. I think that's very relevant, especially right now -- even if it's considered "water under the bridge"

Why is it relevant? What are the implications for the way forward?

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet.

Reply to ssu :up:

Quoting unenlightened

It didn't have to be like this... I haven't heard much from 'our' leaders of this wisdom. I speak, incidentally, from Wales, a vassal state of England; the self-styled "first colony" thereof.

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them. That it's military would have had enough deterrence for the Russians. But that wasn't the case. Putin didn't give a shit about the Minsk agreements, that was clear quite soon.

Actually what we then remembered was the collapse of Afghanistan, a country that we had assisted and trained a lot more than Ukraine just having it's large army collapsing instantly and people clinging desperately to American C-17 transports. Why wouldn't Ukraine be also such an easy picking?

Quoting ssu

Why wouldn't Ukraine be also such an easy picking?

Go on then...

Tell us what's wrong with the Afghans.

While your at it, you can explain the flaws in the Chechen national character.

Then tell us what up with those Belorussians.

And the French... Why were that such a walkover?

Reply to Isaac ?

You think it's racial? Or what would that wrongness be? Or you think others think so?

Of course knowing you...that's your ideas how you portray anyone disagreeing with you being a racist. Or something.

Perhaps a country that's budget is 2/3 based on international aid and only 1/3 actual domestic revenues simply creates an environment of rampant corruption. The US created the real ponzi government, basically. And when those benefactors, those who pay the majority of the governments expenses, who also have picked your president (because he's made a stellar career in the US and in international organizations) actually not only declare that they are leaving and won't be around, but also make a deal with the enemy your fighting with that for them it's totally OK to attack you, but not them, what do you think will happen?

What do you think an Afghan soldier would think about when he understands that a) everybody is just cashing in on the system, b) the US has sold them out to the Taliban and has declared it will leave and won't assist in the fight. So isn't it then reasonable to say "fuck this" and take the deal with the Taliban that they'll spare you and you can go home if you stop fighting? Knowing the Afghan way of war, this would be reasonable. What would you be giving up your life for?

The Afghans could defend themselves from invaders and with the clusterfuck of actions made by the US, it was sure that it would all collapse.

So no Isaac, there's nothing wrong with Afghans.

From their viewpoint (now onwards), Afghans have fought the British, the Russians, the Americans and kicked all of them out. What's wrong with that?

Reply to ssu

Just wondering if you and @SophistiCat et al are willing to accept the corollary of your praise for the Ukrainians, it seems not.

You see any success you ascribe to the Ukrainian's sheer pluck, you must also then accept failures to be the result of a 'lack of pluck'. To the extent that the Ukrainian's national character is the answer to their success, the lack of such character must then explain the failure of the Chechens, or the Belorussians, or the Russians themselves to resist Putin's imperialism.

I hold to the view human beings are more or less the same across the world, regardless of race or nationality. Which means when one group succeed and another fail, it must be material circumstances that are responsible for the difference. As such, when Ukraine succeed resisting the Russian invasion, I look to see what material circumstances they have in their favour that, say Chechens, lacked (or Russians themselves, for that matter). That factor is mainly the geopolitical circumstances. You, and others seem to think that analysis grossly unfair, that it's the Ukrainian national character that's mainly responsible. So the corollary is that geopolitical circumstances were not the reason the Afghans had so much trouble, not the reason Chechenya fell, not the reason Belarus is a Russian puppet state, not the reason Russians haven't themselves overthrown Putin... It must all be character flaws inherent in those nations.

Unless, of course, you want to explain why failure can always be assigned to geopolitical circumstances, but those same factors have little to no influence on successes?

Quoting Olivier5

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet.

There wouldn’t be a need. There would already have been nuclear war.

Quoting Isaac

You see any success you ascribe to the Ukrainian's sheer pluck, you must also then accept failures to be the result of a 'lack of pluck'. To the extent that the Ukrainian's national character is the answer to their success, the lack of such character must then explain the failure of the Chechens, or the Belorussians, or the Russians themselves to resist Putin's imperialism.

That is a parody argument. Pluck, luck, and whatever the fuck can all be factors of success and failure. Morale is certainly important, and weapon supplies are also important. So are leadership, geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, culture, and bunch of other shit. And the quality of the enemy is also relevant in all these ways too.

And when the big bombs are falling, sheer pluck is totally irrelevant; everybody dies, cowards and heroes alike.

"In Europe, “the narrative is becoming: This is what you get if you deal nicely with authoritarian regimes,” said Ivana Karásková, a researcher on Chinese foreign policy at Charles University in Prague. “It’s becoming not only about Russia; it’s also about China.”". - - NYT

The old conflict between democracy and totalitarianism rises again.

Anyone who didn't think from the get-go that this was always about China in the long run has not been paying attention.

Quoting unenlightened

That is a parody argument.

A parody of what?

Quoting unenlightened

Pluck, luck, and whatever the fuck can all be factors of success and failure.

Indeed. So are we to say that some nations are 'pluckier' than others? Because if not, we can simply divide through and cancel it out as a useful metric. It's the same in all cases. When attacked, a nation will defend itself with all the gusto it can muster. So to limit our analysis to 'pluck' doesn't really tell us much, does it?

Quoting unenlightened

So are leadership, geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, culture, and bunch of other shit.

Yes, but my post was in response to @ssu talking about...

Quoting ssu

this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them.

The very specific claim that Putin (and the West) were surprised by the Ukrainian defense. That something about the Ukrainian defense was unexpected. So that pretty much rules out geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, all of which were known beforehand. Culture too, but perhaps less so. Not exactly a mystery though. That leaves...

Leadership - of course, but are leaders born or made? If the latter, then by whom?

...and...

A bunch of other shit - would that include, or exclude the support of the most powerful nation on earth?

Quoting Isaac

So are we to say that some nations are 'pluckier' than others?

Double down on your stupidity why not? "we" say nothing. I say that indeed nations have a morale in relation to other nations. It is not fixed, but variable. So Ukraine in relation to Russia clearly has changed in attitude in the last 8 years. They were a push-over, and they are not now. And of course Western weapons are a factor too. There's nothing like being well-armed for making one brave.

Quoting Isaac

So to limit our analysis to 'pluck' doesn't really tell us much, does it?

This is the heart of your insulting stupidity; to presume that if one discusses one thing, one is (a) discounting everything else, and (b) making what one mentions absolute and eternal. It's a completely ridiculous parody of an argument. Stop doing it.

Quoting unenlightened

I say that indeed nations have a morale in relation to other nations. It is not fixed, but variable.

So what factors are responsible for that variation?

Quoting unenlightened

to presume that if one discusses one thing, one is (a) discounting everything else

So that would be a bit like assuming that everyone talking about American, European, and NATO culpability is thereby discounting everything else? Now, where might I have come across that kind of attitude recently...?

Of course, ssu using the word "only" was a bit distracting to one's attempt at remembering that he's not "discounting everything else". Where I come from, you see, 'only' means 'discounting everything else'.

Quoting unenlightened

and (b) making what one mentions absolute and eternal.

Things which are not absolute and eternal vary according to forces which themselves are absolute and eternal (on a human scale). So if a nation's morale varies over time, there are factors which cause that variation and such relations will themselves be invariant.

We have here a choice of theories to answer the question 'Why has the Ukrainian defence been stronger than anyone anticipated?'

We could go with A (@ssu's theory) the Ukrainian's just turned out to be better than anyone expected. Since the reasons you listed for variability in defensive aplomb were all know beforehand except for pluck (or luck - but that wasn't on ssu's list), then we can only conclude that the Ukrainian's are simply pluckier than most (the 'most' on which these strategic expert's previous assessments were based).

Or we could go with the alternative B, that the hundreds of experienced and knowledgeable strategic experts were pretty much right about the Ukrainian defensive capabilities (not good), but that the most powerful nation on earth used it's enormous reserves of military, economic, political and intelligence forces to tip the balance.

Apparently it's just obvious that it's A - Ukrainians are just pluckier than all the world's military experts expected.

Apparently B (despite being exactly what's happened in every single fucking war ever) is just delusional nonsense arising from a pathological hatred of America.

Who'd have thought it...

Quoting Xtrix

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet.
— Olivier5

There wouldn’t be a need. There would already have been nuclear war.

If Canada and Mexico wanted to enter in a strategic alliance with China, what would it say about their perception of the US as a neighbor?

Instead, Canada has been an ally of the US for a long time... That too must say something.

Reply to StreetlightX like the way that some European countries have provided revenue for Russia by buying gas and oil. The West has provided revenue for China by buying their cheap consumer goods. It’s even worse because China has been dumping cheap goods on Western countries , making it very difficult to compete from their own production. This economic warfare has had a very destabilising and weakening effect. What I describe is just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s time for the West to rebuild its manufacturing, industrial and social base. And wean itself of China’s succour.

Quoting Punshhh

It’s time for the West to rebuild its manufacturing, industrial and social base. And wean itself of China’s succour.

This will never happen and it is not in the interest of the West, so long as it remains capitalist, to do so. The West elected to "dump" its factories in China so it could save on labour costs and evade regulation. It will continue to elect to do so until conditions in the West begin to match that of China. Which, to be fair, is not inconceivable, considering the rapid deterioration of the condition of the working class in the West, as cheerled by its elites. Do not blame China for what Western business and political leaders rushed headlong into with glee.

The idea of 'rebuilding the manufacturing base' is nothing but Trumpian nationalism meant to hide the fact that the destruction of the manufacturing base has in every case enriched powers in the West, and been carried out deliberately by Western power holders, who then turn up the nationalism dial in order to deflact blame from themselves. What the West requires - along with the rest of the world - is the bloody destruction of capitalism and the advent of a new economic and social order. It could learn a thing or two from the way in which China has gagged it's billionare class.

Reply to Isaac

[i]> No doubt in your simple world it's the only possible interpretation of what has been an extremely long and complex exchange in a medium doubly flawed from the start (language and brevity). [/I]

No dude, that’s all on your reluctance to engage in an intellectually honest conversation whatever the limits of communicating over the internet with anonymous people are, precisely because that’s the kind of entertainment a philosophy forum could offer despite the limits of the medium. If you don’t like the game, don’t play it!

[i]> I'm at a loss as to why you're extracting weird rules from what was quite a simple moral statement, but in our continued exhaustive efforts to rule out every other possible interpretation prior to accepting the obvious one, I'll add that no, I do not mean that one must always be constrained by all the de facto circumstances either. I don't know how I can make this more clear. There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal.[/I]

Unless you wanna go for something like “these are my arbitrary preferences”, then you must have some reasons to support your “simple moral statement”, and I’m challenging you to clarify them. Indeed you didn’t offer any criteria to establish what “de facto” circumstances would be relevant to consider in a choice like a negotiation deal other than the ones with moral implications that matter to you. But then you are asking people what their reasons are to take side wrt the negotiation deal (so again a case of moral choice), and you yourself brought into this exchange your own reasons: people dying, overwhelming amount of experts, American capitalist imperialism, Yemeni children, poor oppressed by the rich, etc. as if all this was relevant in justifying your position (so again moral implications that matter to you). In short, the “de facto” situation with moral implications that matter to you is a war provoked by the West against Russia, a clash between NATO and Russia. So if we should assess Zenesky’s moral choice based on a de facto situation that has moral implications that matter to you, I don’t see why we shouldn’t assess your moral choice (wrt Zenesky’s moral choice) based on a geopolitical “de facto” situation that has moral implications that matter to you (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”). You say they are different, but I’m asking to you why is that, so far you didn’t clarify this. And this rebuttal “I do not mean that all de facto circumstances are morally relevant, nor do I mean that in all circumstances all people are morally constrained by all de facto circumstances.” is pointless precisely because I’m not talking about all people nor all de facto circumstances, but about you and your criteria to determine morally relevant “de facto” circumstances.

> No. You offered absolutely no compelling reason why I need to do some kind of proportional calculation before talking about multiple causes. The suggestion was just absurd and remains so.

As much as your raving about multi-causal analysis you didn’t offer.

> Yes. My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary.

And what do you mean by “arbitrary” here? Are they “arbitrary” because you didn’t tell them yet? Or because they are random? Or what else?

> So because I think the Russian terms would make a good diplomatic end to the killing and I don't like capitalism I want Russia to win? I mean, it's hard to take you seriously with that kind of shit going on.

Read carefully: I’m not saying you are happy that Russia wins or that you wouldn’t prefer a third option where both America and Russia imperialism lose. That’s not my point. My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” That’s why you don’t mind to support Russians’ victory.

> The answer is the same. I'm neither an expert in these matters, nor someone whose opinion you respect so there's no reasonable circumstances in which you're asking such a question because you actually want to know the answer. You're asking it because you want the answer to form part of your counter argument. I know this, you know this. So the exercise is pointless because I'm only going to try and answer it in such a way as to head off your potential use of my answer in said counter-argument, and you already know that I'll do that in advance of asking the question.

Sure, as you wish. But symptomatic.

[i]> I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine. — neomac
You brought him up.[/i]

Only to clarify my doubts about your criteria not to open another thread: there might be experts (like Luc Montagnier) that have titles and no evident conflict of interests, and yet I still may have good reasons to think that they said something unreliable about things they are supposed to know more than I do.

> So "no idea" then?

Dude, I’m here to entertain myself not you. Try harder.


> The power of a good story…

Whose truth you haven’t disproven yet.


[i]> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.[/I]

What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself.


[i]> One's reasons for holding some belief and the factual accuracy of those claims are not the same thing. I believe very strongly that the earth rotates around the sun, but I have absolutely no data at all on the factual accuracy of that claim. I believe it because it appears to be uncontested by those who are qualified and have looked at the data. I trust them. My reason for believing the earth rotates around the sun is that it is the view of all modern cosmologists and in that field, I tend to just believe whatever they say. You are attempting to do the equivalent of analysing my beliefs on the basis of some actual measurements you made of the earth's orbit. I'm not in the least bit interested in that kind of analysis because neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to judge. If you said "why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism..." then we’d be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.[/I]

So monumentally pointless. First of all, when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge. Second, even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman (e.g. even the experts you trust do not fully agree with you as I pointed out). Third, and most importantly, inquiring somebody’s reasons to hold a certain view, especially with the philosophical breadth one should expect in a philosophy forum, doesn’t presuppose a specific approach to experts (were this the case it would even beg the question). And indeed you yourself made that point precisely to question the reasons of my approach to experts. So even if you prefer to interact with people who share your approach to experts and inquire your reasons accordingly, that does not delegitimize my questioning your approach to experts (as I did, and still could go on) nor my questioning your views based on some experts’ feedback independently from your own preferences and assumptions (even more so if I find your approach flawed). And you yourself didn’t seem to have problem with that (“you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That’s how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”). Four, if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum.


> Nonsense. What constitutes a 'claim', an 'argument', a 'challenge'... ?You set all these terms and their parameters to suit a narrative that you're playing out by your interaction here. It's just a role in a social game - you act out the script of the 'oh so rational analyst' because it's the badge you have to wear to fit the part in the story you have for yourself. The thousands of words, each with five or six different possible interpretations, the hundreds of sentences per post, each one possible to take in ten different ways, the dozens of choices about my intentions, my meanings, my objectives... You don't seriously think you make all those decisions on the basis of some cold mathematical algorithm do you? You interpret each one, each tiny possible misunderstanding each fork in the probability tree of possible meanings is weighted in favour of the preferred narrative, and each is so open to interpretation that within less a dozen such choices (of which there are thousands) virtually everything I've said can be moulded to fit virtually any narrative you care to come up with.

What on earth did you just write?! You said “your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I’ve not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).” So you are not interested in supporting your case here, and yet you still want to unilaterally decide where the burden of proof lies (always on me of course) and on what consists in?! How is your piece of idle talk supposed to justify that?! Are you out of your mind?!

Quoting Isaac

That something about the Ukrainian defense was unexpected. So that pretty much rules out geography, infrastructure, wealth, age distribution and size of the population, all of which were known beforehand. Culture too, but perhaps less so. Not exactly a mystery though. That leaves...

Leadership - of course, but are leaders born or made? If the latter, then by whom?

Not only leadership.

I think the role of leadership may easily be overemphasized. Zelensky can rally his people and the West for the Ukrainian cause, but he doesn't sink missile cruisers or destroy columns of tanks.

The will to fight is simply essential. Shows everywhere. Also or especially in Afghanistan. In fact, there isn't a better example of the importance of will as in Afghanistan.

In 1939 the Finnish leadership had no illusions about the ability to stand against the Soviet Union alone. What surprised both the Finnish political and military leadership was not only how incompetent the Soviets were (largest reason were Stalin's purges), but how the army fought and didn't run away. The will to fight of the people actually surprised the leadership itself.

Amazing how quickly people will aver to literal metaphysical bullshit like 'the will', rather than say, the material support of the world's most brutally armed empire.

Quoting StreetlightX

Amazing how quickly people will aver to literal metaphysical bullshit like 'the will', rather than say, the material support of the world's most brtually armed empire.

Note the facts. The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine. And it had a tiny lightly armed enemy compared to the Russian army opposing Ukraine.

And do note that the Emirate of Afghanistan won. After twenty years. So if you think the will to fight is metaphysical bullshit, you are simply wrong.

Quoting ssu

So if you don't think the will to fight is metaphysical bullshit, you are simply wrong.

Wanna read what you just typed here again?

Quoting ssu

The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine.

Oh right, because the only difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine was US military aid. The only other difference must be 'the will'. Fuck me I didn't think I was speaking to people who believe in actual voodoo.

Reply to StreetlightX According to you, saying "not only leadership" but referring to will to fight means that "the only difference must be the "the will".

Irrelevant strawman argumentation.

Reply to ssu That's OK, it's pretty common for people to psychologize and metaphysicalize world politics. It's the lowest hanging fruit which requires no actual material analysis of anything whatsoever. Just a bunch of just-so stories about personal qualities, as if fighting a war is a matter of shaping up a nation's CV. "Has good leadership potential. Lots of will. Very eager to defeat Russians".

Quoting StreetlightX

it's pretty common for people to psychologize and metaphysicalize world politics.

It's pretty common for military commanders to psychologise their troops both during a war and through specific training exercises. This is because most weapons do not yet fire themselves, thanks be to God.

Reply to StreetlightXNow I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it.

If you would be given all the best military arms there are, given to carry a Javelin and someone even would show how to use it, you think that it would matter that it's a Javelin? Hell no, a man of peace like you would not use anything for some war you don't care about. The only thing perhaps you would be thinking would be how to escape from the madmen trying to train you. And if you would have the entrepreneurial spirit, why not try to sell the high priced tube after the next corner?

Will to fight is important. It isn't the only thing of course, but it isn't some myth. You don't see columns of American Abrams tanks being captured after their crews has run away. You do see those Abrams tanks in Yemen after the Saudi crews have ran away.

That in Ukraine you did see a lot of deserted vehicles tells actually a lot. Starting from the obvious fact that the crew didn't even try to destroy them.

Quoting unenlightened

This is because most weapons do not yet fire themselves, thanks be to God.

Assuming, of course, they have weapons to fire.

Quoting ssu

Note the facts. The government of Afghanistan got far more military aid from the US than Ukraine. And it had a tiny lightly armed enemy compared to the Russian army opposing Ukraine.

Which is why I asked my original question. What was wrong with the Afghans? Lacked 'the will'?

Quoting unenlightened

This is because most weapons do not yet fire themselves, thanks be to God.

That's why precision guided weapons like cruise missiles are so popular. They don't disengage from the attack if there's a lot of tracers around them. A human pilot might do that.

Quoting ssu

Will to fight is important. It isn't the only thing of course, but it isn't some myth.

Ok buddy, if it means so much to you, you can have your 'will'. Meanwhile I imagine most people who are not in kindergarden will probably lean a bit more into the material support of almost the entire Anglo-continental world as a preponderant factor of Ukranian action. But sure, you can have some 'will' as a treat.

--

Liberal brain-rot is insane. These people have been told their whole lives that they are the heroes of their own stories so they have to make metaphysical nonsense up and impute it to an entire geo-strategic war in order to shore up the liberal sense of individual agency. This is what watching too much Hollywood does to you. You start to analyze a fucking war as a matter of 'will'.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/the-battle-for-donbas-will-be-a-tough-fight-for-ukraine/

Reply to Isaac I've been lurking in this thread for a while now - and following with dismay the events in Ukraine. I may not agree with everything you have been saying, but I think I get the gist of it.

Please do not take this as a personal critique of your positions, but what I have not seen from you is a "what should we do" plan of action (and apologies if you have specified this and I missed it).

I live in a liberal district in US. What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction?

Quoting Isaac

Which is why I asked my original question. What was wrong with the Afghans? Lacked 'the will'?

Well, let's see.

I think those who fought for the previous regime, the Emirate of Afghanistan, surely didn't lack 'the will'. If your weapons are 60's era light arms and fertilizer, then I guess you have to have something else too.

So the question is about the will of the ANA, Afghan National Army and the government of Afghanistan. If you would be an Afghan soldier, what would you fight for? The pay? Good if you got it. Those who prosper from have "dead souls" in the unit roster whose salaries the put into their pockets are everywhere. Those who run away and leave you in the field to handle your fellow Afghans who happen to be the enemy. That's your leadership.

Or then look at the marvelous [s]surrender[/s] peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold? Would that instill you some reason to fight? Especially when US President after President have always declared that they will leave you, ship out tomorrow? And you know the other side will just wait. How much does that instill in you a fighting spirit?

Especially in civil wars, there has to be reasons for the fight. And that's why the bloody and long civil wars tend to divide between lines of religion and ethnicity.

Quoting StreetlightX

Meanwhile I imagine most people who are not in kindergarden will probably lean a bit more into the material support of almost the entire Anglo-continental world as a preponderant factor of Ukranian action.

Well, I do have noticed the absolutely huge arms shipments made to Ukraine. The numbers are quite astonishing. Even my country sent there some stuff, first time in history. So did Sweden, second time in it's history. So did puny Estonia. So did many other countries, so it's not only an American action.

All that stuff wouldn't matter if nobody would be willing to use them.

Quoting ssu

...precision guided weapons like cruise missiles are so popular. They don't disengage from the attack if there's a lot of tracers around them. A human pilot might do that.

Quoting ssu

Especially in civil wars, there has to be reasons for the fight. And that's why the bloody and long civil wars tend to divide between lines of religion and ethnicity.

Ha! Kamikaze and suicide bombers have a machine mind - the highest possible morale. No doubt no fear, no regret. "I am a [s]Camera[/s] Mine."

Reply to ssu Kindergarden for you it is, I guess.

Quoting ssu

Or then look at the marvelous surrender peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold?

To be fair, since WWII the US has more or less given up on winning wars. Their modus operandi is to go in, absolutely ruin a place, then withdraw while leaving said place in total ruin. By that track record, Ukraine knows very well what to look forward to.

Reply to unenlightened It's been said actually that many of the kamikaze pilots weren't so eager to die. And you have very ugly examples of just how "voluntary" some suicide bombers can be. But I guess the majority were quite willing volunteers.

Quoting StreetlightX

To be fair, since WWII the US has more or less given up on winning wars.

Sometimes, even if quite rarely, you may say something rather smart that I agree with. (One exception that proves the point: Gulf war and it's limited objective of liberating Kuwait.)

I think the reason is that whole society has been separated from being at war. You don't see it anywhere. Once the military is made up of volunteers, the military is just a service provided by the government. I guess the last years in Afghanistan Americans didn't even remember that Americans were still there.

Or that even now today there are American troops still fighting the "War on Terror".

Quoting ssu

I think the reason is that whole society has been separated from being at war

*yawn* more psychology babble. More likely because fighting wars across the other side of the planet does not work very well as a logistics excercise.

And besides there is alot less profit to be made in winning than just perpetual, low to medium level conflict.

Quoting StreetlightX

More likely before fighting wars across the other side of the planet does not work very well as a logistics excercise.

Why? Colonial wars have been fought now for hundreds of years.

What do you mean about logistics?

Quoting ssu

Why? Colonial wars have been fought now for hundreds of years.

Yes but the US does not (directly) colonize. Except for that one time in the Phillipines maybe.

Quoting ssu

What do you mean about logistics?

https://gprivate.com/5ywvn

Edit: Also, you think US society is 'seperated from war????' They have a militaristic culture that belies caricature. They're their own living parody of a nation that cannot shut the fuck up about war and the military, even when going shopping. They prey on (poor) high school students to be cannon fodder for Gods sake. Never seen a society with so pathological a relationship with murdering people overseas, regulalry.

Quoting EricH

what I have not seen from you is a "what should we do" plan of action (and apologies if you have specified this and I missed it).

No, you didn't miss it. I'm no expert so wouldn't presume to be able to come up with a plan. I am of the belief that if one thinks that one's government's plan is harmful, one should hold their feet to fire over it.

They may well have found the 'least worst' option (though I doubt that very much in this case), but that's not something we need overly concern ourselves with.

If we incidentally hold our government to account for something they've genuinely tried their best at, but just just couldn't find a better way, then all we get is hurt feelings (and that's exactly what they signed up for). If, however, we incidentally let our government off the hook, thinking they could have done no better when actually they could, thousands die (or are further immiserated). To me the proper course is obvious.

Western arms firms are making a fortune out of this war. Western financial institutions stand to gain billions from reconstruction loans, Western corporations stand to gain millions from the resultant 'Westernisation' of Ukraine. Maybe all that just so happens to come along with the 'best' solution for Ukraine, maybe it's all just a happy coincidence. But if it is, and we yell and scream about the injustice of it anyway, then all we're going to get is a few upset executives, I'm sure they'll get by. If, on the other hand, it turns out decisions actually are being made to further this objective and not to benefit the people of Ukraine, and yet we let it slide because we 'reckoned' it's probably the least worst option, then we've been complicit in a monumental injustice.

So...

Quoting EricH

What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction?

I don't know. If I were you, I'd make as public as possible your disgust (if you have such disgust) at the profiteering from suffering that seeps into everything corporate capitalist states do.

As far as my own personal opinion, I think that moving forward from the deal on the table currently will cause less suffering than a continued, probably futile, battle to get a better one.

Quoting ssu

If your weapons are 60's era light arms and fertilizer, then I guess you have to have something else too.

Quoting ssu

Those who run away and leave you in the field to handle your fellow Afghans who happen to be the enemy. That's your leadership.

Quoting ssu

Or then look at the marvelous surrender peace deal that US President Trump did leaving out your government in the cold? Would that instill you some reason to fight?

Right. So not 'will'. Weapons, governmental stability, and foreign support.

Who's providing the weapons, the governmental stability and the foreign support to Ukraine? The very countries you don't want anyone to talk about.

All that's left to talk about is the Ukrainian 'will'. The one thing you won't admit to making any difference on its own because to do so would mean you'd have to simultaneously admit that others simply lacked 'the will', rather than lacked the weapons, and the support.

You've just listed three aspects contributing to the difficulties in Afghanistan that the US were absolutely instrumental in. You've just admitted that it was those things, not 'the will' of the Afghans which made the difference when compared to the case of Ukraine. And yet you continue to disparage talk about the suppliers of those very factors in Ukraine as misguided, a distraction...

Quoting Olivier5

If Canada and Mexico wanted to enter in a strategic alliance with China, what would it say about their perception of the US as a neighbor?

Irrelevant.

Reply to FreeEmotion
It's from 2013, although they also have assurances for Ukraine dating to the 1990s, these were more explicit, and recall US "nuclear umbrella," language.

It raised a lot of eyebrows at the time, and China has had to move to clarify after the recent invasion. It's now repositioning it as "a gaurentee against nuclear weapons," which still has relevance for Russia's first use "escalate to descalate" doctrine.

https://thediplomat.com/2014/01/chinas-nuclear-parasol/

I think the goal was to get such an agreement in "the West," as a bit of a power play, but might also have been aimed at Russia. Despite the various incentives for Russia and China to play up their cooperation, as a balance to US alliances in Europe and Asia, the two countries have a great deal of outstanding differences. They might get along better now that Russia is so dependant on China, and because China's relationship with India has gone from bad to shit recently, and they are sort of hard up for strategic allies with any economic heft.

Reply to ssu Reply to Isaac

Is there any real argument that the collapse of Afghanistan's defense forces didn't have to do with morale?

Even with all the ghost soldiers, the ANA still had probably 100,000 soldiers and a lot of quality hardware for mounting a defense against the Taliban. The extremely rapid collapse of the ANA after their initial pushback on the Taliban advance in May 2021 didn't stem from any strategic route, but from morale collapsing. The Taliban took provincial capitals without a shot being fired and road in to cheering crowds. They were at the very least seen as the lesser of two evils, at least in Pashtun areas.

Meanwhile, in the Panjshir they had 8,000 fighters and resistance has remained for 9 months, with it even stepping up as of late. The key difference is morale and support (or lack of it) in a minority area for what is partly a Pashtun nationalist government at this point.

There are plenty of other examples from modern and ancient history. The proto-IDF was at a significant equipment disadvantage in 1948, with surplus Czech Kar98ks (ironically with swastikas stamped on them) the main foreign aid (from the Soviets, not the USA). However, they had a significant morale and leadership advantage. (The Arabs also had an advantage in jets, tanks, etc. in the later wars, but arguably it was inferior hardware in those cases).

The Soviets had a major equipment and manpower advantage in the Winter War and faired terribly due to poor leadership and high Finnish morale. Hannibal did everything right, inflicted massive losses (Cannae is still one of the highest death rolls for a single day in history), but couldn't overcome Roman morale and willingness to keep raising more armies.

The Siege of Antioch may be the best example. The Crusader army trapped in the city was starving and disease ridden. Against all the doctrine of the era, they left the safety of the city walls to attack a force twice as large, with significantly more heavy horse (the dominant battlefield factor of the era). Due to being insanely hyped up from a priest having unearthed "the spear that pierced the side of Christ," and in a religious frenzy, they somehow managed not only fight through the Turk's flanks, but to envelop most of the host, killing a large portion of them. The massive amount of manpower lost in a single day paved the way to the existence of the Crusader states.

Judas Maccabeus defeated a Seleucid host of 20,000 infantry, 10,000 calvary, and 22 elephants with 10,000 not well equipped or trained, but very fired up religious zealots.

Or there is the White Army failing everywhere in the Russian civil war by tanking peasant morale everywhere they went by promising to return land to the landlords.

These are all examples of morale winning out over equal or sometimes bad tactics (Antioch was suicidal tactically, but worked), and against larger, better armed, forces. This is as opposed to some sort of underdog win through tactical/strategic genius (like say, Napoleon in the Italian campaign winning again and again with inferior forces; all evidence is that the professional armies he faced had fine morale, he just had a preternatural ability to lead battles and sieges).

Quoting Olivier5

Money is not a problem. There's vast amount of it everywhere. Europe is rich. Now that the Brits are gone, the EU has a better chance of making progress. We were slowed down by these free wheelers.

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that.

1. The Brits will never be “gone”. They will always be there operating in the shadows to promote US (and their own, i.e., the City of London’s) interests.

2. Europe is “rich” in theory. In practice, it hasn’t even got its own armed forces.

3. If money was “everywhere” and not in banks controlled by governments and other people, the West wouldn’t be able to put a ban on Russian banks, freeze Russia’s foreign currency reserves, or seize them for its own purposes.

In fact, the current situation pretty much shows who controls the world’s finances and I don’t think this is about Ukraine at all, but about the Western drive for a unipolar world dominated by America and its European client-states.

The whole pro-NATO rhetoric is full of arguments that don’t really hold water, for example:

The notion that the more weapons are being supplied to Ukraine, the quicker the conflict will end in Ukrainian victory, can only be true if Russia (illogically) decides to cut and run instead of (more logically) retaliating and escalating, and eventually winning.

Another dodgy claim is that shifting Europe’s energy dependence from Russia to America and other sources is intended as a punitive measure against Russia. But it isn’t clear whether this “punishment” is temporary or permanent.

By definition, measures to make Europe independent of Russian energy supplies are permanent or at least long-term. This means that if Russia decides to withdraw from Ukraine tomorrow, those measures aren’t going to be reversed anytime soon, Russia’s economy is going to be crippled or degraded permanently, and all incentives for the Russian government to change course on Ukraine or other issues that are of importance to the West, disappear.

IMO it just doesn’t make sense and it rather shows that the destruction of Russia as an economically, financially, and politically independent nation is the true objective of America’s economic and military jihad in the region.

Meantime, it looks like not everyone in Europe agrees with a ban on Russian oil and gas:

Any sanctions that cut off the westward flow of Russian gas need to be well-thought-through, otherwise those laying the sanctions might suffer more than those sanctioned, according to multiple German business and labour leaders.
The question of whether to lay an embargo on Russian fuel is tying Europe up into knots. On the one hand, few want to buy Russian oil and gas and funnel payments to a country that has attacked its neighbour, Ukraine.
But, on the other hand, most of Europe is unsure how it will heat its homes and power its economy without Russian fuel, which makes up a significant portion of the continent's fuel imports. Germany is particularly reliant on Russian gas to keep the lights on, with 50% of its gas originally from Russia.
In a joint statement, umbrella groups representing German employers and unions told dpa that they are worried that not enough care is being put into making sure that any sanctions are targeted, apply pressure properly and prevent harm to the economies implementing the sanctions.
"We don't see that in the current gas embargo debate," said Rainer Dulger, head of the Confederation of German Employers' Associations (BDA) and Reiner Hoffmann, head of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB).
The two said current proposals would harm the German economy and employment levels more than it would those same factors in Russia, arguing that no gas means production stops, industrial slowdowns and loss of jobs.
The way to help Ukraine, they argued, is to make sure Germany has a stable economy and labour market.

Germany eyes Russian gas import ban nervously, fears economic damage – DPA

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

These are all examples of morale winning out over equal or sometimes bad tactics

I don't think anyone was questioning the role of morale. What I was questioning was the the idea that morale was disconnected from material circumstances, that some nations are just pluckier than others. Ukrainian morale (to the extent that it was unusually high) didn't just spring out of nowhere, nor did the low Russian morale just spring out of nowhere. Forces acting on both armies caused both morale effects.

The statement I took issue with was ssu's...

Quoting ssu

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them.

...the key being the bolded 'only'. The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. I don't hold to that belief, but rather to the fact that external forces can either hamper or bolster a defending people's morale. That the Belorussians, or the Afghans, or the Russians themselves even, aren't just lazy or cowards, they are not overthrowing their autocratic leaders because of material circumstances constraining the natural courage and conviction that all oppressed peoples have.

But one can't just change theory to suit one's motives. If those peoples didn't lack courage or resolve, but rather had material circumstances constrain it, then it has to follow that Ukrainians didn't have an unusually high natural endowment of courage and resolve, but rather material circumstances bolstered those traits (and hampered them in the Russian army).

Yet an analysis of what those material circumstances are would be an absurd puff piece if it were to ignore the fact that the largest military, economic and intelligence powers the world has ever seen supported them with everything short of actually fighting for them. The Western world's press treated them a superheroes, they deified their leader, they flew their flags, they banned their opponents form even speaking, they re-wrote the rules just to suit them, they threw money, guns and intelligence at them. All the while their enemies were treated like the worst examples of humanity.

It would be nothing but dogma to suggest all that had no effect. And yet all that occurred after the invasion, none of it was in place beforehand. So it doesn't make any sense to say that the only thing that could have prevented the war was some declaration from Ukraine about it's willingness to fight. That would have made no difference at all, at the time. A declaration from the US that they would absolutely pariah Russia and lionise Ukraine - that might have had an effect (should Putin have been amenable to such tactical considerations, which now seems unlikely), but a small force making a promise to defend their nation that (given knowledge at the time) they really couldn't stand by, would have made virtually no difference.

The US and NATO telling Russia exactly what support they would give in the event of an invasion, however, is far more likely to have had an effect. But that's exactly what they didn't do.

The UN/NATO taking the wind out of Putin's propaganda by promising Ukrainian neutrality, agreeing to independence votes in Donbas and investigations into far-right groups might have made it more difficult to manufacture a pretext for invasion. But again, that's exactly what they didn't do.

Or alternatively, a clear fast-tracked membership of NATO, or strong assurances of military aid (boots on the ground type aid) in the event of an invasion might have had an effect. But again, that's exactly what they didn't do.

But instead of addressing these issues, people are trying to construct this ludicrous narrative which excludes these powers from the story. But to do that, the Ukrainian's morale has to be not only invoked as the primary reason for success, but this morale has to spring out of nowhere, has to just arise from strength of character alone - all very well for the Ukrainians, but how does that make the rest of the subjugated world feel? Like they lost because of their own native lack of pluck.

It's really amazing how there's this practially spontaneous regurgitation of the American interest of obsuring it's obscene power in the world, covered over by mythical plucky Ukranians just fighting the good fight.

Quoting Isaac

...the key being the bolded 'only'. The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job.

Evidently you didn't get my point at all. So I'll try to explain.

Deterrence comes up from many issues. That the army will fight is only one, but that is crucial. Because if it won't, not much else will help. Then come obviously the weapons the armed forces has. Starting from the obvious like nuclear weapons, but here are also those Javelin and NLAW ATGMs are important building that deterrence. Without them stopping Russian tanks isn't so easy. Ukraine was also lacking so-called modern 'offensive' weapons, like modern artillery systems. Especially modern aircraft Ukraine lacked and it didn't have modern air defense systems, but largely legacy systems from the Soviet era. Offensive weapon systems was something that wasn't keenly given to them as prior to the Russian invasion, the West didn't want to escalate the situation. And of course Ukraine isn't the richest countries, hence it couldn't go on an arms buying spree like Saudi Arabia.

So in this case, what would be Ukraine's deterrent?

It didn't have much modern weapons. It didn't have security guarantees from the West. What could be it's deterrence in this case? Well, the only thing available to it is that it would put up a fight that would be costly to Russia. And that is what I meant.

Reply to StreetlightX

idea of 'rebuilding the manufacturing base' is nothing but Trumpian nationalism meant to hide the fact that the destruction of the manufacturing base has in every case enriched powers in the West, and been carried out deliberately by Western power holders

So you are describing an oligarch feudalism?

This, or anything like it would soon collapse any large scale political organisation, erode that wealth and power they crave and we would descend into another dark age. I know some ghoulish oligarchs might look as though that where they’re headed. But I doubt it. They are heading back (in their minds) to a rose tinted view of 19th century imperialism.

This must be thrown out, but capitalism in principle is essential for such a densely populated planet to live in any semblance of peace and prosperity.

Quoting neomac

I don’t see why we shouldn’t assess your moral choice (wrt Zenesky’s moral choice) based on a geopolitical “de facto” situation that has moral implications that matter to you (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)

Neither do I. You can have at my moral judgements using any data you like. Simply saying 'because X you must think Y' is not an argument. I've claimed that morally, the deal on the table is a better choice than continued fighting. I've argued it from a consequentialist framework (as I believe governments are not people and so don't themselves have virtues). A counter argument doesn't consist in vague hand-waiving toward some other de facto circumstances. A counter argument consists in some reason why I shouldn't have used a consequentialist framework, or some reason why my assessment of the consequences are wrong. But since your argument was that my position is actually 'preposterous' rather than just something you happen to disagree with, you'd need to go further. You'd need to show that either it is completely absurd to use a consequentialist framework, or that it's not even plausible that my assessment of the consequences is right.

Quoting neomac

And what do you mean by “arbitrary” here? Are they “arbitrary” because you didn’t tell them yet? Or because they are random? Or what else?

Arbitrary as in having no further reasoning. I don't have a reason for not wanting thousands more deaths, I just don't want thousands more deaths.

Quoting neomac

My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”

...and that 'fairly' translates as...

Quoting neomac

you want to help Russia win

...without even so much as a hint of disingenuity...?

Quoting neomac

> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself.

No need, you can just clarify here, save us both the bother. Are the claims you're opposing reasonable claims that you just happen to agree with, or are they implausible claims that no reasonable person would agree with? If the former, then we can just stop there. I'm more than happy for you to disagree with my assessment, indeed I fully expect it. This is a complicated situation and it would be highly unusual for 7 billion minds to look at the data they have available and reach the same conclusions. But if it's the latter then the quote above needs no citation.

Quoting neomac

when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge.

I love the way people still think they can get away without having to defend positions by smuggling in the word 'common'. A rational which one wants to avoid having to defend become 'common sense'. Some data one wants to avoid having to source becomes 'common knowledge'. Does that still work for you?

Quoting neomac

even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman

Can they? If I provided you with a Psychology experiment could you seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way (assuming, for the sake of this argument you're not yourself a psychologist or similar, that is). I don't think laymen can just dip into expert analysis and start critiquing their data gathering and analytical methods. We're no more experts in those fields than we are in military strategy...unless, of course, you are...in which case it would have been easier for you to just say so.

Quoting neomac

if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum.

I have no idea what this means. From where did you get the impression that my 'point' is to 'feed my little echo chamber'. I mean, it's a legitimate accusation, a common enough reason people write in places like this, but you seem to imply that I'd actually said as much, which I haven't.

Quoting neomac

What on earth did you just write?!

Do you want me to explain it to you? Or are you happy enough with the complete hash you made of understanding it which followed from this rhetorical question.

Quoting Punshhh

This must be thrown out, but capitalism in principle is essential for such a densely populated planet to live in any semblance of peace and prosperity.

I vehemently disagree, but this is not the place to hash that out. I will say though, that until you recognize capitalism as the problem, you will be only ever be left with non-solutions like 'rebuilding the manufacturing base', whose calls simply end up an ever more murderous pitching of nations against nations, workers against workers, such that you get a suicidal bellum omnium contra omnes - a war of all against all. Which is exactly the cloth that this current conflict in Ukraine is cut out of.

Quoting ssu

So in this case, what would be Ukraine's deterrent?

It didn't have much modern weapons. It didn't have security guarantees from the West. What could be it's deterrence in this case? Well, the only thing available to it is that it would put up a fight that would be costly to Russia. And that is what I meant.

Then why did you use the word 'only'? Pretty much anything from the list I gave at the end of my post would have had just as much chance (if not way more) of stopping the war. In fact, an empty promise to fight, backed by nothing but wild optimism (at the time) would have had virtually no effect at all. Why would Putin have even taken such a claim seriously?

The problem I'm having is that every single comment you make seels to exculpate the US, NATO and Europe. Almost without exception. We might try to have a reasonable conversation about what you really meant, but at the end of the day, I can't ignore the fact that there's a glaringly obvious agenda uniting your comments, a common thread running through them of exculpating the West. this latest is no exception. Are you expecting me to accept it a mere coincidence that if...

Quoting ssu

The unfortunate conclusion that I have come to is that this war was only avoidable if Ukraine could have somehow made it clear to Russia that they indeed would defend their country and it would be costly to attack them.

...that just so happens to also exculpate the West?

You want to paint your contributions as merely helping us to 'understand' the situation, but it's hard when the 'understanding' you want us to have universally acts to remove all blame from the West even at the expense of making sense.

Reply to StreetlightX

Yep.

A situation has come about in which...

1. A major legitimate nuclear power among America's major emerging competitors (the BRIC countries) has turned itself into a pariah, meaning the others can no longer rely on its legitimate nuclear opposition to America. Thus diminishing America's competition for influence in the far East.

2. America, the main alternative supplier of gas to Europe (as LNG), gets to increase it's share of the market - something NATO has been pushing for for years.

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe.

4. American financial institutions make 300-400% increases in the value of their loans to Ukraine, not to mention the increased income from future reconstruction loans.

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals.

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice.

...

But what we're being asked here to accept, by @ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. That the most politically influential nation on earth didn't, on this occasion, use its enormous power to bring any of that about, it just sat on its hands instead...

...because the real cause lies with a Russian psychopath (simultaneously somehow a danger to Europe and an incompetent fool) and a Ukrainian army whose winning properties no one can even define without reference to those very external forces we're told are largely irrelevant.

Quoting Xtrix

Irrelevant.

As was your whole absurd scenario... I trust the US would not bomb Jamaica if it tried to enter an alliance between China, Canada and Mexico. It's all some big BS you made up.

Reply to Isaac Duh it's not like keeping Russia down has been one of the top three foreign policy objectives of the US ever since the fall of the Berlin wall as amply documented by every other FP document on the topic worth reading. Just crazzzzzy circumstance, and of course, if you raise these issues, you're basically just doing what anti-semites do while sleeping with a Putin body pillow.

Quoting Olivier5

I trust the US would not bomb Jamaica if it tried to enter an alliance between China, Canada and Mexico.

Yeah, 'cos America never bombs anywhere. In fact I'm struggling to think of anywhere America has bombed...does it even have any bombs...?

Quoting Apollodorus

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that.

Of course not. It must be said again and again and again that NATO is evil evil evil. Of COURSE!

Reply to Isaac The US has the best bombs.

Quoting Isaac

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck.

That's a lie.

Quoting Olivier5

That's a lie.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's all over the place and can't hold two thoughts in his head at the same time. What can we expect from someone who's against education; a breakdown of the ability to actually discuss with any kind of progression of thought. This thread is just going on repeat now, with them continuously holding the same drawn line however things get explained to them. Can't discuss with people unable to do normal philosophical scrutiny and arguments.

Reply to Christoffer A minimum level of intellectual honesty would be required for an average conversation, not to mention for a philosophical one, and Isaac has proven many times that he lacks any of it. He just another compulsive liar. They keep coming. I don't know where they make them.

Reply to Christoffer Reply to Olivier5 You two are projecting so hard I could point you at a wall to show off PowerPoint presentations.

Reply to Tzeentch My advice to you, Stench, and to the other Kremlinophilic idiots here, is to stop lying. Try a little intellectual rigor and honesty for a change. Otherwise don't bother with engaging others.

Quoting Isaac

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. That the most politically influential nation on earth didn't, on this occasion, use its enormous power to bring any of that about, it just sat on its hands instead...

I think a case can be made that the most powerful nation was using its power to obtain greater power. Always ask 'who benefits'. At least I agree that there was a possibility.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

It raised a lot of eyebrows at the time, and China has had to move to clarify after the recent invasion. It's now repositioning it as "a gaurentee against nuclear weapons," which still has relevance for Russia's first use "escalate to descalate" doctrine.

I like China. I also like their 'no first strike' - if they can survive a first strike, then, maybe lose a few billions, they can seize the moral high ground forever. How to excuse a first strike...let' see:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-vulnerable-to-chinese-electromagnetic-attack-experts-say

They are really smarter than I thought : I can see the headlines - The Pentagon reported today that a massive electromagnetic pulse (EMMP) destroyed .... 'high probablility' orignating from Beijing....

If you are a Devil and don't mind killing for your country you do have a lot of options for patriotism I must say.

China has pledged since 1964 that it would not be the first party in a conflict to use nuclear weapons. The South China Morning Post reported in October that Beijing had reiterated its “no first use” policy, despite some officials urging a rethink.

The United States has repeatedly refused to adopt a “no first use” policy, but has vowed not to use nukes against countries that do not have them.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/top-general-china-could-spring-surprise-nuke-attack-on-us/

And...

https://warisboring.com/step-by-step-heres-how-to-defeat-china-in-a-war/

I wonder about Russia's policy.

Quoting EricH

I live in a liberal district in US. What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction?

Personally I think the decent, good-hearted people we know as Americans are not running your government. Have you seen Bill Moyers 'Secret Government?".

Ask your representatives if they can live with themselves not killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security, for a start.

Reply to Tzeentch Or we're just tired that predictions and analysis made before turned out correct but the apologists keep saying the same things anyway. Logical arguments are made and countered by "where's the evidence" while the evidence to the contrary is Fox news, some unreliable bloggers, and extremely politically biased opinion pieces. If there's little understanding of what is a logical argument with educated predictions and what is actual evidence, there's no discussion that's possible. I'm tired of the low quality in this thread and mods don't care because it's a "political thread" so the bar for quality is set lower than Reddit and the bar for ad hominems is set to bottomless. What's the point when most posts are just Putin apologetic BS?

Reply to Christoffer Mods have been wallowing in low quality themselves on this thread, and have consistently played the anti-NATO flute. Disappointing.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Ask your representatives if they can live with themselves not killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security, for a start.

It's called getting your hands dirty. They think it's the price of doing business.

Your people are only innocent because they can't kill thousands, not because they wouldn't and haven't. I know that and I don't even know where you're from.

Quoting FreeEmotion

killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security

There is no denying this. But regardless of US bad actions around the world, I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine.

What I'm not seeing in this thread are any possible path for ending this war.

Ukraine surrendering? Not gonna happen.
Russia declaring "victory" and going home? Not gonna happen.
Regime change in Russia? Not gonna happen.
Other?

I would gladly be wrong, but it looks like any "solution" is going to be determined on the battlefield.

Quoting Isaac

The problem I'm having is that every single comment you make seels to exculpate the US, NATO and Europe.

You have a fixation on the US. As everything has to be about the US, it is you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US.

The mistake that the US did, or US/NATO, is that it made a promise it then didn't deliver. You don't answer that a country get "perhaps in the future" NATO membership. Fine.

Quoting Isaac

We might try to have a reasonable conversation about what you really meant, but at the end of the day, I can't ignore the fact that there's a glaringly obvious agenda uniting your comments, a common thread running through them of exculpating the West.

Because you are making this all to be in your mind a US lead thing. And you simply blatantly disregard everything else. You just simply stack up things that are later responses to events that have happened as to be somehow the causes. The US is one actor, but so is Russia and so is Ukraine.

And your later comment shows this perfectly:

Quoting Isaac

1. A major legitimate nuclear power among America's major emerging competitors (the BRIC countries) has turned itself into a pariah, meaning the others can no longer rely on its legitimate nuclear opposition to America. Thus diminishing America's competition for influence in the far East.

Yes, why? Answer honestly why has Russia turned itself into a pariah? Or how has the US turned Russia into a pariah state? Because it's crucial to the whole narrative here.

Quoting Isaac

2. America, the main alternative supplier of gas to Europe (as LNG), gets to increase it's share of the market

The main supplier was long QATAR, actually. The US became only in 2019 a major player in LNG as earlier it simply didn't have the means to transfer it's LNG to Europe.

U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity has grown rapidly since the Lower 48 states first began exporting LNG in February 2016. In 2019, the United States became the world’s third-largest LNG exporter, behind Australia and Qatar.

So the first exports of American LNG happened TWO YEARS AFTER the war started between Russia and Ukraine. And of course Norway has increasing it's production of LNG, but we should remember the agenda to go off from fossil fuel energy because of the Climate Change, which has hindered all such investments. If you favor non-fossil fuel energy production, the first thing isn't to start thinking about LNG.

Yet we all remember how President Trump did lecture Germany about the issue of the Nordstream pipelines, but then Germany didn't budge. But Putin massing two hundred thousand troops on the Ukrainian border and making an all out attack on Ukraine changed that. Only after that Germany did budge.

But somehow that "minor detail" isn't any kind of reason for you, it seems. And when Russia starts from proposals like NATO has to withdraw from all of it's Eastern member states and isn't interested in continuing the Minsk argeement or the Normandy Format, this wasn't an action from Putin to seek a settlement by the negotiation table without a war.

Quoting Isaac

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals.

I don't know where this comes from.

The Russian navy has deployed a naval blockade on Ukrainian ports that will likely leave a huge amount of Ukrainian harvest to rot because you don't replace ship transport in months with land based transport, as the war continues.

And what is there for Ukraine not to trade with the East, with China? China is the biggest trade partner with Ukraine. Germany is something like half of that.

So you just make this assumption that Ukraine won't trade with China. Out of nowhere.

Quoting Isaac

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe.

And so do European arms manufacturers. Yes, and why has that happened? Why are the countries increasing their military budgets?

Quoting Isaac

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice.

And here you conveniently forget totally forgets where the actual assistance will come for Ukraine to rebuild it's economy, from the EU.

Von der Leyen said she intended to, "present Ukraine's application to the [European] Council this summer."

During the joint press conference von der Leyen said: "Russia will descend in economic, financial and technological decay while Ukraine is marching towards a European future."

That's the actual game plan. Luckily EU membership is far more tougher for the whole society than NATO membership. The EU will likely assist Ukraine as it already assisting it with weapons deliveries. Here actually is a danger, as loose money invites corruption, and if the Ukrainians don't finally change their ways all that EU assistance will make things worse. Actually the Ukrainians do want to for their corrupt system to end, but don't realize how annoying the EU system is.

Quoting Isaac

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, @SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck.

Nobody has said that. Developments that you have described quite inaccurately are results of Putin's actions. Responses to those action.

The West didn't force him to annex Crimea. The West didn't force him to attack Ukraine. It's Putin that has made everything possible. Large scale invasion of Ukraine was a very stupid move for Russia. Nobody has actually furthered the agenda of US hawks than Putin, that is true. But then one should ask who has responsibility for this: US hawks or Putin?

Of course we shouldn't discuss Russia or the Russian agenda. Even to talk about that is US propaganda. Well, here's one Ukrainian meme, which is quite apt for that discussion:

Lol imagine thinking the US even gives an iota of a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. Jfc you post literal propaganda and expect to the taken seriously.

Quoting StreetlightX

Lol imagine thinking the US even gives an iota of a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. Jfc you post literal propaganda and expect to the taken seriously.

I'm not an American.

I do give a shit about 'human rights, free press, and fair elections'. They've worked just fine in my country.

Reply to ssu Yeah, which is why you consistently work so hard to minimize attention and apologize for the worst abuser of all three on the planet.

Reply to StreetlightX
You're actually minimizing it with your approach.

Quoting Olivier5

anti-NATO flute.

Pointing out relevant historical context gets slapped with “anti.” Criticize American foreign policy? You’re anti-American.

Fairly typical jingoism.

Reply to Xtrix He's French.

Reply to Xtrix As I pointed out already, history is relevant to the present IFF you can derive a lesson from it applicable in the present. Otherwise it's water under the bridge. What lesson do you derive from your 'historical context', pray tell?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/18/turkey-launches-new-offensive-against-kurdish-rebels-in-iraq

Oh look NATO member Turkey is bombing and murdering Kurds in Iraq. Can't wait for Westerners to start caring about Iraqi Kurds and demanding that we send weapons to them to stave off the evil Turks.

Reply to Isaac

You seem to have a serious problem with black and white thinking. "Morale is sometimes the most important issue in a conflict," is not equivalent to "morale is always the deciding issue in a conflict."

Obviously some degree of morale is a necessary condition for victory. In certain cases, as I have given examples of, superior morale is a sufficient cause for victory in spite of inferior numbers, equipment, tactics, and leadership. Obviously, sometimes dumb luck also intervenes to change the course of history as well (e.g., the role of storms in attempts to invade Japan and the degree of losses suffered by the Spanish Armada).

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/04/russian-invasion-ukraine-us-sanctions-inflation-global-economy

Turns out that most countries in the global south - whose opinions actually matter - have more sense then NATO bootlickers who like to frequent this thread, which is unsurprising but fun to be reminded of:

I think that most countries in the Global South have condemned Russia’s invasion but have been very hesitant to go beyond that, at this point, and be dragged into a US-NATO-led bloc. I think this is a recognition of three things. One is that it was partly NATO’s expansion right up to the borders of Russia that created the conditions for Putin’s countermove. This push to get countries on the border with Russia into NATO has been going on since 1994.

The West, and in particular the United States, has been involved in regime change in Ukraine, especially with the Maidan uprising in 2014, very much linked to fascist groups. And now this is being used by the United States for a real drive to regain its primacy as the global hegemon, seeking to rescue its tattered reputation after its defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was also a NATO defeat.

...Yes, I think [Western double-standards] is one of the reasons why Global South countries are keeping a distance from the US efforts to drag them onto Washington’s side. Definitely the double standards in relation to Ukraine versus the Iraq War, the civil war in Syria, the Palestine-Israeli long war, and the Saudi genocidal war in Yemen, that is all very clear in the Global South and there is an awareness of the real historical record. We won’t be duped.

This is why trying to create a unified anti-Russian alliance isn’t going to work. Everyone knows there are clear double standards and the United States is really using the Ukrainian crisis to reassert its hegemony. I think Washington was hoping that somehow it would be able to reconstruct the past and create amnesia about what happened in the Middle East with its wars there, but that hasn’t worked.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Always ask 'who benefits'.

A good principle. Seems to lose against 'who's benefit does it benefit me to ask about'.

Quoting ssu

You have a fixation on the US. As everything has to be about the US, it is you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US.

I've quite clearly included Europe and NATO in my analysis, referring often to 'the West' or "US, Europe and NATO", so no, it's not all about the US, just mainly so. I've been quite clear about my reasons for that. 'The West' is where I live and where virtually everyone here lives, it's the governments over which we have some say and some responsibility for.

Quoting ssu

you are the one exculpating Russia here because everything has to be about the US.

How does the subject matter of the conversation here exculpate Russia? Russia invaded a country. No one's disputing that, and seeing as no one has said that it was OK for them to have invaded a country, there's no exculpation. you're actually arguing that the US did nothing wrong (not morally wrong, anyway) that's far from saying 'other players were also wrong' (as I am in focusing on the US), it's actually saying 'no other players were wrong' ie exculpation.

In other words, it's not exculpation to say that other people were also wrong. It is exculpation to say they weren't.

Quoting ssu

The mistake that the US did, or US/NATO, is that it made a promise it then didn't deliver. You don't answer that a country get "perhaps in the future" NATO membership. Fine.

...and a dozen other things.

Quoting ssu

you simply blatantly disregard everything else.

I've written hundreds of posts. I haven't 'disregarded' anything. My most recent reply to you...

Quoting Isaac

The idea that it was entirely within Ukraine's power to determine that they would mount this great a defence, or that Russia's offence would be so poor as to render it effective. To hold that belief, one would have to hold the corollary - that in cases where the defenders lost, they simply weren't themselves courageous enough to do the job. I don't hold to that belief, but rather to the fact that external forces can either hamper or bolster a defending people's morale. That the Belorussians, or the Afghans, or the Russians themselves even, aren't just lazy or cowards, they are not overthrowing their autocratic leaders because of material circumstances constraining the natural courage and conviction that all oppressed peoples have.

That doesn't disregard what you said. It directly quotes it and then takes issue with it. Just because I don't agree with your position, it doesn't mean I'm disregarding it. You seem to be falling into @Christoffer's trap of confusing saying something is the case with 'explaining'. You're not my teacher, nor are you an expert, so when you say something, I may well disagree with it.

Quoting ssu

Answer honestly why has Russia turned itself into a pariah? Or how has the US turned Russia into a pariah state?

A combination of alienation, condescension, and provocation in its foreign policy which (knowing the type of person Putin is) was knowingly more likely to lead to the situation we have now then not. I mean this isn't crazy 'out there' thinking. It's what foreign policy expert after expert has been warning successive US governments about for years. I've already cited them saying exactly that.

Quoting ssu

The main supplier was long QATAR, actually. The US became only in 2019 a major player in LNG as earlier it simply didn't have the means to transfer it's LNG to Europe.

This is a great example of the issue you have confusing 'explaining' with discussing. I didn't just make up what I said did I (I mean, if you seriously think I'm just going to take a guess about something as specific as LNG imports...) So you looked up something, I looked up something... but you just assume the difference simply must result from me being wrong - blinded by my ideology - and not, say, you being wrong.

If you're struggling, a normal conversation would go "oh, those aren't the figures I've got. Where did you get yours from?"

Quoting ssu

5. The lucrative markets of the world's bread basket get resoundingly secured as Ukraine will never again consider looking East for aid and trade deals. — Isaac

I don't know where this comes from.

The Russian navy has deployed a naval blockade on Ukrainian ports that will likely leave a huge amount of Ukrainian harvest to rot because you don't replace ship transport in months with land based transport, as the war continues.

And what is there for Ukraine not to trade with the East, with China?

Russia. Ukraine's third largest export market. To the East of Ukraine, no?

Quoting ssu

3. American arms manufacturers make a fortune from both direct sales and the increased militarisation of Europe. — Isaac

And so do European arms manufacturers. Yes, and why has that happened? Why are the countries increasing their military budgets?

Well, because there's a war on, obviously. So they act to ensure it continues rather then end it as soon as possible.

Quoting ssu

6. The IMF get to fully control the economy of this new market to suit its needs because Ukraine will be so heavily in debt (and so bereft of alternatives) that it will have no choice. — Isaac

And here you conveniently forget totally forgets where the actual assistance will come for Ukraine to rebuild it's economy, from the EU.

EU - 1.2 billlion, IMF 1.4 billion on top of the 27 million already lent. But yeah. The EU will shaft them with pecuniary loan terms too. So?

Quoting ssu

But what we're being asked here to accept, by ssu, SophistiCat, @Christoffer et al, is that all that just happened by chance, just dumb luck. — Isaac

Nobody has said that. Developments that you have described quite inaccurately are results of Putin's actions. Responses to those action.

That's literally saying exactly what I suggested. That all this fortune merely accrued to the US (and Europe) by chance. It's all Putin's actions and they just happened, by sheer good fortune, to be exactly those actions which most benefit the West.

Cui bono.

Quoting Olivier5

Mods have been wallowing in low quality themselves on this thread, and have consistently played the anti-NATO flute. Disappointing.

Yeah, it seems that it's impossible to be both critical of the west and still understand things like Sweden and Finland's will to get security through Nato. I think the biggest problem is a black and white fallacy: the reason for the invasion can only be one or the other, and the will to join Nato means supporting everything they do, and being in Nato means supporting the US in everything they do (which makes little sense to the educated about Nato), and being critical of Russia means Russophobia and so on and so on...

This lack of complexity or lack of understanding that a situation has more sides than two is the biggest problem in this thread. It's a circlejerk for everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it. But things change, things get complicated, and being rational means understanding more sides than one. This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine. Ignoring the obvious war crimes and genocidal behaviors of a nation just to score some points on the anti-Nato board. It's sickening the level of apologetics going on in here. Fucking whataboutism everywhere, trying to shift the discussion from what is actually going on to a topic closer to the heart of the one writing. Ego-boosting their intellectual delusions by trying to sound smarter than all experts in the field, cherry-picking evidence, and rhetorically ignoring everything that is hard to counter, choosing only segments easy to twist their tongue around. All while the mods ignore the cesspool quality of this thread. :vomit: I expected some level of moral understanding, some level of understanding of pragmatic hard choices, but this thread is just as bad as any Reddit thread on the subject. I rather turn to the real people around me actually researching this shit than continue trying to convince people who're stuck in their own echo chambers.

Got no takers on the "is this the end of the main battle tank era?" question I see, but I'm starting to think the bigger lesson learned will be the reemergence of artillery as a much larger part of operations. Guided artillery shells seem to be doing much more damage as the war goes on. The ability to use far cheaper artillery, with infinite "loiter" time, to provide the equivalent of close air support and to hit moving vehicles seems like a game changer. The Excalibur shell the US fields has come down in cost, from $250,000 to $65,000. It allows the use of 155mm artillery to within 150 feet of friendly forces. Newer rounds can be blind fired and pick up targets and feed back recon data in flight, and can be called off if too close to friendlies. Extended range versions can cover 43 miles.

This could be huge for lower budget forces. The ANA was extremely hampered by coming to rely on close air support that it lost when the US left. This provides similar functionality at a fraction of the cost. It appears to be devestating Russian advances in some cases, that is for sure.

Edit: my understanding is that the ability to hit moving targets is somewhat limited, and self-guided shells that pick targets are more expensive. Ok for hitting something large like a tank, APC, or IFV, provided it is moving slowly, not at the level of drones or jets, where a guided munition can hit a windshield on a truck speeding down the highway (yet).

Already though, there is a counter to this. The new M1 has an interceptor system for shells, rockets, and drones, but more impressively, Israel just unveiled a laser system that fries incoming shells and rockets. The bonus here is that you don't have to rely on munitions, and it should be cheaper over time. In theory, you could cover counter battery fire using a system powered by a solar panel.

The new Mitsubishi F-3, which might be the first Gen 6 air superiority fighter to actually make it out, has a huge powerplant for future laser projectile defense, and the ability for it to intercept long range missiles with the laser system (in theory). However, it strangely is missing the ability to fly without a pilot, which I think will be common in the future (my guess is that all first wave bombers will be unmanned soon, but not fighters for a while).

Russia, overshooting the space between high concept and ridiculous sci-fi, claims that the MiG-31 will not only have both these abilities, but will have a working scramjet, allowing it to hit Mach 4-5 (sort of ridiculous) and the ability to travel into space (farcical on the level of Reagan's satalite-based laser missile defense bullshit).

Quoting Christoffer

the reason for the invasion can only be one or the other

Yes, but what kind of dogmatically blinded idealist would be so stupid as to assume such a complex situation was all down to one reason or another...?

Quoting Christoffer

So, yeah, this is all Putin.

...oh, yeah, I remember.

Quoting Christoffer

being critical of Russia means Russophobia

I know! Fancy thinking that being critical of one party makes you a supporter of one or the other...

Quoting Christoffer

everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it

Quoting Olivier5

the other Kremlinophilic idiots here

Quoting Christoffer

being rational means understanding more sides than one.

I see. So just point me in the direction of any of your posts which are understanding of the arguments that NATO provocation was partly responsible for this war?

Quoting Christoffer

This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine

Russia is bombing the shit out of it. Can you quote a single person denying that?

Quoting Christoffer

their intellectual delusions by trying to sound smarter than all experts in the field,

I've repeatedly asked you for citations from experts supporting your position and you've repeatedly refused. Experts in the field have repeatedly warned successive US governments that NATO's actions may provoke a war. I've cited several. You cited no one. In fact when I asked, you've specifically said...

Quoting Christoffer

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. Since the first sign of tension at the border towards Ukraine, I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. It's around the clock. And through all of this, I use rational induction of the facts and speculations that exist at the moment.

So who exactly is "trying to sound smarter than all experts"? The ones directly citing them, or the one claiming he doesn't need to cite them because he does his own 'deep dive' research and his amazing 'rational induction of the facts'?

Reply to Isaac

You are the one proving my point the most Mr people-don't-need-education-professor-expert. Impossible to take you seriously and I don't.

Quoting Christoffer

I expected some level of moral understanding, some level of understanding of pragmatic hard choices, but this thread is just as bad as any Reddit thread on the subject.

I used to think so but I then checked on the corresponding Reddit thread, and found it better than here...

Yeah, kind of starting to think all the "NATO" "Nazi" "Putin is unstable" whatever stories are diversions or bullshit, and the invasion is a snaffle. (Or attempted, so far.)
What more reason do you need? Coherent.
Of course NATO would get in the way of that (baad for momentum), maybe even China could, and now, unlike Crimea, the Ukrainians sure have (baad for momentum). Roll into Donbas (good for momentum).

[quote=Sergei Lavrov (Apr 19, 2022)]another stage of this operation is beginning[/quote]

Yeah, Sweden and Finland should join NATO. Might have a good influence there, too.

Quoting Olivier5

I used to think so but I then checked on the corresponding Reddit thread, and found it better than here...

I'm not surprised.

Reply to Christoffer

You complain about black and white thinking yet you exclusively blame Putin for everything.

You complain about partisanship yet you assume anyone critical of NATO is 'siding with Russia'.

You accuse people of trying to play 'smarter than the experts' yet you refuse to cite a single one and claim your own rational induction is superior.

You complain about ad hominem attacks yet can't write more than two paragraphs without using one.

You complain about the gutter-ward direction of the tribalism in this thread yet fill half your posts with invective about 'the other side'.

You clearly have compartmentalising down to a fine art. I'm impressed.

Reply to Christoffer

You are completely delusional about what has been discussed in this thread.

Impressively, you manage to preamble your simplifying delusions with talk of complexity.

You actually manage to say:

Quoting Christoffer

This lack of complexity or lack of understanding that a situation has more sides than two is the biggest problem in this thread

Followed by:

Quoting Christoffer

It's a circlejerk for everyone who spent years criticizing Nato and the US, siding with Russia because of it.

Yet somehow also manage to follow that immediately with:

Quoting Christoffer

This thread is filled with self-righteous ideological BS instead of accepting what Russia is actually doing in Ukraine.

Again, how do you know that Russia does not have just cause?

No one so far has actually provided a solid argument, but only their self-righteous ideological BS.

If you use an international legalistic theory: why is it true? Why does Russia need to follow it?

I asked many, many, many pages ago the question of how many Nazis is too many Nazis. It's been declared several times there wasn't "enough" Nazis in Ukraine, but that presupposes some measure of enough that would justify invasion.

If it's clear there's not enough Nazis in Ukraine ... ok, such an argument must logically start with "this much would be too much" followed by evidence that Ukraine had less than their invasion justifying Nazi quota. Some apologetics were thrown out instead (not answering the question of how many is too many, which by definition is required to argue there's not enough), to which I posted the western journalists reporting that clearly demonstrated there is significantly more Nazi's with significantly more institutional power in Ukraine than elsewhere in the West ... which, if we're doing philosophy, even if it was true that there's no more Nazi's with no more power than any Western nation, the question of whether that's too much or not has still not been answered.

Quoting Christoffer

It's sickening the level of apologetics going on in here.

Please cite any dealing of the Nazi's in Ukraine as "not enough" that wasn't apologetics but some rigorous argument that, by definition, must start with an argument of how many Nazis is too many Nazis.

Quoting Christoffer

Ignoring the obvious war crimes and genocidal behaviors of a nation just to score some points on the anti-Nato board.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not whataboutism, but part of the "understanding the situation" that you nominally promote. Pointing out the US getting caught red handed perpetrating war crimes like torture and wars of aggression based on made up evidence is not whataboutism, as it helps understand the rest of the world, as @Isaac recently pointed out, not giving a shit anymore about the NATO's moralising, which helps understand why Russia has not been effectively cutoff from the global economy, which helps understand why it can continue to wage war and the goal of the sanctions was not accomplished. And, if non-Western countries no longer even bother listening to NATO's moralising, then it also helps explain why Russians, as far as we can tell, are even less affected by it.

The decades of hypocrisy are essential to understanding the geopolitical situation, which, in turn, is essential for understanding the situation.

As for war crimes, it's simply a fact the only war crimes so far with essentially definitive proof are what the Ukrainians self-document and post to the internet themselves. This is essentially definitive proof as it cannot be doubted as Russian propaganda.

Of course, you can say Russians have committed more crimes but are just less operationally incompetent and don't proudly post it to Twitter ... but, obviously that's not a basis for proof.

As for allegations, the nature of allegations is they need to be proven, and, once proven, the nature of the legal system cited A. means nothing as does not have jurisdiction over the Russians and B. still actually needs a prosecution process.

Pointing out that talk of "crime" requires talk of "evidence" and the potential for the accused to "defend themselves" and then some, hopefully, credible prosecution and impartial judgement, is simply explaining what a "war crime" means apart from self-righteous ideology. If you get rid of the evidence and prosecution and some trusted legal institution that renders justice ... what is left in the meaning of "war crime"?

It, in that case, reduces to: I don't like it.

And, if that's your definition. I don't like it either, so we'd be in agreement.

Quoting Christoffer

I rather turn to the real people around me actually researching this shit than continue trying to convince people who're stuck in their own echo chambers.

Have you been on reddit about this subject?

This is potentially the most deluded and insane projection I have ever seen anywhere in any context.

You actually have the gumption to call this thread a circle jerk.

Have you visited /r/worldnews on the topic of Ukraine?

I was able to find only a single "pro Russian" (according to your definition) comment on the entire top thread of r/worldnews (since I'll actually bother to verify your claim reddit is an echo chamber of pro Russian sentiment right now):

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/u6w4fn/rworldnews_live_thread_russian_invasion_of/

Which was an answer to the following question:

Out of curiosity, what are the worst takes/opinions youve seen in these live threads?

And was:

khomyukk:That NATO should place a bunch of missiles on the Finnish border by St Petersburg as soon as they join.

That attempted diplomacy is somehow bad, even though it very rarely hurts the situation and is always the preferable solution if it does work.

That Russia has never contributed anything to the world.

The continuous outrage that the UN is the UN and not whatever world government type of organization that people seem to think it is.

That the world is or could be forced to be fair.

Now, if you can find a bunch of more pro-Russian content, please cite it. If you can't ... what would it mean that an entire thread of hundreds of comments is only jingoistic celebration of the "cause du jour"? And, honestly, as far as I can tell, comments I really don't think are up to your standards of complexity and nuance.

Quoting Olivier5

then checked on the corresponding Reddit thread, and found it better than here...

Off you go then.

I don't see the point of arguing after a certain amount of posts. It's roughly clear what each person thinks. But we do "reduce" each other into categories, probably unavoidably.

Reply to Isaac I do read it.

Quoting Manuel

I don't see the point of arguing after a certain amount of posts. It's roughly clear what each person thinks. But we do "reduce" each other into categories, probably unavoidably.

I think what you mean to say is after a certain amount of posts it becomes clear some posters are here for purely propaganda purposes or then to protect their own fragile egos in interpreting being able to post with being able to make a coherent point, and have zero good faith engagement in the discussion.

For example, to argue there's not enough Nazis to justify invasion, presumes if there was enough it would justify invasion and one would need to provide that definition of "enough Nazis".

Those presuming "Russia bad" and "Ukraine good" but do not have an answer to this basic question are either:

A. not engaging in discussion in good faith, which always has a point to continue between good faith interlocutors willing to do so, and some discussions have literally been going on for thousands of years without reaching the "certain amount of posts" you mention ... even more notably, good faith interlocutors who are not willing to debate don't chime in just to complain that others are doing so.

B. pro Nazi.

Reply to boethius Define 'nazi'.

Reply to boethius Or:
C. Able to distinguish nuance. Maybe it isn't about a specific number of Nazis, but what they are doing. Are they massacuring civilians and gearing up to invade their neighbors the way the real Nazis did? Do they actually have the capacity to do these things or is there an immanent risk of them gaining those capabilities? How will said Nazis be eliminated and what collateral damage will occur during these efforts? What tools are available for dispatching the Nazis: a modern, professional military with guided munitions for avoiding collateral damage, or one that is going to begin punitively shelling residential neighborhoods when they meet resistance and which will start gang raping women and children? Are there ways to engage the Nazi threat with more limited means?

There are plenty of people who are not "pro-Nazi," who nonetheless, seeing isolated US areas with active neo-Nazi groups, don't think the correct course of action is to begin shelling those communities.

Reply to StreetlightX

I vehemently disagree, but this is not the place to hash that out. I will say though, that until you recognize capitalism as the problem, you will be only ever be left with non-solutions like 'rebuilding the manufacturing base', whose calls simply end up an ever more murderous pitching of nations against nations, workers against workers, such that you get a suicidal bellum omnium contra omnes - a war of all against all. Which is exactly the cloth that this current conflict in Ukraine is cut out of.

I’m referring to capitalism as a monetary system (capitalism in principle) rather than “capitalism” the political system of the West. I’m talking about it as a monetary system which supports markets and the use of capital to generate economic growth. This is practiced successfully by Vietnam and China for example.

Without the adoption of a capitalist monetary system across large populations we are doomed to the next dark ages (much worse this time due to overpopulation and climate change, perhaps existential).

Is this what you are referring to?

Reply to boethius

Sorry, I was distracted. I mean, perhaps. I think some explanations I've seem to verge on jingoism. But this whole "bad faith" stuff, it's not worth more than one or two replies.

If they're going to twist your words or say something very silly, I'd just go talk with someone who has a point which I think is good, may be a bit misleading, etc.

But to keep this "Anti-America", "Pro-Putin", "Pro-Democracy", and all these labels, is kind of meaningless. For me.

Reply to boethius

You're one of those apologists I refer to. I won't even bother reading it because you and Isaac have just proven to be noise. And the mods don't give a fuck about this thread so why should I bother to discuss things with you? Enough has been said, you want to parrot on, go ahead, I'll focus on more able people because I've had enough of Putin apologists, Russian trolls, and people up in their own ideological asses. What you and everyone like you keep asking for is to make arguments that have already been made, but ignored or drowned out, so why should I bother debating with people like you? I'm waiting for the mods to clean this thread up, which they never will because it's "a political thread". :shade:

Quoting Olivier5

As I pointed out already, history is relevant to the present IFF you can derive a lesson from it applicable in the present. Otherwise it's water under the bridge. What lesson do you derive from your 'historical context', pray tell?

That the United States has a major role to play in this conflict, historically and currently -- and are, as usual, making things worse by rejecting peace negotiations. (There are historical reasons for this as well.)

I can't do anything about Russia. As a US citizen, I can at least do something -- however small -- about my government's actions. This is why I bring up the US, in part. But even if I weren't a citizen, given that the US is the world superpower, it would still be relevant indeed.

The Russians have made it fairly clear that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line and completely unacceptable. Since at least 2008. After 2014, the US doubled down. It was only a matter of time before Putin responded. John Mearsheimer had been predicting it for years, in fact.

Quoting Xtrix

What lesson do you derive from your 'historical context', pray tell?
— Olivier5

That the United States has a major role to play in this conflict, historically and currently -- and are, as usual, making things worse by rejecting peace negotiations.

How is the US 'rejecting peace negotiations'?

Reply to Olivier5

They have no interest in a negotiated settlement. This war is good for business, and so there's little chance the US will allow Putin any kind of path to save face. What they've done is spent billions of dollars to arm Ukrainians and prop up resistance while issuing economic sanctions (which, as always, will mostly hurt the population of Russia, not the elites-- despite talking points).

Quoting Xtrix

This war is good for business,

It's really not.

Thomas L Friedman opines (The New York Times):

China and Russia Are Giving Authoritarianism a Bad Name (Apr 18, 2022)

:D

Putin to Naryshkin (intelligence chief):You can sit down now.

Quoting EricH

There is no denying this. But regardless of US bad actions around the world, I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine.

What I'm not seeing in this thread are any possible path for ending this war.

If the United States wanted it that way, as in "Russia is not he enemy" , Ukraine could have existed as some sort of a West-leaning buffer state. Clumsily, as usual, they went too far in engineering a coup. This is not diplomacy.

There is hope, however, I will not name any names, but there are politicians over in the United States who have a more peaceable approach, at least before being elected. Then something seems to happen to them.They have to get elected though.The hope is that in the next election the issue of arming Ukraine, of how the entire crisis was handled, is sure to feature in the debates, and then it will be time for the American people to decide: however, if they vote out of fear, and the instinct for self-protection, vote for war, then I think the status quo would continue.

There is open discussion on how to 'defeat China' militarily, I hope this is not a majority view, the desire to go to war with China. If it is, then you are in trouble.

A review of RAND Corporation's
'War with China: Thinking
Through the Unthinkable'

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/review-rand-corporations-war-china-thinking-through-unthinkable

How will this end? I think it depends on President Zelenzkyy, and if enough destruction is wrought enough times he is bound to give in, I think that is what President Putin in trying to do.

May 9th seems to be a nice date to end it all. I do feel very very sorry for Ukraine, and very upset with Zelenskyy's line. If this is defending a country, then defense is not a good idea at all.

I won't mince words, President Zelenskyy's best option would have been to negotiate with the Russians, re-arm and fight back in some sort of insurgency. No doubt experts here have better ideas on how this could have been avoided, but that is my view.

Reply to Tzeentch :rofl:

Quoting Xtrix

They have no interest in a negotiated settlement. This war is good for business, and so there's little chance the US will allow Putin any kind of path to save face.

For one, Putin can find in him the strength to make peace, irrespective of the US. He doesn't need the support of the US to do so.

For two, so can Zelensky. If he wants to go for peace, the US can't stop him. Sorry to break it to you but your country is not that powerful anymore.

For three, I don't know where you've seen that the war is good for business. Inflation is already here. Global recession awaits us after the Russian debt default.

Quoting boethius

The decades of hypocrisy are essential to understanding the geopolitical situation

Speaking of...

A little taste of just how much 'support' we in the west have for Ukrainian welfare

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/19/ukrainian-workers-flee-modern-slavery-conditions-on-uk-farms

"Nobody cares what happens to seasonal workers. I thought our rights would be well protected in the UK but this has not happened. Working on the farm is probably one of the worst experiences and worst treatment of my life"

She and her boyfriend worked on a cherry farm, where they were not allowed to wear gloves, leading to their hands bleeding and skin beginning to peel off.

She said workers on one farm staged a protest over the poor conditions and were punished by being suspended for a week.

...sorry. I meant how much support we in the west have for Ukrainian flags. They're everywhere, we love 'em! Ukrainians themselves... meh, apparently not so much

Quoting EricH

I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine.

1. The US and Europe continue to supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to continued war - thousands more Ukrainians die, eventually they lose Donbas and Crimea, because (without boots on the ground, they can't win)

2. The US and Europe stop supplying weapons, intelligence, political and media support to continued war and instead put all that money and effort into brokering a serious peace deal.

3. NATO send troops into Ukraine, set up a no-fly zone, bomb the shit out of the invading Russian army and hope to God it doesn't start World War Three.

Option 1 leads nowhere but more death and destruction, yet it's the option currently being taken. Option 2 could save thousands (if not millions) of lives, risks 'giving in' to a bully, but little more. Option 3 could also save millions of lives, doesn't risk 'giving in' to a bully, but does risk global annihilation.



Do you not think we should even try option 2? If we ought, then there's your answer. There's what you should persuade your political leaders to do.

Reply to Isaac

A little taste of just how much 'support' we in the west have for Ukrainian welfare

This is irrelevant to the political discussion. It is well documented how sick the U.K. economy and work practices are.
The government’s position is to prevent as many refugees arriving as possible.

Not to mention that the U.K. government is dysfunctional atm. We are returning to our place as the sick man of Europe.

Quoting Punshhh

This is irrelevant to the political discussion.

How so? We've been talking about the role of hypocrisy in bolstering and providing cover for Putin's invasion within Russia (and other sympathetic states). It might be irrelevant to the political discussion you want to have. Feel free to refrain from replying if so

From Putin's speech...

This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

Reply to Isaac It’s irrelevant because it’s the result of an internal social and political failure within a failing U.K. Any international affairs don’t shape it. It predates the Ukraine crisis anyways.

It might be an example of something Putin can point to and shout look how bad they are. But he was not short of propaganda material to begin with.

I would agree that Johnson is one of Putin’s most lucrative assets.

Quoting Punshhh

It’s irrelevant

...

Quoting Punshhh

I would agree that Johnson is one of Putin’s most lucrative assets.

Surely that's makes it relevant? You've not explained what the criteria of relevance are.

Reply to Isaac That Johnson isn’t micro managing events in the U.K. as party of his propaganda initiative. And that Putin isn’t short of propaganda ammunition.

Quoting Punshhh

Putin isn’t short of propaganda ammunition.

So, because he's not short of ammunition, that makes discussing his ammunition irrelevant? I don't see the link.

If twenty people each give a criminal a gun, it's not irrelevant to discuss one of them on the grounds that there were 19 others, that just makes no sense.

The rampant hypocrisy in Western countries with regards to stuff like this is a large part of Putin's propaganda which keeps him in power and provides support for his actions. This is an example of that. You can't use the fact that there are many other examples as an an argument that any given example is irrelevant.

Reply to Isaac There's a fourth option you forgot to mention: The US and Europe supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to Russia in its war against Ukraine. It ought to be mentioned as the fastest way to bring this war to a close, even though it would be a catastrophy for the world.

Not so farfetched, when you think of it. President Trump would have supported Putin.

Quoting Olivier5

The US and Europe supply weapons, intelligence, political and media support to Russia in its war against Ukraine. It ought to be mentioned as the fastest way to bring this war to a close, even though it would be a catastrophy for the world.

Why would we be interested in the 'fastest' way? The fastest way would be to launch nuclear strikes on both Russia and Ukraine. No countries, no wars. Job done.

I assumed, wrongly it seems, that I wasn't talking to a bunch of sociopaths and we all had reducing human suffering as a goal.

In that respect, it seems the difference of opinion is over whether 'giving in' to Putin's bullying is going to cause more suffering long-term, or whether a long drawn-out war followed by crippling debt would.

But that's just exactly the contrast I've been pointing to for the last 200 pages. Apparently it makes me a Putin apologist, because it seems concern for the well-being of ordinary folk has to take second place to flag waiving for the 'goodies'.

Quoting Isaac

n that respect, it seems the difference of opinion is over whether 'giving in' to Putin's bullying is going to cause more suffering long-term, or whether a long drawn-out war followed by crippling debt would.

But that's just exactly the contrast I've been pointing to for the last 200 pages. Apparently it makes me a Putin apologist, because it seems concern for the well-being of ordinary folk has to take second place to flag waiving for the 'goodies'.

Why do you behave so aggressively then, if we are talking of a mere tactical difference but agree on the goal? Why are you so angry at folks who think that giving in to Putin would create more suffering than resisting him? It's a perfectly valid opinion, no?

Quoting Olivier5

Why are you so angry at folks who think that giving in to Putin would create more suffering than resisting him? It's a perfectly valid opinion, no?

That I'm angry is entirely a fantasy of yours, I can't account for your overactive imagination.

And I've not once argued against the reasonableness of the view that giving in to Putin would cause more suffering. I've argued against the view that the alternative position is 'preposterous', 'apologist', 'kremlimophilic', 'supporting Russia'...and all the other pathetic attempts to avoid any actual argument by tribalistic cheerleading.

I think the view that giving in to Putin might cause more suffering in the long term is perfectly reasonable. It's supported by a range of experts in their field. I happen to disagree with it. My view is also reasonable and supported by a range of experts in their field.

What interests me here is why, given two reasonable views people could adopt, they choose the one which exculpates the West (mostly their own nations) and puts all agency on Russia (the one nation they have absolutely no say in, nor responsibility for). I find that choice suspicious in motive, but it's still one of the plausible options.

Quoting Isaac

That I'm angry is entirely a fantasy of yours, I

Well then, you might wish to tone down the insults.

Quoting Isaac

What interests me here is why, given two reasonable views people could adopt, they choose the one which exculpates the West (mostly their own nations) and puts all agency on Russia (the one nation they have absolutely no say in, nor responsibility for). I find that choice suspicious in motive, but it's still one of the plausible options.

And I find your interest in blaming the West suspicious, when the topic is a war started by Russia. It's quite bizarre. People are not 'putting all agency on Russia'. Rather, Russia objectively started this war and can stop it. That's a fact that we simply recognize, not a choice we are making. The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it.

@Olivier5 @Isaac christ. Do you two ever take a day off?

Quoting Olivier5

For one, Putin can find in him the strength to make peace, irrespective of the US.

True. And Trump can find the strength to admit he lost the election fairly.

Quoting Olivier5

For two, so can Zelensky. If he wants to go for peace, the US can't stop him.

He’s already made proposals.

Quoting Olivier5

For three, I don't know where you've seen that the war is good for business. Inflation is already here. Global recession awaits us after the Russian debt default.

It’s extremely good for business. Take a look at Lockheed stock since the beginning of the war — to name one arms manufacturer. So that’s one giant sector — defense contractors.

Another is the fossil fuel industry. They’ve been very happy indeed, now that they can present themselves as heroes.

“Inflation is already here” — and? That’s not bad for business, and in fact is largely created by business.

Quoting Olivier5

The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it.

There’s no way Ukraine lasts this long without military support, as you know. So yes, the US is also fighting this war.

Quoting Olivier5

The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it.

Uh huh... made the mistake of thinking we were having a grown up conversation. We'll leave it there.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/russias-war-for-the-donbas-begins-what-happens-if-putin-cant-win/

Reply to Changeling

From learning, reading, researching, philosophizing? Never.

Quoting Isaac

We'll leave it there.

You're welcome to surrender at any time.

Quoting Xtrix

It’s extremely good for business. Take a look at Lockheed stock since the beginning of the war

There are many factors at play here, including I would think the recent contracts for the f-35 in Finland and Switzerland. And that's just one company among zillions.

Quoting Xtrix

Another is the fossil fuel industry. They’ve been very happy indeed, now that they can present themselves as heroes.

And everybody else -- all the consumers and companies not selling fossil fuels but buying it -- have to pay them through the nose. How is that good for their business?

Quoting Xtrix

There’s no way Ukraine lasts this long without military support, as you know. So yes, the US is also fighting this war.

A little conceptual clarity, please? The US is helping Ukraine fight this war via weapons donations, but the US is not fighting itself directly. It's an important distinction if one wants to avoid WW3.

How long Ukraine could continue fighting without such support is an open question.

The guys in Mariupol are still fighting to this day, after several weeks during which all Western war monitoring sites have reported "Mariupol should fall in the next few days", thus beating all expectations, and they received none of these fancy US javelins, to my knowledge.

Reply to Isaac I don’t know exactly what you were arguing as I haven’t followed that line of reasoning. My comment was about the use of imperfections in western countries as a point of argument in the morality or justification of their support for Ukraine, or criticism of Putin.

Every country is deeply flawed and imperfect in many ways. Geopolitics is about these imperfect regimes rubbing along together without trying to destroy each other.

Quoting Olivier5

The US is helping Ukraine fight this war via weapons donations, but the US is not fighting itself directly. It's an important distinction if one wants to avoid WW3.

If you want to be clear, then specify what you mean. You didn’t saying “directly fighting the war.” Yes, we’re all aware that the US does not have boots on the ground. They’re still fighting this war by contributing support. They’re as involved as one can be.

Quoting Olivier5

And everybody else -- all the consumers and companies not selling fossil fuels but buying it -- have to pay them through the nose. How is that good for their business?

I assume by “their” you’re referring to consumers and other companies. True, it’s not good for many consumers, small businesses, etc. But “they” don’t have the pull that Big Oil does.

Quoting Xtrix

They’re still fighting this war by contributing support. They’re as involved as one can be.

No they are not. The ones that are as involved as one can be are the actual belligerants: Ukraine and Russia.

Quoting Xtrix

But “they” don’t have the pull that Big Oil does.

So you agree it's bad for most businesses under the sun. Thank you.

@Baden
What are the odds of nuclear war and would you bet on it?

Reply to frank

Obviously not Baden, but, I think chances could be better. It could be worse, but, not by much.

This is going on way too long. And these sanctions could destroy Russia and the government, in a way that, though may be "satisfactory" for people who dislike Putin, is not wise. They'll go down in flames before giving up power.

Reply to frank

Do you mean the use of any nuclear weapon by Russia or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO? The former is a significant possibility (though still very unlikely) at the moment imo, the latter not. The most likely outcome is still Russia forcing Ukraine to capitulate through conventional warfare. That might take a month or a year depending on how much support Ukraine gets, but they're losing the war simply because they're facing a much more powerful opponent and there's no external political will to overturn that dynamic.

Quoting Manuel

Obviously not Baden

I'm just another internet rando anyhow. :grin:

Reply to Baden

Well, yeah, that may be true.

But you're a rando w/power. :smirk:

Quoting Isaac

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/19/ukrainian-workers-flee-modern-slavery-conditions-on-uk-farms

:o Seems the commenters agree — bad conditions and something ought be done. Those farmers doing unchecked capitalism (or being assholes) need slapping.

Reply to Manuel

:chin: Just to add though, for all their ostensibly hostile talk, there seems to be a tacit agreement between NATO and Russia that goes something like this: NATO 'You can destroy Ukraine, but go no further'. Russia: 'You can arm Ukraine, but go no further'. This is underlined by the fact that Russia telegraphed their recent missile test to the Pentagon as harmless and the Pentagon described it as routine even as the propaganda arms of their respective media were dramatizing it. It's distasteful as the likely result is that Ukraine's destruction just gets drawn out rather than mitigated while NATO and Russia act tough to keep their respective plebs satisfied.

Quoting Olivier5

No they are not.

Yes, they are. Your delusions are your own.

"The US is not involved in what is obvious to anyone with half a brain as the clearest-cut proxy war between Russia and the US in modern memory, one that it helped engineer and provoke".

Reply to StreetlightX
Who are you quoting?

Reply to Paine No one. Call it a paraphrase.

Reply to Baden

Well, yes. Ukraine's destruction is pretty much a given, how destroyed is an open question and depends on the relevant actors, mostly Russia.

It's excellent PR for most Politicians in the "West", but, the fight is broader. Ukraine could not defend itself without Western support, they'd be done by now.

The sanctions are very, very harsh. Some of them make sense, particularly to the oligarchs and Putin. Not to the general population. My fear here, and it is still stuck in my head, that they'll put Russia in a spot in which it will go crazy. And they may.

Russia really messed up going into this one, but, the outcome can be devastating.

Reply to StreetlightX
It sounds like the Ukrainians and the Russians had nothing to do with it from that paraphrase. Seems unlikely in view of the "civil" war quality of the participants.

The U.S. has fought a lot of proxy wars. One quality that has appeared consistently in those conflicts is how the people actually fighting for themselves came to use foreign powers for their own ends. It turns out that it is not just a game of Risk.

Reply to Manuel :up:

Quoting Baden

Do you mean the use of any nuclear weapon by Russia or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO?

I think the first will lead directly to the second based on what Count Timothy von Icarus said. The world would react to Russia's use of tactical nuclear weapons in a way that would lead Putin to use strategic weapons.

But you're still betting on a cease fire and negotiations. Sounds good. :up:

What happened to the bioweapons that were an existential threat justifying the invasion? Surely, the Slav targeting super virus and killer bird flocks remain. But now the entire Kyiv axis was a feint?

Didn't Nuland admit to the bio weapons!?

Quoting Xtrix

Your delusions are your own.

Unlike your lies, which someone else put in your mouth.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

Nuland admitted to biological research labs with contents such that it would be a concern if Russia obtained them.

Putin invented some fantasy about Slav-killing viruses to help his anti-Western propaganda.

I don't understand why you're having such trouble distinguishing between the two issues. The non-existence of the latter is obvious, but has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the former.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Or:
C. Able to distinguish nuance. Maybe it isn't about a specific number of Nazis, but what they are doing. Are they massacuring civilians and gearing up to invade their neighbors the way the real Nazis did? Do they actually have the capacity to do these things or is there an immanent risk of them gaining those capabilities? How will said Nazis be eliminated and what collateral damage will occur during these efforts? What tools are available for dispatching the Nazis: a modern, professional military with guided munitions for avoiding collateral damage, or one that is going to begin punitively shelling residential neighborhoods when they meet resistance and which will start gang raping women and children? Are there ways to engage the Nazi threat with more limited means?

Or D: Refuse to take the bait. Seriously discussing whether or not there were enough Nazis in Ukraine to justify an invasion, or even considering it a topic worthy of discussion serves to enable Kremlin's fake narrative. For the useful idiots to do their job, they don't even need to buy into the narrative completely - they just need to take it seriously and keep it in the public consciousness. This creates the general impression that there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem."

Quoting SophistiCat

This creates the general impression that there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem."

No. Reports from international counterterrorism experts like the Soufan Center are what give the impression there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem."

Yes, and then there are useful idiots who are idiots enough to actually buy into the propaganda. I should have made that clear.

Quoting Baden

The most likely outcome is still Russia forcing Ukraine to capitulate through conventional warfare. That might take a month or a year depending on how much support Ukraine gets, but they're losing the war simply because they're facing a much more powerful opponent

And I for one wish they keep 'losing' it as effectively as they have so far.

Quoting SophistiCat

buy into the propaganda

So the Soufan centre are propagandists now? What evidence do you have for that accusation?

Quoting Olivier5

And I for one wish they keep 'losing' it as effectively as they have so far.

Really?

2,224 civilian deaths, of which 173 are children, 5 million refugees, 3,000 soldiers dead, countless infrastructure destroyed, $600 billion of damage...

...and you hope that continues?

Reply to Isaac It could be worse. The Russians could have taken Kiev for instance.

Quoting Olivier5

It could be worse.

It could be better. I was asking why you declared a preference that it continue this way.

Quoting Isaac

So the Soufan centre are propagandists now? What evidence do you have for that accusation?

Rather than fighting against neo-Nazis, Putin has been supporting far-right extremists including white supremacists, for years. Russia has nurtured neo-Nazis and used mercenaries and other extremists to wage a separatist war in Ukraine, while also seeking to execute Russian foreign policy abroad, and has deployed disinformation and misinformation tools to manipulate the narratives.

Reply to Isaac What alternative do you have in mind?

Quoting Olivier5

Rather than fighting against neo-Nazis, Putin has been supporting far-right extremists including white supremacists, for years. Russia has nurtured neo-Nazis and used mercenaries and other extremists to wage a separatist war in Ukraine, while also seeking to execute Russian foreign policy abroad, and has deployed disinformation and misinformation tools to manipulate the narratives.

Yes, so I read. Disgraceful. Not sure what that's got to do with denying there's a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine.

Quoting Olivier5

What alternative do you have in mind?

Peace.

Quoting Olivier5

And I for one wish they keep 'losing' it as effectively as they have so far.

While you may be enjoying the spectacle, they are dying and their country is being destroyed.

Reply to Isaac It has to do with your selective attention to nazis in Ukraine at the expense of nazis in the Kremlin.

Quoting Baden

While you may be enjoying the spectacle, they are dying and their country is being destroyed.

I am not enjoying it. Trust me on this.

Quoting Isaac

Peace

Peace is generally preferable to war, I agree. The Russians should stop their war of choice ASAP.

Quoting Olivier5

It has to do with your selective attention to nazis in Ukraine at the expense of nazis in the Kremlin.

The only times I've mentioned Nazis in this thread have been to undermine the Disneyfication of a complex geopolitical situation and in reference to the role their presence plays in Putin's justifications to Russians and his allies.

What relevance would Putin's support of Neo-Nazis in Europe have to either of those points?

It's just another case of this childish notion that we have to pass moral judgement on every fucking thing we say.

Quoting Isaac

It's just another case of this childish notion thst we have to pass moral judgement on every fucking thing we say.

We have a duty not to lie, in my view. Do you agree?

Quoting Olivier5

We have a duty not to lie, in my view. Do you agree?

Not talking about something which is the case is not lying about it.

Reply to Isaac Once again, do you agree that we have a duty not to lie?

Quoting Baden

This is underlined by the fact that Russia telegraphed their recent missile test to the Pentagon as harmless and the Pentagon described it as routine

But it is routine. Those missiles would show up on defense systems and it would create a Defcon problem and raise tensions unnecessarily if not communicated as a test. There's no "collaboration" between Nato and Russia in such a sense, it's routine to inform about events so that there's no unintentional retaliation that could escalate to full conflict.

Quoting Olivier5

Once again, do you agree that we have a duty not to lie?

No. That would lead to famously daft situations such as not lying to the Nazi asking where the Jewish family are hidden. One ought to lie in that case.

Reply to Isaac Is that why you are lying on this thread? To protect someone?

Quoting Olivier5

While you may be enjoying the spectacle, they are dying and their country is being destroyed.
— Baden

I am not enjoying it. Trust me on this.

Can we agree that this is not what an effective defense of a country looks like? At what point does it become a failure to defend? 50% 60% 70% of the infrastructure, the population, what is it?

The Chinese government put a lot of money into that infrastructure, they must be very upset.

Quoting FreeEmotion

The Chinese government put a lot of money into that infrastructure, they must be very upset.

Somehow I don't think they'll be writing it off as their loss. One more cost the Ukrainians apparently ought to pay for our schadenfreude.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Can we agree that this is not what an effective defense of a country looks like? At what point does it become a failure to defend? 50% 60% 70% of the infrastructure, the population, what is it?

This is not what an effective attack of a country looks like. At what point does it become a failure for the invader? When he invades 5% of the target country at huge loss?

Reply to Olivier5

Why have you decided to keep replacing the question at hand with a different question. Have you forgotten how conversation works? Would you like me to draw you a diagram?

Reply to Isaac Do try and draw a diagram for a good, productive conversation. That could be loads of fun to see what a serial liar like you put in there.

Quoting Olivier5

At what point does it become a failure for the invader?

When he withdraws his forces and the country is liberated or when that outcome becomes inevitable, obviously.

Quoting Baden

When he withdraws his forces and the country is liberated or when that outcome becomes inevitable, obviously.

Evidently we're not at this stage yet.

"Threatening early nuclear use in a NATO-Russia conflict may be the best way to protect Europe from Putin’s recklessness."
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-and-natos-crisis-of-nuclear-credibility/

Quoting Olivier5

Unlike your lies .

US involvement in this war is beyond question. You’re welcome to continue on with delusions.

Quoting Olivier5

We have a duty not to lie

Coming from someone actively denying US involvement. Rich.

https://twitter.com/CanadianUkrain1/status/1517040544710594560
Putin looks terrible.

Reply to RogueAI

I get a 404 error on this. What's it supposed to link to?

Reply to Baden Should work now.

Quoting Xtrix

Coming from someone actively denying US involvement.

That's just not true.

Quoting Xtrix

US involvement in this war is beyond question.

Yes, and it is beyond question that the US is not fighting this war directly. They are not among the belligerants. And therefore they don't have the power to stop this war. That's up to the belligerants.

Quoting Olivier5

it is beyond question that the US is not fighting this war directly. They are not among the belligerants.

Also beyond question that Russia is the only party involved with a double consonant in its name.

Reply to RogueAI

There's been speculation he has Parkinson's. That won't stop him though.

So, US officials are saying they've no idea where the weapons they're sending to Ukraine are ending up.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/04/united-states-military-aid-ukraine-war-weapons

Thank goodness there's absolutely no Neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine, and it's not, for example, one of the largest arms trafficking markets in Europe

Let's face it. The end is near. And only a few months aga I was assured that peace is the result of atomìc weapons. Someday these babies will get used. Happy times!

Followed by this one:

Do people feel the same as during the Cuban missile crisis?

Reply to Isaac

[I]> Neither do I. You can have at my moral judgements using any data you like. Simply saying 'because X you must think Y' is not an argument. I've claimed that morally, the deal on the table is a better choice than continued fighting. I've argued it from a consequentialist framework (as I believe governments are not people and so don't themselves have virtues). A counter argument doesn't consist in vague hand-waiving toward some other de facto circumstances. A counter argument consists in some reason why I shouldn't have used a consequentialist framework, or some reason why my assessment of the consequences are wrong.[/I]

Yet another strawman argument. Dude, you don’t get to give me homework. I know what I’m doing. One could question somebody else’s claims and arguments based on their explanatory power and/or on their internal consistency. And I did both with you. The point I made and you are addressing now was about logic consistency: it’s legitimate to frame your moral position toward the negotiation deal in a way that is logically consistent with your own assumptions in framing Zelensky’s position toward the negotiation deal. Period.
You were trying to evade my claim as follows:
“if Zelensky’s moral stand and choices are to be assessed over a de facto situation or actual terms on the table (as you claim), then I don’t see why your moral stand and choices about this war can’t be assessed based on the actual clash between 2 de facto dominant powers, as you frame this war. — neomac
Because our choices aren't limited to a de facto 2 clash between dominant powers”
When I asked you to clarify this, after some more dodging in all directions, the best you came up with is this: “There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal” which - as I argued - holds for Zelensky with his moral dilemma between continuing or ending the war, as much as for you with your moral dilemma between American (or NATO) vs Russian expansionism, in a way that is logically consistent with how you framed the war in Ukraine.
Besides I wasn’t even done yet: we could have discussed about other cases too the Palestinians wrt the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, the poor who give birth to children, the French/Russian/Iranian revolutions, the thought experiment I proposed to you.
My strong suspect is that your abstract line of reasoning applies only if e.g. it’s against the American capitalist imperialism, because if it logically goes against your preferred world views then it shouldn’t be applied. But that’s irrational and one-sided. Yet it explains why “you seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action” (namely, fighting “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)

[I]> But since your argument was that my position is actually ‘preposterous’ rather than just something you happen to disagree with, you'd need to go further. You'd need to show that either it is completely absurd to use a consequentialist framework, or that it's not even plausible that my assessment of the consequences is right.[/i]

I already addressed this pointless objection. I called several claims of yours “preposterous” (starting from your declared idea that fighting over a flag is always no doubt immoral) for the reasons I clarified. You can counter them if you wish so, instead of inventing strawman arguments. I took mainly issue with the way you argued to support your position. Indeed I never called preposterous the line of reasoning you offered when talking about the moral dilemma “option1 vs option2”, because it doesn’t strike me as evidently implausible, just disputable.


> Arbitrary as in having no further reasoning. I don't have a reason for not wanting thousands more deaths, I just don't want thousands more deaths.

Then it follows that other people act morally only if they act the way you want without further reasons. And if you ever wanted thousands more deaths without further reason, then it would have still been a defensible moral claim to support the continuation of this war. Is that right? It sounds like a Devine Command Theory with the only teensy negligible difference that you would be playing the role of god.
I’m not sure you fully understand how not compelling is to others what you want without further reasons. And there could be no argument to clarify that better to you, I’m afraid.

[i]>My point is that, given the “de facto” circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow “against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac
...and that 'fairly' translates as...
you want to help Russia win — neomac
...without even so much as a hint of disingenuity…?[/i]

Yes it does “fairly” translate to “you want to help Russia win”, and I would expect you to agree with me again on logical grounds, even more so now that I clarified my point.
Here is another example to illustrate a similar usage of “want”: if a soldier was very badly shot in his left leg in some remote war front, and the doctor told him “under the given circumstances , unfortunately we can’t do much to save your leg and if we do not immediately amputate it, you would definitely risk to die from gangrene! So, what do you want to do?”. If the soldier said “I want my leg amputated, doctor”, would this mean that he would be happy of amputating his leg? Or that he wouldn’t have chosen any other option to avoid this, wouldn’t he be in danger of life? Or that he was brainwashed into wanting his leg amputated against his own interest? No of course, it simply means that he chose what he took to be the lesser evil option (so amputating his leg is instrumental in preserving his life) and communicated his choice accordingly with an “I want” sentence perfectly intelligible as it is.
The same would be with your case: “given the ‘de facto’ circumstances, the victory of Russia (even at the additional price of a regime change) will still be the lesser evil for you because both it could immediately end the war (so no more deaths) and it would be a blow ‘against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.’ That’s why you don’t mind to support Russians’ victory”. So if making “as public as possible your disgust (if you have such disgust) at the profiteering from suffering that seeps into everything corporate capitalist states do” could somehow help Russian victory then you want to do it not for Russians’ sake but because it is instrumental in fighting ‘against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing’.
Briefly, my point has to do with logic consistency not with your rhetorical quibbles.


[i]> My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.
What claim of implausibility are you raving about?! Fully quote myself. — neomac
No need, you can just clarify here, save us both the bother.[/i]

No I’m not going to save you the bother to fully quote my alleged “claim of implausibility” concerning negotiation failures, because you are prone to strawmanning your interlocutor (often by conveniently chopping their quotations). And since I have no idea what you are talking about, I can’t even double check by myself. So I would like to be sure you are not making things up just on purpose to spin your idle intellectual game for another round (which would be intellectual dishonesty at its finest).

[i]> Are the claims you're opposing reasonable claims that you just happen to agree with, or are they implausible claims that no reasonable person would agree with?[/I]

I opposed different kinds of claims of yours for different reasons and in different degree. The claim that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral is preposterous to me. The claim that it would be better for Ukrainian people option2 instead of option1 is not preposterous but disputable. Your claim that the Ukrainian war is a profitable business for American weapon industries and financial companies is clearly plausible, yet the moral implications that you may implicitly attach to such a claim could be disputable to me. Your general claim that the ruling classes oppress the poor is plausible, to what extent is disputable as well as its pertinence to the fact that Russian soldiers are killing Ukrainian families (in this latter case I find it rather unintelligible). The American administration support to Saudi Arabia war in Yemen is morally questionable to you: while this is plausible to me, its pertinence to the Ukrainian war is highly disputable.


[I]> I love the way people still think they can get away without having to defend positions by smuggling in the word 'common'. A rational which one wants to avoid having to defend become 'common sense'. Some data one wants to avoid having to source becomes 'common knowledge'. Does that still work for you?[/I]

By “common background knowledge” I was referring to claims of mine such as “This is what I take to be an anthropological fact: ‘There is an anthropological fact that grounds my moral reasoning: social identities are part of our personal identities and they are rooted in our communal life with other individuals in a given environment’. All human societies (independently from geographic and historical latitudes) have ways of identifying human groups and individuals based on group membership. This is an anthropological fact. Some societies use ‘Nationality’ as a way to identify social groups and individuals as members of those groups: nation states, national languages, national flags, national passports, national money, national sport teams, national customs, national cuisine are examples of ways we identify groups and individuals within groups based on nationality.
Some value or pretend to value nationality in highest degree and shape their political views or actions accordingly.”
So do you allow me to consider this as a piece of background knowledge that I and you have roughly in common or am I expecting too much from your educational achievements?
In any case, either overly pointless (surprise surprise) or overly poor education (which of course is not an argument against “common background knowledge”).

[i]even if a layman doesn’t have an expert view, still a layman can reasonably question how the expert input was collected and further processed by another layman — neomac
Can they? If I provided you with a Psychology experiment could you seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way (assuming, for the sake of this argument you're not yourself a psychologist or similar, that is).[/I]

In this passage, I was talking about the way you collect and process experts’ feedback, not about the experts feedback itself! And there is no need to invent examples when I provided examples “(e.g. even the experts you trust do not fully agree with you as I pointed out)”! Here is what I was referring to: E.g. Kissinger advises “It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. […]. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html). While Mearsheimer concludes that: “The result is that the United States and its allies unknowingly provoked a major crisis over Ukraine.” (https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf).”
Concerning your example, I addressed this already: I don’t even need to prove that a layman in psychology could “seriously question the methodology and statistical analysis in any meaningful way” to you (even if I think I could prove that). It’s enough to remind you what you said: “you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That’s how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”. From your claim logically follows that I as your interlocutor can talk about why I find some chosen expert’s view persuasive for me, which is what I indirectly and partly did when discussing about Mearsheimer’s views, and that would be perfectly fine since this is how you are “used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact”.



[i]> if your point now is not a question of legitimacy grounded on the nature of the philosophical inquiry and the purpose of this philosophy forum (which is all I care about), but of feeding your little intellectual echo chamber for your own comfort, then just stop interacting with me, who cares? Not to mention, how hypocritical would your whining about other people not being opened to alternative views inevitably sound, if that’s your intellectual approach in this forum. — neomac
I have no idea what this means. From where did you get the impression that my 'point' is to 'feed my little echo chamber'. I mean, it's a legitimate accusation, a common enough reason people write in places like this, but you seem to imply that I'd actually said as much, which I haven’t [/i].

My impression that your 'point' could be (not ‘is’) to 'feed your little echo chamber’ (once we exclude the philosophical legitimacy) is based on what you claimed in the post I commented and previously:
- “I choose the experts whose opinion align with the narratives I prefer (1). I have world views I find satisfying (2) and if an expert opinion aligns with those I’ll choose to believe that expert rather than one whose opinion opposes them (3). all this assuming the expert in question has sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest (4).”
- “If you said ‘why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism…’ then we'd be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.(5)”
That’s indeed the perfect recipe for feeding one’s own echo chamber, here is why: say part of your satisfying world views is that American capitalist imperialism is the worst evil (2), so you are going to select all the experts (with titles and no evident conflict of interest (4)) rather than others whose opinion opposes it (3), like Mearsheimer who blames NATO expansion for the war in Ukraine, feeding the narrative your prefer (1) b/c NATO is the evil projection of the American capitalist imperialism. Now, according to your example (5) I would be questioning your reasons to believe Mearsheimer in a way that is acceptable to you (!) only if I discussed about the vested interest of Mearsheimer in blaming NATO expansion for the war in Ukraine (e.g. if I provided evidences that Mearsheimer was financed by some Republicans to write a paper that could be timely exploited against pro-NATO policies by democratic administrations). Now if my questioning Mearsheimer’s claims based on his vested interest would be insufficient to you then you would keep Mearsheimer’s expert input as valid support to the narrative you prefer. On the other side, if my questioning Mearsheimer’s claims based on his vested interest would be sufficient to you, then you would simple give up on Mearsheimer’s expert input and look for another expert with titles and no evident vested interest (say Kennan or Kissinger or some CIA representative, or military expert etc.) that would support your world view. In other words, your satisfying world views will remain always unchallenged, you would just update your pool of experts. Additionally, you would always be in position to easily put the burden of proof on your interlocutor (conveniently so if he doesn’t share your world view) for - you could argue - how else e.g. could I prove to somebody that my chosen expert X has no evident conflict of interest other then by pointing at the obvious fact that hadn’t been the case I would have not chosen X? Rather it’s on others to prove to you if there are evidences of conflict of interests.
Besides all this is perfectly in line with this other piece of yours: “your argument relies on this not being the case, so it is incumbent on you (if you want to support your argument) to disprove it. I’ve not interest in supporting my case here (I don't even believe it's possible to support such a case in a few hundred words on an internet forum, and even if I did, I wouldn't make such a case as I've no expertise in the matter).” Practically the burden of proof is always on others, you do not need to argue for your case, nor even need to be capable of arguing for your case, you just rely on the expert that pleases you under some loose requirements.
Finally, if I got it all wrong, good for you, yet you should still clarify what the point of your comment actually was. Good luck with that!


[i]> Do you want me to explain it to you? [/I]

As if I didn’t explicitly ask (“How is your piece of idle talk supposed to justify that?!”). Good luck with that too!

Reply to neomac

Please use the quote function. You can access it by highlighting text.

Reply to Baden I know the quote function. I simply find it uncomfortable for personal reasons. But I don't want to infringe any forum rule. So is that a forum rule or can my quotation style be tolerated?

Reply to neomac

It's not specifically in the rules. It just makes things easier to read and helps to show you haven't misquoted someone. If you really don't want to use it, ok, I suppose.

Reply to SophistiCat
Well that too. The supposed existential threat of the Azov group is consists of a bit over one BTG worth of fighters and lacks adequate equipment to even act as a BTG.

Reply to Isaac
Well yeah, there is a larger group of fighters than Azov with ties to Neo-Nazism fighting in Ukraine. They boast 6,000+ versus 900 members, and have some heavier hardware too.

Just check out their leader, rocking an SS tattoo and swastika.



This would of course be the Wagner group, who, incidentally, fights for Russia, with funding from the Russian government who has also allowed them to use heavier military hardware.

The Rusich group represents an explicit Neo-Nazi militia used under Russia's amorphous "mercenary" forces, is transported by the Russian military, and utilizes their health care services.

Guess you gotta make a bigger army of Nazis to fight the smaller army of Nazis?

Quoting Haglund

Do people feel the same as during the Cuban missile crisis?

That was a bit different.

Besides, the real danger during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was that the US has a large superiority in the numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. nuclear stockpile in 1962 included more than 25,500 warheads (mostly in battlefield weapons). The Soviet Union had about 3,350 and only a few off them in ICBMs (if I remember correctly, there were 8).

This was the reason why US generals were so keen to invade Cuba. Also they didn't know that the Russians had also tactical nuclear weapons, which at least Castro wanted to be used, if the US would try to invade Cuba. Had it been the 1980's and I think even general LeMay would have had different ideas.

Today, you have a country with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile attack a country that has given away it's nuclear deterrence and a West that has made it clear it won't put it's troops into Ukraine. There should be dramatic escallation to make this to be like the Cuban crisis.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Guess you gotta make a bigger army of Nazis to fight the smaller army of Nazis?

Russia will use happily any extremist group they can get their hands on. And it's quite notable how they have been giving money and assistance to extreme-right groups, yet then talk of denazification. Of course, there is absolutely no actual ideology behind Putins rule... other than for him to stay in power.

As the extreme-right did play a part in Maidan revolution and the volunteer battalions played a major part in 2014 (as the Ukrainian armed forces could in reality field only 6 000 troops back then to put down the armed rebellions), likely the Ukrainians have had this kind of balancing act with these groups and they have been trying to integrate them to the national guard as obviously going after them and trying or to abolish them likely would just create demoralization, huge feeling of treachery and make at least part to join the side of Putin. The country has enough of armed groups running around with Russian support even before this invasion.

Notice it's not only that neo-nazis are fighting on both sides, so are the Chechens too. Both sides have their groups of Chechens fighting on their side. In fact, looking at the Ukrainian volunteer brigades shows just how complex the situation could be (Chechens, Belarussians, Georgians). Comes to my mind the Russian Civil War and all the various groups involved. At least (and luckily) the situation isn't as fragmented as then.

At least Ukrainian voters haven't supported the extreme-right much since 2014, but what post-conflict Ukraine will be like remains to be seen. Hopefully they can rebuild more than their cities after this war.

The neo-nazism/genocide yarn such an obvious attempt by both sides to paint the other as "the baddies", to lure people into accepting their narratives and adopt a black-and-white view of what is a complicated geopolitical issue.

You are better than this ThePhilosophyForum!

The next batch US aid to Ukraine comes now in the form of 75 155mm howitzers, vehicles and 100 tactical drones. With the howitzers one can equip four artillery battalions. Which is a similar or even more than many smaller NATO countries have artillery. What is obvious from this is that now the conflict is anticipated to continue as an conventional war and Ukraine is now getting those 'offensive' weapons that previously they weren't given (in order not to "escalate" the conflict). Also finally are spare parts coming through to the Ukrainian air force.

For until now the emphasis has been on Soviet legacy systems as Ukraine operates those as a stop gap measure, but now with the Western 155mm howitzers the country is getting new weapon systems, and training and the service delivery of these happen in weeks, not days. Hence it can be sign that the war will go on for months.

Reply to ssu

Ukraine also has to think about offense rather than defense. The risk of a long period of war is greater if a smaller region has concentrated battles and the rest of the nation is spared. Russia can maintain battles if the entire military isn't diluted to just this one war and therefore can keep rotating its military. But if Ukraine gets more offensively aggressive and tries to take back regions and cities now that the Russian army is at its lowest point in terms of morale, resources as well as the sanctions keeping their war chest down, then Ukraine has a good chance to push back Russia even further, making it almost impossible for them to win the coastal region corridor to Crimea, which seems to be the point Russia aims for as the end of this war. If Ukraine does this before May 9th, then there's very little "win" that Putin can show off and it would be an extreme failure on his part. It could save Ukraine and even dismantle the Russian elite, throwing Russia into internal chaos that will require more attention from Russia than any war, effectively ending the war completely. These new weapons need to be used for offensive efforts to kill off supply lines and groups of Russian troops. If they could even fire at the Russian-controlled border regions to the very east, it would seriously damage any movement within the most densely Russian-controlled parts. But most effectively, if they could create bombardments, drone runs, and artillery into Russian-controlled areas at random, they would tank the morale even further as no Russians would be safe from the risk of getting killed. The Russian troops aren't broken by low morale, it's when the morale is low that you break them.

Quoting Christoffer

Ukraine also has to think about offense rather than defense. The risk of a long period of war is greater if a smaller region has concentrated battles and the rest of the nation is spared. Russia can maintain battles if the entire military isn't diluted to just this one war and therefore can keep rotating its military.

Starting large counterattacks will be more costly to Ukraine, and lets face it, even the official numbers of Ukrainian soldiers now killed is higher than US killed during the war in Iraq. Hence as modern field medical treatment has gone forward, the total casualty figures are many times of those that have been killed. What rather easily can happen is that both sides simply fight each other to exhaustion and we have already seen examples of fighting taking a lull in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. We have to understand that these two countries have de facto been at war for 8 years.

Another notable thing is that they have had prisoner swaps. In many wars there aren't these or they are done only after the war ends. Hence the the formations on the field can also negotiate these.

Quoting Christoffer

But if Ukraine gets more offensively aggressive and tries to take back regions and cities now that the Russian army is at its lowest point in terms of morale, resources as well as the sanctions keeping their war chest down, then Ukraine has a good chance to push back Russia even further, making it almost impossible for them to win the coastal region corridor to Crimea, which seems to be the point Russia aims for as the end of this war.

If Mariupol falls (as Putin says it has done), the Russians do have their landbridge.

Quoting Christoffer

If Ukraine does this before May 9th, then there's very little "win" that Putin can show off and it would be an extreme failure on his part. It could save Ukraine and even dismantle the Russian elite, throwing Russia into internal chaos that will require more attention from Russia than any war, effectively ending the war completely. These new weapons need to be used for offensive efforts to kill off supply lines and groups of Russian troops.

I think the date of May 9th is overemphasized. It will come and go. Either Putin will truly want to end this war, but the likely thing is that he will have to take the breather. Now he actually ddn't take one as the forces from the Kyiv front really had no time to reorganize and train before the next attack happened. These things simply take a long time.

The simple timetable of a longer war might come in. If Putin decides to use reservists, it will take months to train and form new units. And thanks to the embargo, Putin's military industry will only replace the equipment in limited numbers. And so it is with Ukraine. Forming new units, deploying new weapon systems into service will take months also. We have already seen absolutely horrible numbers of deaths in this war compared to other modern wars. If the Russian numbers are from 7000 to 15 000 and the Ukrainian 4 000 in two months (without including the number of civilians) these are huge losses for the deployed forces that on both sides are far less that half a million soldiers.

What we see in this war is that area defense works and modern war is always a mix of new things and old where there hasn't been a "revolution in military affairs", just some new systems that one has to take into account, yet many things are the way they were earlier.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Got no takers on the "is this the end of the main battle tank era?" question I see, but I'm starting to think the bigger lesson learned will be the reemergence of artillery as a much larger part of operations. Guided artillery shells seem to be doing much more damage as the war goes on.

Even if several days ago, this is an interesting subject.

I don't think the era of the MBT is over. It's still quite useful, although it has to be protected and be used carefully in the modern battlefield. It's like cavalry. Once you had hand held firearms, one could have anticipated the use of the cavalry to diminish. Not so. In fact, cavalry shed it's armour once firearms became so deadly that armour wasn't effective anymore. And with rapid fire rifles then all cavalry changed to being dragoons: mounted infantry that would fight on foot, but move on horseback. Cavalry died out only when it was replaced by mechanization last century. And still some horses (or donkeys) are used mountain units or by fighters in Africa.

The simple fact is that there does exist a crucial role for the armoured mobile gun. The tank gun is versatile and the tank is still the most protected vehicle in the battlefield. It's interesting to see that when the USMC decided to ditch it's tank fleet and go with other systems, there is now huge debate in the USMC if this was the right call to do.

When it comes to artillery, drones and smart munitions are just the enabler of this ancient arm of the military. In fact I assume that easiness of drones as forward observers, just few mouse clicks and you have sent the coordinates to the artillery for a fire mission, is this "revolution" that drones have given us. Far easier if the other option is for you to have the forward observer hiding somewhere and seeing the target, then who has to inspect a map, then get the coordinates correctly and send them by a voice radio to somewhere in the organization. Yet the only thing what needs to happen is for air defence systems to adapt to kill small slow vehicles the Cold War era systems weren't designed to defeat.

Reply to ssu

Could be, but we don't know what the result will be of new weapon tech coming into Ukraine. And if they get more planes in the air, that can have a tremendous counter to stationary troops. And the kamikaze drones are especially deadly for small squads to attack with, they could also be used in city warfare where artillery could be too damaging.

Putin ordered to lock down azovstal steel plant where last troops remain.
azovstal contains underground tunnels where they hide and hope russians will get in for fight.

Now their choice is to either go out and surrender or stay in and starve to death or to perform suicide.

it's very interesting and funny situation...
What do you think what will these people do? surrender to perform suicide?

Quoting neomac

it’s legitimate to frame your moral position toward the negotiation deal in a way that is logically consistent with your own assumptions in framing Zelensky’s position toward the negotiation deal. Period.

...and in English?

Quoting neomac

I never called preposterous the line of reasoning you offered when talking about the moral dilemma “option1 vs option2”, because it doesn’t strike me as evidently implausible, just disputable.

Well then we have no disagreement. The rest is just your misunderstanding. All I've been arguing is about the moral status of those two positions.

Quoting neomac

Then it follows that other people act morally only if they act the way you want without further reasons. And if you ever wanted thousands more deaths without further reason, then it would have still been a defensible moral claim to support the continuation of this war. Is that right?

No. I would have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'moral'. Wanting thousands more deaths is not the sort of thing the word 'moral' is used for.

Quoting neomac

Briefly, my point has to do with logic consistency not with your rhetorical quibbles.

Bollocks. You were trying to associate my position with the victory of a probable war criminal because it makes my position look less appealing. You can save your 'oh I was just talking about logical consistency' crap for anyone still naive enough to believe it.

Quoting neomac

you are prone to strawmanning your interlocutor (often by conveniently chopping their quotations).

From the person literally stringing bits of my writing together using a cryptic mangle of quoting techniques to reach the conclusion that I apparently want Russia to win!

Quoting neomac

That’s indeed the perfect recipe for feeding one’s own echo chamber

Yes, I agree. I'm sorry you went to all the later trouble to explain how echo chambers work, butI appreciate the effort.

Where we disagree is the ludicrous notion that the rest of you don't do exactly the same thing. That you don't interpret every imprecise thing I say (which is virtually everything) selecting the option which most suits your narrative, that you don't choose experts whose opinions mesh best with your worldview, that you don't put more effort into critiquing opposing views than supportive ones, that you don't 'fill in the blanks' in a way that bolsters your preferred story.

Just walking into a room, your mental models of your environment make up 90% of what you perceive from the fragmented saccades of your vision. Do you seriously believe that with something as complex as a global geopolitical argument, you're going to be doing any less?

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

Funny how mention of US illegal invasions gets immediately accused of whataboutism, yet not one paragraph about Ukrainian Neo-Nazis can go by without these same voices immediately reaching for "well, Russia has them too".

What relevance does that have to the discussion?

Ukraine has a Neo-Nazi problem. Putin used it (and specifically, US covering up their alliance with them) as a justification for the invasion.

Us then going ahead and doing exactly what Putin wants to say we do (denying the blindingly obvious Neo-Nazi issue) is playing directly into his propaganda. Read the speech. It's not about the mere presence of Neo-Nazis, it's about Western tolerance of them. The exact tolerance useful idiots like we have here are amply demonstrating. If it suits Western purposes (in this case, opposing Russia), we'll turn a blind eye to the far right. It's precisely what Putin used as justification and it's precisely what we're showing to be absolutely true.

https://russiamatters.org/analysis/lessons-battle-kyiv

Reply to Isaac

>...and in English?

Here you go: it’s legitimate to frame your moral position toward the negotiation deal in a way that is logically consistent with your own assumptions in framing Zelensky’s position toward the negotiation deal. Period.



[i]> I never called preposterous the line of reasoning you offered when talking about the moral dilemma “option1 vs option2”, because it doesn’t strike me as evidently implausible, just disputable. — neomac
Well then we have no disagreement. The rest is just your misunderstanding. All I've been arguing is about the moral status of those two positions.[/i]

What?! Oh no, it's way more likely that you misunderstood what I was questioning despite the fact that I made it clear on several occasions:

“Indeed my focus has been always 2 moral claims of yours:
- Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West). (“Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.”)
- Fighting a war over a flag is no doubt always immoral”.

“Indeed, I offered reasons mainly to question your 2 moral claims:
Recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral (as an accusation against the West).
Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.”

“when I questioned your 2 moral claims my objections were not entirely based on considerations relying on experts’ feedback about the war in Ukraine, but also on conceptual considerations and common background knowledge”

“2 preposterous moral claims of yours: one about fighting over flags and the other is about Western responsibilities in the genesis and perpetuation of this war. ”


> I would have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'moral'.

Which is?

> Bollocks. You were trying to associate my position with the victory of a probable war criminal because it makes my position look less appealing. You can save your 'oh I was just talking about logical consistency' crap for anyone still naive enough to believe it.

Yes I know. Logic hurts your rhetoric. But you didn’t offer a counter argument on logic grounds, just more rhetoric claims.


> From the person literally stringing bits of my writing together using a cryptic mangle of quoting techniques to reach the conclusion that I apparently want Russia to win!

Really?! Show me then how my reasoning goes wrong based on what you said, as I did when you misquoted me. Prove me that I misquoted you.


[i]> Where we disagree is the ludicrous notion that the rest of you don't do exactly the same thing.
That you don't interpret every imprecise thing I say (which is virtually everything) selecting the option which most suits your narrative, that you don't choose experts whose opinions mesh best with your worldview, that you don't put more effort into critiquing opposing views than supportive ones, that you don't 'fill in the blanks' in a way that bolsters your preferred story.[/i]

No dude, it doesn’t work that way for me. First of all you can make all claims you want, but I don’t care about your claims, I care about your arguments because this is what I’m here for. Second, I care about arguments but I judge them for their logical value (logical consistency), success conditions (range of applications), and explanatory power (conceptual or empirical). I don’t care about their rhetoric value, association of ideas, ideological appealing. Third, I don’t do the same you do: I don’t have world views and then look for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support my pre-established world views.

Quoting neomac

> I would have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'moral'.

Which is?

It's used to describe behaviours and attitudes such as avoiding thousands more innocent people dying.

Quoting neomac

offer a counter argument on logic grounds

Quoting neomac

Show me then how my reasoning goes wrong

Both of these are impossible tasks. I cannot 'show you' how your reasoning goes wrong because whether an argument is reasonable or not is an opinion you hold about it, I can't show you it isn't any more than I can show you that my cup of tea is nice.

Even if I made an argument as simple as "Either A, or ~A", you could still dispute it by rejecting the LEM. What we're discussing is massively more complicated. The idea that either of us could present some 'logical' argument that somehow 'proves' one side or the other is laughable. You're either persuaded by my argument, rhetoric and all, or you're not. That's entirely your preference.

Quoting neomac

it doesn’t work that way for me.

Quoting neomac

I don’t have world views and then look for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support my pre-established world views.

Then you are a true exception to all of humanity that's ever been studied. Well done.

On Russian state TV: host (and modern day Goebbels wannabe) Vladimir Solovyov threatens Europe and all NATO countries, as not only Ukraine has to be denazified:

Reply to ssu

Wow. Threatening to attack the countries who are arming the one they're at war with!

In other news, bear shits in the woods.

What the fuck did anyone expect to happen? Putin to come on and say "Fair enough I suppose, after all, we're the bad guys"?

Quoting Isaac

Funny how [...]

Quoting Isaac

Ukraine has a Neo-Nazi problem. Putin used it (and specifically, US covering up their alliance with them) as [s]a justification[/s] an excuse for the invasion.

Double standards, hypocrisy (straight from the initiator/invaders).

Quoting Isaac

Us then going ahead and doing exactly what Putin wants to say we do (denying the blindingly obvious Neo-Nazi issue) is playing directly into his propaganda.

"blindingly obvious" is sort of a weasel phrase here (slant, bias), but OK then, maybe it's time to secure extremist-infested Russian areas by force (call it, say, "an armed humanitarian operation")?

Right, yes, there are extremists in Russia and Ukraine (and elsewhere). Edging towards stability + freedom and such might help with sidelining/decimating them? Heavy emphasis on the problem just in Ukraine (by Putin in particular) is out of proportion though, and it's not like (headline) "Nazi Ukraine marching on Moscow". Speculation: if the Ukrainian parliament had sessions discussing/addressing the problem, then Putin might just have found another excuse.

[sup]• List of neo-Nazi organizations, • Racism by country, • List of white nationalist organizations, • Geography of antisemitism[/sup]

Combatants:

• Attackers: Russia (led by Putin), Chechens/mercs/who knows, ...
• Defenders: Ukraine (led by Zelenskyy), some volunteers/Belarusian separatists, ...

Otherwise involved (in ??ic order, incomplete):

• Ukraine: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Turkey, UK, USA, ...

Quoting jorndoe

Double standards, hypocrisy (straight from the initiator/invaders).

Yep. Are we seriously still surprised that Russian narratives aren't actually true?

Quoting jorndoe

"blindingly obvious" is sort of a weasel phrase here (slant, bias), but OK then, maybe it's time to secure extremist-infested Russian areas by force (call it, say, "an armed humanitarian operation")?

No. Why the hell would we do that? Haven't we just got through repeating in painstaking detail how Neo-Nazis are not justification for invasion?

Quoting jorndoe

Heavy emphasis on the problem just in Ukraine (by Putin in particular) is out of proportion though

Not at all. Denying the existence of Neo-Nazis in all those other countries hasn't just been used as a pretext for war, so the lack of emphasis is completely warranted. It's irrelevant whether there are Nazis in Russia, or Azerbaijan. It's incredibly relevant how we react to the Nazis that are in Ukraine because that's the reaction Russian propagandists are currently using to maintain the (increasingly fragile) support for the war in Russia.

Reply to Isaac

> It's used to describe behaviours and attitudes such as avoiding thousands more innocent people dying.

Does the meaning of “moral” exclude fighting for one’s own country and identity against a criminal aggression from another nation as moral?

> Then you are a true exception to all of humanity that's ever been studied. Well done.

Really?! Where are these studies that show that all of humanity has world views and then looks for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support their pre-established world views?

> Both of these are impossible tasks. I cannot 'show you' how your reasoning goes wrong because whether an argument is reasonable or not is an opinion you hold about it, I can't show you it isn't any more than I can show you that my cup of tea is nice.
Even if I made an argument as simple as "Either A, or ~A", you could still dispute it by rejecting the LEM. What we're discussing is massively more complicated. The idea that either of us could present some 'logical' argument that somehow 'proves' one side or the other is laughable. You're either persuaded by my argument, rhetoric and all, or you're not. That's entirely your preference.

After moral also logic is matter of preference. I think we are done here.

Quoting neomac

Does the meaning of “moral” exclude fighting for one’s own country and identity against a criminal aggression from another nation as moral?

If one is fighting against criminal aggression then one's country is immaterial. It's perfectly possible for both Ukrainians and Russians to fight against criminal aggression together.

The moral element is the criminality, not the countries. Anyone fighting the criminality is behaving morally, anyone supporting it is not. Regardless of the country they pledge allegiance to.

Quoting neomac

Where are these studies that show that all of humanity has world views and then looks for a pool of experts based on titles and not evident conflict of interests to support their pre-established world views?

They're generally in journals, preprint servers, libraries, bookshops...

Quoting neomac

After moral also logic is matter of preference. I think we are done here.

Someone proposes moral relativism and logical non-realism (two perfectly normal philosophical positions) and you terminate the discussion, lest you encounter views counter to your preferred world views.

You were saying about your exceptionalism...

Reply to Isaac

[i]> If one is fighting against criminal aggression then one's country is immaterial. It's perfectly possible for both Ukrainians and Russians to fight against criminal aggression together.
The moral element is the criminality, not the countries. Anyone fighting the criminality is behaving morally, anyone supporting it is not. Regardless of the country they pledge allegiance to.[/i]

But that doesn’t exclude that Ukrainians could fight Russians because their aggression is criminal either. And there is nothing in the meaning of the word “criminality” that excludes that an act of aggression is criminal precisely because it violates one's country national sovereignty and self-determination.


> They're generally in journals, preprint servers, libraries, bookshops…

Can you literally quote and reference any of these studies?


[i]> Someone proposes moral relativism and logical non-realism (two perfectly normal philosophical positions) and you terminate the discussion, lest you encounter views counter to your preferred world views.[/I]

No it’s simply that the word “preference” loses its contrastive meaning in the way you use it. Neither logic nor moral is matter of preference. You simply make no sense, dude.

Quoting Isaac

What the fuck did anyone expect to happen?

I think they're softening people up for the idea to have martial law. And then there isn't any fig leaves left to disguise Putin's Russia from the authoritarian system it is.

Quoting neomac

But that doesn’t exclude that Ukrainians could fight Russians because their aggression is criminal either.

No, but they'd be fighting for freedom from criminality, not for their country, which is merely an incidental grouping. Unless you're suggesting Russian's are just criminals by birth.

Quoting neomac

And there is nothing in the meaning of the word “criminality” that excludes that an act of aggression is criminal precisely because it violates one nation sovereignty and self-determination.

Well, technically there is, since neither sovereignty, nor self-determination are enshrined in law sensu lato, otherwise things like federations, customs unions and the UN would be illegal, but I get what you mean. Still, the people would be fighting for sovereignty or self-determination not for a country.

A moral fight is a fight for moral ends, a country is not a moral end. Associating countries with moral ends is nationalism. It's what gets us into wars, not what gets us out of them.

Quoting neomac

Can you literally quote and reference any of these studies?

I've hopefully been clear that I've no interest in these games. If you we're interested you'd have found them by now (unless you're very young), so your comment is intended to show (somehow) that I can't find them. But I knew that before I started, and so did you. So I obviously can find them (otherwise I wouldn't have made the claim, I'm clearly not an idiot), you know that, but you also know anything I find will be sufficiently vague (not to mention directly critiqued, somewhere) for you to oppose it. But I know that too, and you know I must know it. So why, exactly, are we bothering?

Quoting neomac

Neither logic nor moral is matter of preference. You simply make no sense, dude.

I can't account for your inability to make sense of fairly common positions.

Quoting ssu

then there isn't any fig leaves left to disguise Putin's Russia from the authoritarian system it is.

You think there's any now?

Reply to ssu

Yeah, that's the big question. Sometimes wars lead to greater unity. A citizenry that has defended its self goes on to demand greater economic equality and social mobility, and puts aside old differences. Ukraine has long running issues with extreme corruption and powerful oligarchs holding back any reform, as well as radical ideologies infecting the nation's politics. They also have a huge debt problem and are incredibly poor compared to most of Europe. For now at least, Russia has made the Ukrainian government immensely popular, something it could not boast about before.

New found unity from the war, EU membership, and a stream of aid and debt restructuring/forgiveness could see them into a new era. But just as often war only makes entrenched interests more powerful, and radical politics more appealing.

It might not be the worst thing for them to lose the newly discovered gas fields out east. Certainly they could provide capital for development, but resource revenues actually tend to retard economic development and decrease democratization in weak states.

Such a loss seems less and less likely though. Ukraine is now fielding more tanks in theater than the Russians. Their mobilization efforts to date have merely replaced losses, there haven't been new BTGs entering the fronts. According to the Ukrainian General Staff, that is about to change, with new BTGs taking up less active positions on the front and allowing veteran units to retrain on new equipment and deploy to the hot areas. So soon, Ukraine will also boast a large numerical advantage.

To counter this, Russia is filling out its war crimes bingo card by planning to conscript Ukrainians around Kherson and push them into combat. They've also done this to a shocking degree in the "republics," picking men off the street and pressing them into service. They're allegedly down to taking teens and old men. This seems pointlessly cruel, it isn't generating new combat power for them, and very short sighted. They already have partisan activity behind their lines. They seem to be turning the populations of the places they've held since 2014 heavily against them and increasing the risk of partisan activity harassing supply lines across their entire eastern advance.

Most relevantly, once Ukrainian teams are trained on the large influx of M777s coming in, they will have a large artillery advantage that should allow them to begin much more effective counter attacks and cut out the Russian artillery advantage.

Russia is using a lot of old ancient D20s and aside from that is mostly fielding 2S19s (also fairly old). They have a smaller number of 2S19M1s, and some batteries will have Krasnapol shells.

These have a range of 11 and 25 kilometers respectively, a bit longer for the 2S19M1 with the modern shells, but still under 30km.

The M777 with the Excalibur guided shell can hit targets up to 70 kilometers away, 45 with the older version of the shell, with a great deal of accuracy (newer versions have in air target acquisition and course correction and can hit moving targets). The US also has a cheaper package to turn old shells into smart shells. These aren't just "guided" like the shells of the 1980s, with laser targeting, but have deployable fins that steer the shell on to a target, or submunitions that fire our at acquired targets in the terminal phase.

Even older shells will get them 43 kilometres. The M777 also sets up faster and had a higher ROF, as well as better integration with radar and drones. Obviously outranging your opponent by 13-60 kilometers makes for extremely effective counter battery fire, and allows you to make advances with indirect fire support that isn't under effective counter battery fire.

Point being, Russia might soon be at a significant firepower disadvantage, so it's unclear why they are continuing with the ineffective attacks and sending conscripts to their deaths. They seem to be making it more likely they lose land they've held since 2014.


Reply to ssu

I agree. The tank is still going to be useful as a survivable vehicle offering a lot of firepower. I do think we might see a shift to the guided mortars of the Merkava over the main gun to some degree. The US is doing a ton of projects for 155mm shells, the standard for artillery and naval guns now (has been for a while but the Navy filled out their stealth ship with a non-155mm gun with ammo too expensive to use). Aside from smart munitions, there are also rocket assisted rounds in the works with up to 200+ km range and a new hypersonic round that can be used to intercept missiles, which is already being tested. It seems pretty infeasible to retool the current fleet for 155mm, but I could see the tanks of the future being more heavily armored mobile mortar and drone launchers, with HMGs for infantry, and a main gun that is able to function more like a howitzer at a distance.

I think the days of the armored division are done though. After this, many nations are probably going to switch to something like the Armored Brigade Combat Team, realizing that tanks need to move with interceptor assets, recon assets, and indirect fire assistance.

When it comes to artillery, drones and smart munitions are just the enabler of this ancient arm of the military. In fact I assume that easiness of drones as forward observers, just few mouse clicks and you have sent the coordinates to the artillery for a fire mission, is this "revolution" that drones have given us. Far easier if the other option is for you to have the forward observer hiding somewhere and seeing the target, then who has to inspect a map, then get the coordinates correctly and send them by a voice radio to somewhere in the organization. Yet the only thing what needs to happen is for air defence systems to adapt to kill small slow vehicles the Cold War era systems weren't designed to defeat.

Yup, and drones are just the beginning. The US just announced the replacements for the M4 and M249 SAW. Much of the focus had been on the switch to 6.8mm ammo. This was done to double the effective range of the round, something the new optics and built in ballistics computers should make more of an asset, and to deal with the proliferation of body armor that can stop numerous M4 rounds (6.8mm still won't penetrate Level IV armor though). The big debate is if this will actually work for urban combat, because higher recoil makes automatic firing more difficult, and the added ammunition weight and size means carrying 20 vs 30 round mags and less ammo.

This is burying the lead though, which is the new XM157 fire control system. Rather than just an optic, it's a range finder and targeting system with a ballistics computer built in (which may one day offer some "smart scope" functionality. Current smart scopes already let journalists who have never held a gun before hit targets at a distance better than trained marksmen, but are too delicate and expensive for widespread use.)

The new system will allow interconnectivity between squads and drone, air, and artillery assets across the battle space. So, it's not just drones doing recon for artillery; every soldiers' rifle can send out precise data on where they need a shell extremely quicky.

Get pinned down by fire from a window? No sitting on the phone waiting to call in indirect fire as you might be getting flanked. Your squad ground drone can lay down high caliber suppressing fire. Your new IFV can move, unmanned, into position to hit the window with 30mm autocannon fire, a small drone above can hit the window with a 40mm grenade, or a 155mm shell can get fired off from 70 kilometers away and hit the target.

The other big deal is the IVAS, an augmented reality HUD overlay for all soldiers. This will lay out the location of OPFOR spotted by drones and other soldiers that are currently out of sight of the operator. It will also give soldiers a real time map of their location, with the position of OPFOR and other squads relative to them. Biometric data can also get medevac going right away following injuries, and lets command know when soldiers are at their limit.

All really neat stuff we've been hearing about for years that is (finally) actually ready for force wide implementation.

I for one am just excited to get to shoot the new Sig. Maybe one day this stuff will get cheap enough for paintball too; that'd be fun. Or airsoft, which I've been meaning to try because apparently it's better for milsim.

Reply to Isaac
I'm just not seeing how that's a coherent argument. You need to invade a country because there is a neo-Nazi force there that can field 900 soldiers, but then you cultivate a 6,000+ man neo-Nazi force within your own borders?

That's not whataboutism because we're talking about the exact same event; recruiting neo-Nazis to fight neo-Nazis.

BTW, Putin has personally commended the units implicated in the Bucha massacurres and slated then for medals. I guess this is some weird sort of deflection.

The other people implicated? The Wagner Group.

The Wagner Group, who, incidentally were hired in Mali to conduct COIN after they booted the French out (lol). The French kept eyes on their old base, and what do you know, they see the Wagner group carting in corpses and doing some filming. They then release some whataboutism propaganda video about French massacurres of civilians, seemingly unaware of 21st century surveillance techniques and that they had been observed doing the whole damn thing.

https://youtu.be/rpVrpJ5s6nE

Embarrassing, especially since there is barely any sunlight between the Wagner group and the Russian MoD. Imagine thinking "hmm, let's do some more war crimes to distract from our recent abhorrent war crimes, that will work!"

Quoting Isaac

No, but they'd be fighting for freedom from criminality, not for their country, which is merely an incidental grouping.

Quoting Isaac

Still, the people would be fighting for sovereignty or self-determination not for a country.

You just conceded enough to grant moral plausibility to the Ukrainian patriotic resistance against Russian criminal invasion. And if that's all I can get from your preposterous claims, fine with me.

Quoting Isaac

I've hopefully been clear that I've no interest in these games. If you we're interested you'd have found them by now (unless you're very young), so your comment is intended to show (somehow) that I can't find them. But I knew that before I started, and so did you. So I obviously can find them (otherwise I wouldn't have made the claim, I'm clearly not an idiot), you know that, but you also know anything I find will be sufficiently vague (not to mention directly critiqued, somewhere) for you to oppose it. But I know that too, and you know I must know it. So why, exactly, are we bothering?

Enjoy your echo chamber then.

Quoting Isaac

I can't account for your inability to make sense of fairly common positions.

"Fairly common positions" among people who share your "stupid" views (according to your own definition), I could concede that to you. But there isn't much one can make sense of in self-defeating positions like yours anyways.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm just not seeing how that's a coherent argument.

What argument? I'm struggling to see how any argument I've just made is rendered incoherent by Russia's use of far-right paramilitaries.

I made the argument that...

Quoting Isaac

Us then going ahead and doing exactly what Putin wants to say we do (denying the blindingly obvious Neo-Nazi issue) is playing directly into his propaganda. Read the speech. It's not about the mere presence of Neo-Nazis, it's about Western tolerance of them. The exact tolerance useful idiots like we have here are amply demonstrating. If it suits Western purposes (in this case, opposing Russia), we'll turn a blind eye to the far right. It's precisely what Putin used as justification and it's precisely what we're showing to be absolutely true.

...and you're saying it's incoherent because Russia uses far-right paramilitaries? How does their use of those groups impact that argument?

Quoting Isaac

You think there's any now?

Just look at what you can do with martial law in Russia:

Evacuation of important objects and people;
Strengthening the protection of public order, critical infrastructure and other important facilities;
Restriction of entry, exit and freedom of movement, search, restriction of choice of place of residence;
Curfew;
Military censorship in the field of communications;
Increased secrecy in state and local authorities;
Restriction of the sale of weapons, dangerous substances, drugs, drugs and alcohol, their temporary withdrawal from citizens;
Ban on rallies and strikes;
Prohibition of public, international or foreign organizations that undermine the country's security;
Forced labor for defense needs, to restore destroyed facilities and fight fires and epidemics;
Seizure of private property with subsequent compensation;
Internment of unreliable citizens and citizens of aggressor countries (applies only directly in case of aggression and in order to prevent riots).
Restriction of economic activity, including property turnover;
Restriction of search and distribution of information;
Change of ownership of organizations;
Change in working hours. The abolition of the system of voluntary employment and the introduction of conscription labor obligation (mandatory for all citizens over 14 years old)

Of course many of the above you can already see happening in Russia.

Yet if you have problems either because of the Western embargo or for other matters in getting defense production up or in something else, above you can find a toolbox to use. But of course then you have to admit that the issue is larger than just a "special military operation".

Reply to ssu

Interesting stuff, but I'm sorry my question wasn't clear. You said...

Quoting ssu

there isn't any fig leaves left

... I asked you why you thought there were any now. Fig leaves, that is. Not martial law.

Point being that if de-nazifying Ukraine is being used as a fig leaf to cover political power grabs, then attacking the countries who are deliberately frustrating your 'anti-nazi' crusade isn't "no fig leaves left" is it? It's 'one more fig leaf' (or a whole fucking fig tree)

Quoting Isaac

I'm clearly not an idiot

That made me chuckle. You're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The M777

When do you estimate these could be operational? From what I read they would effectively tip the balance in favor of Ukraine.

Way to go, Antonio.


UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres will travel to Russia on Tuesday for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin since February 24, before heading to Ukraine two days later to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The United Nations accused the Russian army on Friday of actions "amounting to war crimes" in Ukraine.

Reply to Olivier5

That made me chuckle. You're a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Just what I was thinking.

Reply to Punshhh Something tells me we're not the only ones.

Reply to Olivier5 Reply to Punshhh

You guys are priceless.

On a thread full of people claiming to be able to divine Putin's motives from their armchairs, predict moves even CIA strategists missed, work out battle plans from a few newspaper articles, judge war crimes using Facebook, and all without the need for experts but rather their own "rational induction"... The one calling out such nonsense is the one exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You couldn't make this stuff up...

Reply to Olivier5
A friend who worked with them extensively told me it could be really quickly, two weeks of drills or even a bit less if they are working with experienced teams. That jives with DoD messaging of "about a week." The superiority in range means that the team's ability to rapidly set up and take down the gun to reposition isn't quite as important, at least at first as they fire from safer positions while they gain experience. Rapid repositioning will matter more as they start trying to use indirect fire for advances.

Apparently the digital fire control system isn't that hard to learn, but integrating whatever else they are using for target aquisition might be trickier. Obviously they have been using drones to spot, as the copious video of successful arty strikes shows. I don't know if NATO is also sharing satalite imagery and data. The Army did a bunch of press releases on integrating of the M777 fire control with satalite guidance a few years ago. They might also be using the Air Force's SBIRS, which should be updating every 10 minutes. The Excalibur shell can be satalite guided.

While involving more interconnectivity, that might actually make training quicker, since teams would have up to date information on the location of Russian batteries and could set up out of range, where speed isn't as much of an issue.

The teams will still have to worry about Russian air assets, but Russia doesn't seem to have the ability to rapidly deploy that sort of support, still has to worry about the AA network, pilots are probably quite hesitant due to getting painted by AWACS each sortie (Russian cockpit info infamously only gives the pilot an indication of the strongest radar painting them, so there would be the fear that an S-300 is also targeting them), and the Russians appear to have been mostly out of guided munitions for a while, making hitting a mobile towed weapon difficult.

Given it's been 11 days since the announcement and the weapons were already in Europe, I would guess they'd be appearing fairly soon. DoD messaging suggest the weapons are only arriving now, from the US (Canada is sending M777s too) but that could just be an effort to obscure when they will show up. I'd imagine they had them ready as the authorization was set up.

A M142 HIMARS was also sent, which has an effective range of 310 miles. This might explain the alleged hit on a meeting of the entire Russian command yesterday (if it actually happened). It certainly won't be good for any new multi-kilometer convoys that show up again.

They'll be a game changer, particularly because the Russian artillery, while having a major numerical advantage, seems absolutely terrible. For instance, you have a self propelled gun specifically designed for shoot and scoot. You fire, then move about 10m back into the tree line, where you also have conveniently parked all your ammunition right next to each other, within the range of a single incoming shell, so that cook of will destroy all of them.

Then you also park your vehicles right next to the building you're hiding in and sit there for several hours, giving ample time for your adversary to tow up their own guns and put a shell directly on to where you clumped all your assets.

https://youtu.be/VRaA-aNss0E

Reply to Isaac
Russia's argument isn't about Western hypocrisy. You don't invade a country over hypocrisy. Its messaging is explicitly about a major military threat posed by Neo-Nazi militias operating in Ukraine, which are, in fact, smaller and less well armed than the Neo-Nazi militias Russia allows to operate in Russia. And indeed, Russia has also long funded and provided direct support to these larger Neo-Nazi groups.

On a side note, with the French gone and the Russians in, the ISIS affiliate in Mali has already overrun one of their bases. These forces they've cultivated seem capable of war crimes against unarmed civilians and not a whole lot else.

predict moves even CIA strategists missed, work out battle plans from a few newspaper articles, judge war crimes using Facebook, and all without the need for experts

You do realize open source intelligence reports exist, right? It isn't all "newspaper articles and Facebook." News outlets are a terrible place to learn about the course of any war, that's true, because they don't assume any military knowledge on the part of their audience, or an interest in the military details of the war. OSINT outlets do include this. You also have the Ukrainian General Staff's public reports. If intelligence reports by former intelligence staff that is overseen by former general officers doesn't count as "expert" opinion, I'm not sure what does.

The war crimes investigation is also being conducted by professionals, namely the ICC, who arrived on the ground as Russia pulled out, not via Facebook.

Quoting I like sushi

3moReplyOptions

Maybe Russia should start by real free elections at home to see how long the current regime would last

In the figures I've seen the Russian majority, in "Russian majority areas" does not exceed 50 or 60 % of the population in those areas. To claim these regions should be independent or annexed to Russia based on suffrage looks like a complete tranplling on human rights and republican institutions.

The Nazi argument doesn't make sense either. Because everyone knows that in war zones extremist groups tend to rise. We've seen the same thing with Islamic extremists in the ME and Communists in occupied France. It is the agressor and instigator of separatism that is to blame.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Russia's argument isn't about Western hypocrisy.

It is. I quoted the relevant parts of Putin's speech in support of that. You just saying "it isn't" is meaningless. Where does that get anyone?

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

You do realize open source intelligence reports exist, right?

Yes, it's not the data I'm referring to, it's the interpretation. The data needs careful and expert interpretation. One can't simply look at some intelligence reports, even of the highest confidence, and say "well, I reckon that means..."

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The war crimes investigation is also being conducted by professionals, namely the ICC, who arrived on the ground as Russia pulled out

Key word being 'investigation'. The conclusions we read here are straight off social media.

Quoting Isaac

The conclusions we read here are straight off social media.

This place is a social media, so anything you read here, is by definition straight off social media...

Quoting ssu

On Russian state TV: host (and modern day Goebbels wannabe) Vladimir Solovyov threatens Europe and all NATO countries, as not only Ukraine has to be denazified:

I could be wrong but if Putin plans to attack any country that helps Ukraine, then it is a given that we have to help Ukraine any way we can.

Putins reason for trying to "denazifie" is a moot issue. He reason for denazifiing any place is about as good as saying that he wants them to stop making ham and cheese sandwiches and that Russian must invade country "X" in order to do so.

IMHO it is all just naked aggression and Russian (Putin and those that support him) merely want to turn modern Russia back into the old USSR again however they can.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Ukraine has long running issues with extreme corruption and powerful oligarchs holding back any reform, as well as radical ideologies infecting the nation's politics.

That's the one issue Ukraine doesn't have (ironically, given the context). Since the Maidan Revolution in 2014, radicals have signally failed to make any political gains. On the contrary, as @ssu has been pointing out, they have been progressively losing what little hold they had in Ukrainian politics.

In 2014, in the wake of regime change, annexation of Crimea and Russian invasion in Donbass, when one might have expected nationalist sentiments to be running high, the two ultra-nationalist candidates collectively claimed less than 2% of the presidential vote, and none of the far-right parties were able to clear the 5% barrier in the parliamentary elections (although a few of their members won majoritarian seats). Radicals have been losing popular support ever since. The Right Sector - one of the main boogeymen of Russian propaganda - is all but extinct. Svoboda - the largest nationalist party in Ukraine - again failed to make it into the parliament in 2019, winning even fewer votes than in 2014. There is a plethora of far-right movements in Ukraine, but they have virtually no political power.

Quoting Isaac

Haven't we just got through repeating in painstaking detail how Neo-Nazis are not justification for invasion?

Unless perhaps

Quoting jorndoe

(headline) "Nazi Ukraine marching on Moscow"

Currently, we have Putin's Russia invading/bombing Ukraine.

Putin's Witches
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Putin's-Witches-55347.html

Quoting neomac

Putin's Witches
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Putin's-Witches-55347.html

Good grief man. It's 2022. Not 22.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

A friend who worked with them extensively told me it could be really quickly, two weeks of drills or even a bit less if they are working with experienced teams. That jives with DoD messaging of "about a week."

Thanks for the detailed and informative answer.

Reply to neomac

lol, reminds me of the Reddit "covens" organizing to support the ANA. I have to assume at least half the posts were made in jest though, at least I hope so.




Reply to Isaac

Yes, it's not the data I'm referring to, it's the interpretation. The data needs careful and expert interpretation. One can't simply look at some intelligence reports, even of the highest confidence, and say "well, I reckon that means..."

That's literally what OSINT is meant to do, to put analysis in clear language for the public.

Intelligence reports aren't a foreign language. When I started working on them I used mostly the same skills I had learned in my education.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

That's literally what OSINT is meant to do, to put analysis in clear language for the public.

Firstly, if your (or anyone else's conclusions are interpretations from OSINT, then you should cite the source rather than trying to pass it off as your own analysis, but regardless

a) the data from OSINT doesn't even begin to cover the sorts of speculation passed off as fact I was referring to in the comment you initially replied to. The actual data is sparse and usually of low confidence, and the reports make that quite clear.

b) much of OSINT isn't itself interpretation but reporting of opinion (and clearly labelled as such). Even the CIA admitted to lying about some of its intelligence reports for propaganda

c) most sources of OSINT (such as osint.org) also act as news aggregators and as such have their own editorial policy, just like any newspaper.

d) the intelligence community, foreign policy strategists, military and political analysts are not all exactly of one mind and speak with a united voice about the issues we're talking about here. There's considerable variation which encompasses pretty much all the views expressed here (with the exception of some of the very fringe positions we've heard from).

So again, the conclusions presented as fact to which I was referring are not magically supported as such simply by hand-waiving generally in the direction of OSINT, it would be the equivalent of me writing an entire paper without any citations and then at the end saying "there are such things as journals, you know!"

Reply to dclements It's quite obviously not about denazification but even here we're not agreeing on what the real reason is. In my view, the US/NATO are as much to blame for this war as Russia.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Point being, Russia might soon be at a significant firepower disadvantage, so it's unclear why they are continuing with the ineffective attacks and sending conscripts to their deaths. They seem to be making it more likely they lose land they've held since 2014.

Just to emphasize how much aid Ukraine is actually getting is the example that the US has sent about 1/3 of it's Javelin ATGMs to Ukraine. Usually countries have like under 50 launchers in their inventory or at most a hundred launchers. Ukraine has now over 2000 launchers. For the US to replace this expenditure of ATGMs, which won't cost actually so much for the US, it still will take a year to produce replacement equipment for US Army. There simply aren't any additional factories to make them.

With the Russians the issue can be that they finally are going to follow their own doctrine and manuals and concentrate their forces, but the fact is they cannot suddenly replace the used and lost material. And they don't have the reserves. And the fact is that they don't have reserves. To form up new ones or rearm reinforce older ones with reservists would take actually months.

Yet defense is easier than attack. And do notice the ease that Russian forces could withdrew from the Kyiv front. No large Russian formations were pocketed and destroyed altogether, hence the Ukrainian counterattacks were mainly local. What we haven't seen is Ukraine making a counterattack with several brigade size units. Something that isn't easy when you don't enjoy air superiority. Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the days of the armored division are done though. After this, many nations are probably going to switch to something like the Armored Brigade Combat Team, realizing that tanks need to move with interceptor assets, recon assets, and indirect fire assistance.

With great fanfare Russia few years ago re-created the formation of the 1st Tank Army, which now has seen actually operation with other Combined Arms Armies of the Russia Army. The idea was that the brigade hasn't gotten enough of firepower. Hence larger formations. It's interesting to see just what lessons Russia does learn from this. Especially now when it is focusing on the Donbas and understands that Ukrainians will fight, because the earlier multi-pronged attack and the attempt to seize Kyiv was clearly made thinking that the Ukrainians wouldn't defend and fight.

I thinking in area defense will be proved right again. The assumption that you can have a quick capture of the enemy country and hence have a splendid short war has now been shown just how perilous it can be.

Quoting dclements

I could be wrong but if Putin plans to attack any country that helps Ukraine, then it is a given that we have to help Ukraine any way we can.

Which luckily both NATO and the EU have understood to do.

Quoting dclements

IMHO it is all just naked aggression and Russian (Putin and those that support him) merely want to turn modern Russia back into the old USSR again however they can.

Indeed. Except without the marxist-leninist ideology. That they don't have.

One failure that Ukraine did do was no to do general mobilization prior to the Russian attack. It was meaningless and simply an error to abstain from doing this as to "not to provoke" Russia. Putin will provoke himself to do what he wants with or without provocations from the other side. Yet still some seem to think that Putin is somehow reasonable. Attacking a large country as Ukraine isn't reasonable.

Reply to SophistiCat Indeed.

I think after this war is over (and hope we will see it in months, not years), Ukraine has a perfect opportunity for a national rebirth. It has now achieved unity against a common enemy and if it then joins the EU, I truly wish Ukraine will change it's old ways of corrupt oligarchs. The war party leading the country has been a centrist party. Ukrainian patriotism really is not some "right-wing" cause now, it's obvious to everyone and Ukrainians can make this their finest hour.

Of course everything can be fucked up, as people can mess things up. The huge influx of money to rebuild Ukraine can create even more corruption and if then the EU and the West just closes it's eyes from this fact as in Afghanistan, the outcome can be bad. The EU has to stick to it's bureaucratic details and it insistence on things like minority rights and so on when it comes to Ukraine. In fact Ukrainians actually want that. What better thing than to join exclusive club of EU members that all the time bitch about Brussels when the alternative is to be under the rule of Putin either directly or indirectly.

Quoting ssu

Ukraine has a perfect opportunity for a national rebirth.

Like all those other countries existing under crushing debt and corrupt governments. I hope you're right but this is very unlikely in my view.

Quoting ssu

Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now.

I imagine force protection has to be the top criteria for such decisions. The Ukrainians cannot assume to know the depths of resources on the other side. There have been remarkably few instances of over extended forces on the Ukranian side. Most of those situations came from betting Putin would not actually do what he did.

Quoting Benkei

Like all those other countries existing under crushing debt and corrupt governments. I hope you're right but this is very unlikely in my view.

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU. And after a war you literally have rebuild nearly everything in the society. The Baltic States are a prime example of what ex-Soviet countries can do.

Of course there are many obstacles before we even get there. Starting from the possibility that one will have a long exhausting war that will take down more than Ukraine. The help that Ukraine is getting now won't go on perpetually.

Lol yeah Eastern Europe being turned into a shoe and tyre factory for the rest of Western Europe while demolishing workers rights has been really great for it.

As an aside it's great to watch has Ukraine has now become a giant money laundering op for the US arms manufacturers and nothing else.

As yet another aside it's funny to watch Australians shit themselves about Chinese "expansionism" in the Solomons while also pretending that NATO is an innocent snowflake. The West is basically a giant joke at the expense of their own populations and everyone elses.

Edit: Americans shitting themselves is fun too. Again: anyone who think the US gives even the slightest bit of a flying fuck about "sovereignty" can go jump into an infinite hole.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1517698763694903296?t=fKZDdpCZFSDZoZfVhfS8zA&s=19[/tweet]

Clowns with bricks for brains: "AmErIcA IsNt ReAlLY InVoLvED"

[tweet]https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1518378503590526976?t=06wQmnn2AKz6KEFSslL2Nw&s=19[/tweet]

Quoting ssu

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU. And after a war you literally have rebuild nearly everything in the society. The Baltic States are a prime example of what ex-Soviet countries can do.

What were the debt-to-GDP ratios for eastern european countries when they joined? Also, how's Greece doing? How many public goods have they sold since the last crisis?

Quoting ssu

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU.

You're assuming (again) that there are only two options. It may well be better for Ukraine to be in the EU than, for example, to be part of Russia, but why on earth would we consider those the only two options? It seems a common tactic (one which is being used to great effect in the media) to use the evils of one option as justification for advising another. It's as is you could point to the awfulness of my paisley tie (and it is awful), and use it to justify my wearing the salmon pink one (which is also awful) when I have an entire wardrobe full of much more sensible ties.

Bear-sucking clowns: "In between two lies, I so want to ask ridiculous questions forever, even though Google could easily answer them."

Quoting Benkei

What were the debt-to-GDP ratios for eastern european countries when they joined?

Actually, many had the same levels as now. Do notice that for example the Baltic States have had quite different economic policies than the older EU members, for example when it came to the financial crisis. Estonia opted for the most harshest austerity measures during the financial crisis, had a deep but quick economic recession and saw a very rapid recovery and now still has very low debt-to-GDP ratios (public or all together).

Estonia joined the EU in 2003. Now it's Government Debt to GDP is 18%. In Lithuania it's 47% and Latvia 44%. Far lower than Finland 69% or Netherlands 54,5%, which aren't yet countries with a severe debt problem. With Greece it's government debt to GDP is 205,6% for comparison.

(the dip of the financial crisis in can be seen with the Baltic States here with the Per Capita:)


This just undelines the agency of the state itself, be it in the EU or not. Yet being part of the EU has had obvious advantages for the former Soviet states.

Quoting Benkei

Also, how's Greece doing? How many public goods have they sold since the last crisis?

Greece is different. But one should note that it was the Greek leaders that opted eagerly to follow the advice of Wall Street bankers to create the problems at the first place. And this just underlines that every country actually has it's set of problems and possibilities. There's of course similarities, but you cannot bunch the states together.

Some countries are careful in avoiding a debt trap, which is naturally marketed for them.

Quoting Olivier5

Of course not. It must be said again and again and again that NATO is evil evil evil. Of COURSE!

There seems to be a growing trend in the West’s anti-Russia rhetoric to portray Russia as a “pariah state”. For example, Robert English, a “Russia expert” at the University of Southern California, has said:

Russia will be a pariah state in the eyes of many people forever — but at least for a decade to come, Until Putin goes, there'll be no sense of cleansing and starting over

Russia Will Be 'Pariah State' While Putin Is in Charge, Expert Says – Business Insider

This is being parroted across the globe by the West-controlled international media:

Russia invasion: Putin becoming 'pariah' before world stage, experts say - Fox News

Russia was once a place of fear and fascination – my children will know it only as a pariah state - The Independent

Russia will be a ‘pariah state in the eyes of many people forever’ and there’ll be no ‘starting over’ while Putin is still in charge, expert says - 198 Japan News

Putin’s Russia: From a ‘great power’ to a ‘pariah state’ - Al Jazeera

In the meantime, Zelensky is trying to blame Germany for the war and demanding that the Germans surrender their tanks to Ukraine. As correctly pointed out by Scholz, the Brits should provide the tanks, not the Germans. After all, this is America and Britain’s war, NOT Germany’s!

This shows that Zelensky is not only a certified clown but also increasingly irrational, as can also be seen from his claim that he is “ready to negotiate with Russia” but that he will keep fighting until Russia retreats or surrenders.

There are many other inconsistencies in the anti-Russian narrative. For example, we are told that Ukraine has been asking Britain for weapons for years but its request has been turned down “for fear of provoking Russia”.

But at the same time we are told that Britain has been supplying arms to Ukraine as well as training by special forces (SAS). This suggests that Britain has been backing Ukraine against Russia but won’t admit it. In other words, it has a hidden agenda.

Also, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin has said:

We believe that we can win. We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.

War in Ukraine: Latest developments – France24

Note that he said “we” which means that the US military considers itself at war with Russia. Certainly, America and Britain are waging economic and financial war on Russia and now, it seems, also military war by proxy.

In any case, a central question that requires an answer is why America and Britain are leading this crusade against Russia. Why America and its British Poodle? Why not Germany, India, or China?

What is the significance of the fact that US and UK economies largely revolve on finance, whilst the economies of countries like Germany are based on more honest means like industry, manufacture, and hard work?

How did America and Britain got all that money, if not by imperialist means?

Russia’s Lavrov warns of ‘real’ danger of World War III

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that peace talks with Ukraine would continue, while warning there was a “real” danger of a World War III.

“The danger is serious, it is real, you can’t underestimate it,” Lavrov told the Interfax news agency.

He also criticised Kyiv’s approach to the talks, adding: “Goodwill has its limits. But if it isn’t reciprocal, that doesn’t help the negotiation process.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/25/russia-fm-lavrov-warns-of-real-danger-world-war-iii-liveblog

Reply to Manuel you love a bit of fear-porn, don't you? @frank too

Reply to Changeling

Lavrov likes fear porn too.

It's stupid to call it a bluff, even if it is one.

Then again, why isn't it called fear porn when all the countries in Europe want to join NATO now? Do they really think Russia has the capacity to invade them too?

It's gone swellingly for them in Ukraine after all.

Reply to Changeling
Are you afraid?

Reply to Manuel
Seems like a good idea to take out a long-term lease on a luxury home and a sedan to go with it.

Quoting Manuel

“The danger is serious, it is real, you can’t underestimate it,” Lavrov told the Interfax news agency.

This simply isn't fear porn.

We've talked at length how nuclear escalation is possible.

It only seems less likely now because both sides have accepted the current situation.

The danger, however, is that neither side is willing to give-up and the stakes are amazingly high and the current situation is evolving slowly but not a stalemate.

If either side (NATO or Russia) gives-up they lose credibility.

Russia would lose a lot more credibility, so much so that it's nearly impossible to imagine they would give-up and therefore would resort to tactical nuclear weapons if need be. Losing the war in Ukraine would likely unravel the Russian state.

Western states wouldn't unravel if Ukraine lost to Russia (whatever definition of loss we're going with), but the US would immediately lose credibility in 2 of the 3 pillars of American hegemony of finance and covert operations, leaving only hard military power which is simply not enough to prop up the American empire for a bunch of reasons.

The window of opportunity of a quick diplomatic resolution is unfortunately over and both sides have committed to military solutions.

There is still the potential for the West to manage the war to a military victory for Russia but simply declare that Russia "learned its lesson" and was "stopped", in which case both sides can say they win and the news cycle changes to something else and we basically never hear about the war again (just like Iraq and Afghanistan: one more pointless war that destroyed the lives of millions of people on the way to losing face vis-a-vis other smaller empires).

In other words, the current "political stability", in the sense the rapid escalations have stopped and the current warfare is simply accepted by both sides, is maintained and then wound down.

There are, however, plenty of ways the current stability, of violent destruction, could be destabilised and a new cycle of rapid escalation is triggered.

Obviously Ukraine may get desperate and find some escalation that triggers some unexpected escalation from Russia, which triggers escalation from the West and so on.

However, it may also be the West that triggers escalation with things like Finnish NATO bids, which Russia may not do anything about ... or maybe they will decide its unacceptable and launch nuclear weapons against Finland before they join NATO. That could be solved diplomatically with a treaty to not station nuclear weapons or foreign troops within Finland, so that the military situation would be exactly the same, with both Finland and Russia not planning to attack each other, just that Finland is part of NATO and so that's a Western "win" against Putin and makes the Ukraine war totally worth it, even if every single Ukrainian dies. That would be the diplomatic thing to do to try to avoid further escalation, but so far the West has been in favour of escalation ... of course, as long as its Ukrainians dying as mentioned. If it's Finns that risk a few nukes, maybe the West will be less escalatory and actually work out some sort of deal that Finland and/or Sweden join NATO without triggering some new round of escalation.

Keep in mind that the optimum military strategy for Russia is to break the ice on the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

If the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons during this conflict then the precedence is set and they can simply do so in any other regional conflict for easy victory ... and even easier intimidation.

Therefore, if there is a political context conducive to the rationalisation, both domestically and to their remaining international partners, of the use of nuclear weapons they will likely take advantage of the provided opportunity.

The USA justified the use of nuclear weapons in Japan to save American lives in face of a fanatical enemy, and, that justification to save Russian lives in face of a fanatical enemy is likely to play just as well in Russia as it does in the US, if there is no conventional military victory relatively soon.

The disadvantages of breaking the ice of the use of nuclear weapons are also asymmetric. The main consequence is a new cycle of nuclear rearmament and proliferation around the globe. This is of course bad for Russia as it is everyone, but it could be argued it's even worse for NATO.

The situation only appears stable because we have become accustomed to it, and I would say the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used by the end of this conflict as about 50%, although extremely limited, mainly to show they aren't bluffing; break the ice and see what happens.

On many levels, Russia has few reasons not to use nuclear weapons; there is no reason for NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike against Russia because it used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.

There's a lot of mathematics that can illuminate why all this is likely to be the case, but the short version is that it's the nature of this kind of crisis to get spontaneously worse and not spontaneously better.

Quoting boethius

In particular, if Ukraine is able to continue to successfully blowup Russian industry and flagships (assuming all that was Ukraine), the only feasible retaliation available to Russia in the current situation maybe tactical nuclear weapons, and at some point retaliation is politically necessary and not just a good idea from a military perspective.

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. Actually it's weird that he didn't use them yet. Is Putin too stupid to realize it ? Putin can always blame the West and say that he was forced to do it despite the repeated warnings. Why didn't he do launch nuclear tactic weapons yet? Is Putin such a coward pussy? C'mon there is no serious risk for Russia: sanctions are ineffective, India and China are with Russia, Putin will still be in power, fucking capitalist imperialism has tired everybody already, the West has no courage to retaliate, and it bears exactly all the responsibility if everything goes to shit. What is Putin still waiting? He would be at worst "only" victorious in Ukraine, at best the savior of all human kind. We should be all in favour of nuclear escalation if that's the only way to end the war for good.

Reply to Manuel

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that peace talks with Ukraine would continue, while warning there was a “real” danger of a World War III.

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force. There is no sign of powerful allies of Russia joining the fight. So this talk of WW III is actually code for nuclear conflagration.

Lavrov is just sabre rattling with idle threats of nuclear conflagration. That’s all they’ve got left to scare NATO with. As for wether Putin is insane enough to press the button, I doubt it. Although if cornered it’s possible. But would he want to go down in history for such mindless destruction? I have been forming an opinion that he is legacy building and the legacy he has in mind is not that.

Reply to neomac The Putin apologists are proving unhinged.

Quoting boethius

If the Russians use tactical nuclear weapons during this conflict then the precedence is set and they can simply do so in any other regional conflict for easy victory ... and even easier intimidation.

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that.

There's something rotten in Putinistan...


On 25 February, the day after the Russian invasion, the deputy director of Gazprom, Alexander Tyulyakov, was found hanged in the garage of his home near St. Petersburg.

On February 28, Ukrainian-born Russian oil and gas tycoon Mikhail Watford was found dead at his home in Surrey, UK, "in unexplained circumstances".

On March 24, billionaire Vasily Melnikov —who reportedly worked for the medical firm MedStom—was reported dead in the bathroom of his apartment in Nizhny Novgorod, along with his wife and two sons, all stabbed to death.

On April 18, the former vice president of Gazprombank, Vladislav Avaev, was found dead in his apartment in Moscow, along with his wife and daughter. The apartment was locked from the inside and a pistol was found in Avaev's hands.

On April 19, Sergey Protosenya, former vice president of gas giant Novatek, was found hanged in the garden of his villa in Lloret del Mar. His wife and daughter were found in their bed, their bodies covered with stab wounds.

Quoting Olivier5

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that.

Lavrov is now threatening the world with a third world war involving nukes and he's blaming Ukraine for it :lol:

Russia has nothing left but this. It's clear that the invasion is a massive failure so they will try and do anything to show Russian might and power again. When they realize the world is laughing at their pathetic army and pathetic attempts at fooling anyone but the hardcore Putiners in Russia and internationally with their propaganda, they either have the choice of nuking everyone or live in shame. But nuking everyone will make them the worst people in the history of mankind so they have little choice but to live in shame. Russia is rapidly becoming a real dumpster fire of a nation, where no one will want to live, work, or be associated with. That legacy will haunt Putin and his minions until someone breaks it to reform the country. [s][/s]

Quoting neomac

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible.

Well, this maybe why Russia denies the sinking of the flagship and the recent industrial fires are caused by Ukraine.

For, the only escalation response available would be tactical Nuclear weapons.

However, there can be plenty of political reasons not to use nuclear weapons at this point. In particular if the Kremlin predicts they'll win in Dombass and also avert more boats sinking and industrial fires and that the whole thing will blow over and things will return to some kind of normal.

However, if there are a series of attacks in Russia that normal Russian people find unacceptable and are a like "WTF Kremlin, what are you going to do about that", and all conventional weapons are already being used, then nukes are the only retaliation available.

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them.

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies.

Quoting Olivier5

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that.

Unlikely.

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange.

NATO would be "mad" about it, but if NATO and EU have already done all they can do in terms of sanctions and weapons (now being blown up by Nukes), and further sanctions on energy would hurt the EU more than it hurts Russia, then the US maybe happy with the result as well, and escalation would stop simply because we arrived at the end of escalation road and the next step would be off the cliff into oblivion. The world would simply have to accept that Russia drops nukes now, it would get normalised over time, and the main consequence would be everyone rushes to get or make nuclear weapons (except around Russia because you get nuked if you do; hence, it may end up being a be a bigger problem for NATO anyways).

Quoting Christoffer

Russia has nothing left but this.

Currently Russia is making gains in Dombass, so we'll see the result there.

They have also already taken Kherson, the canal to Crimea, taken Mariupol except a few hold outs, destroyed Azov brigade, made their land bridge, and degraded Ukraines war industry and war fighting infrastructure and skills and knowledge.

If they succeed in current operation they may view the above as sufficient military achievement.

However, if Ukrainians do "win" and push the Russians back to their borders then certainly everyone would agree that's failure, and nukes would be the only thing left at that point.

If a stalemate emerges in the current situation of failing to close the cauldron, it's unclear if that failure would overwhelm the achievements so far. Kremlin may simply accept a stalemate at this point as achieving "enough". Which could be incredibly unstable or then slowly transition into a sort of South-North Korea situation. For a lot of reasons, instability seems a better bet.

Quoting Christoffer

It's clear that the invasion is a massive failure so they will try and do anything to show Russian might and power again.

Agreed. If the Nuclear weapons are used by Russia it would be a show of might and power and most rational people will be afraid of that.

Quoting Christoffer

they either have the choice of nuking everyone or live in shame.

Untrue.

Lot's of conventional military options still available.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO.

Quoting Christoffer

But nuking everyone will make them the worst people in the history of mankind so they have little choice but to live in shame.

They may not see it that way, nor care. US used Nukes against Japan and Russia could use the exact same reasoning of needing nukes to save the lives of their soldiers.

Quoting Christoffer

Russia is rapidly becoming a real dumpster fire of a nation, where no one will want to live, work, or be associated with. That legacy will haunt Putin and his minions until someone breaks it to reform the country.

Unclear. As has been discussed at length, only the West is angry with Russia and no one else seems to care about it. If anything the large majority of the world feels satisfactory schadenfreude that the reckless and cynical warring ways of the West is coming home to roost (regardless of "who started it").

Quoting Punshhh

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force.

If this is true, then nuclear weapons are the next step. Why would Russia just call it quits?

If it's not true, and Russia unambiguously defeats Ukraine in the Easter theatre and Ukraine can't take back Kherson is where risk of Russian using nuclear weapons is low.

I agree that even if Russia does use nuclear weapons the risk of WWIII is low, at least in the form of mutually assured destruction being implemented.

However, lot's of chaotic scenarios we may decide to call WWIII even if ICBM's aren't used and only a few choice tactical nukes here and there. For example China may decide to invade Taiwan and other wars may erupt due to food shortages and general discombobulation of the international system.

The phrasing is "shouldn't be underestimated". It's simply true. We shouldn't underestimate war leading to more war.

The Western media projects an image of NATO basically in control of the situation and knowing what they're doing.

This may simply turn out not to be true.

In basic risk analysis you multiple the risk by the impact to get a factor for comparison. Even if WWIII is low probability, it is very high impact, and so easily of greater concern than a lot of other dangers.

Quoting Punshhh

The Putin apologists are proving unhinged.

The issue of nuclear weapons being used has already been discussed at length. All those reasons and scenarios have not gone away and may have actually increased even if Johny Depp now dominates the news cycle and the Western media has a new toy ... the old toys of gasoline and firecrackers haven't been put away.

Noting that tactical nuclear weapons are optimum military strategy is not controversial. In military terms, if you have a bigger bomb than the opposing side it's an advantage. The reasons to not use nuclear weapons are political and not military.

All your reasoning (if true, that Russia is weak in conventional forces) simply supports the conclusion they may use nuclear weapons, that they would have nothing else to lose.

So, I'm not sure if you're even disagreeing with my point, or just disapproving of the use of nuclear weapons.

I also disapprove.

One could argue pouring in debt and conventional weapons into Ukraine to the point that Russia uses nuclear weapons would be for the glory of Ukraine, and a worthy sacrifice to demonstrate just how "shameful" the Russians are. If one wants definitive proof that "Putin be bad" then I see how that logic works.

Quoting boethius

Unlikely.

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange.

The rationale would be to get rid of a nuclear terrorist state. And NATO does not even need to launch. All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine.

Quoting Olivier5

There's something rotten in the Putinistan kingdom...

Yes. One or even two of these kind of events could totally happen at these stressing times. But this many seems like a return to the Stalinist times. Also Putin's personal intelligence service raiding the FSB headquarters tells that all really isn't well in Putinistan. One should simply dismiss people, not have your own guys raiding a HQ of your intel service.

Lavrov literally said: "Nuclear war is unacceptable, this is Moscow's principled position ... I would very much not like that now, when the risks [of nuclear war] are really very, very significant, I would very much not like these risks to be artificially inflated, and there are many who want them. The danger is serious, it is real, it cannot be underestimated”.

And the Western media reported that he said: "the risks [of nuclear war] are really very, very significant."

Utterly hilarious.

It may of course be the case that Lavrov is full of shit but the people who unhesitatingly regurgitate Western propaganda as per the above are verifiably full of shit.

Reply to StreetlightX I would read it as a veiled threat. We talking about apophasis the other day, to say something by pretending not to sy it. This is an example. 'Nice world you have, shame if something happened to it'.

Reply to Wayfarer But of course you would. A Russian official could say "We will never use nuclear weapons ever", and you would read it as a veiled threat. You may not even be wrong, but I think any alternative reading is a priori foreclosed to you from the beginning.

In any case the omission of context from Western media and it's regurgitation by those here is yet another instance of propaganda in operation.

In any case, the Americans seem to have realised that Putin might be utterly beaten in Ukraine. Early May was Putin’s deadline, in time for V day, or whatever it is called there. Instead that will be about the time that the Western banks declare they won’t accept repayments in rubles, and the four-hour queues for sausage will once again become reality for the vast majority of Russians.

of course Lavrov is trading in threats. That is the only language he has.

Quoting Olivier5

The rationale would be to get rid of a nuclear terrorist state.

Worthy goal.

Quoting Olivier5

And NATO does not even need to launch.

Lot's of reasons why it would be necessary for NATO to launch to "get rid" of Russia.

Quoting Olivier5

All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine.

Fantasy.

It's fun how when you push even the slightest bit, these people don't give one itoa of a shit about Ukraine, but only about defeating the Big Bad that is Russia. If it takes a couple of cities' worth of dead Ukrainians to do it, so be it.

Quoting StreetlightX

It may of course be the case that Lavrov is full of shit but the people who unhesitatingly regurgitate Western propaganda as per the above are verifiably full of shit.

Whatever else people want to say about Lavrov, Putin or the Kremlin, it seems pretty clear that the risk of nuclear war is far higher than before the crisis.

And it's pretty easy to argue that any increase in the risk of nuclear war is unacceptable.

The statements are simply true about the risks.

What people can take issue with is the part where Lavrov expresses those risks are unacceptable; i.e. his normative rather than factual parts of his statement.

Lavrov and the Kremlin may want nuclear escalation at this point for all we know ... which, if true, makes the statement about the risks being significant far higher and even "more factual". But, whatever the Kremlin wants, the risks are obviously higher now than before the war.

Of course, it wouldn't work for propaganda purposes since if the Western media accused Lavrov of being disingenuous and actually wanting the situation to escalate to nuclear weapons ... then the followup question is why is NATO playing into Russia's hand?

Quoting boethius

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange.

Russia has a lot to lose if it uses nukes against Ukraine. First, what would actually Russia achieve with using tactical nukes?

Assuming if there would be a large Ukrainian formation nicely packed up, then tactical nuclear weapon could take out of action one Ukrainian formation. A concentrated use of let's say strategic bombers with conventional weapons would come close to a similar strike, but wouldn't actually create any outcry. The simple way to counter the use of nukes is to spread your forces and not have large formations, large airfields or concentrations that would be optimal for nuclear weapons. Or then Putin could attack civilian targets and get some Ukrainian city to be remembered similarly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would be the price of using nukes?

For starters, if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, I doubt that China, India or South Africa among others will be as if nothing has happened and openly do business with Russia. Let's just remember that there are countries that are willing to buy that Russian gas and oil. Especially for China to back the use of nukes against a non-nuclear state would be a tough spot.

And Ok, if you do use one or two tactical nukes, what if Ukraine doesn't budge? What if Zelensky is the real McCoy continues fighting and doesn't throw in the towel? Iranians didn't throw in the towel when Iraq used chemical weapons against them.

After the war, Iraq—pressured to own up to the attacks—acknowledged that it had "consumed" 1800 tons of mustard, 600 tons of sarin, and 140 tons of tabun. All told, according to Iran's Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs (FMVA), the chemical onslaught killed nearly 5000 Iranians and sickened more than 100,000. That doesn't include Iraqi victims: In March 1988, Iraq's forces attacked its own citizens with mustard and nerve agents in Halabja, killing as many as 5000 and wounding 7000.

Sulfur mustard, a family of compounds first used in World War I, left the deepest and most visible scars on survivors of the war. Three decades later, about 56,000 Iranians are coping with lingering health effects from the blistering agent, ranging from skin lesions and failing corneas to chronic obstructive lung disease and possibly cancer, says Tooba Ghazanfari, an immunologist at Shahed University here.

Quoting Wayfarer

In any case, the Americans seem to have realised that Putin might be utterly beaten in Ukraine. Early May was Putin’s deadline, in time for V day, or whatever it is called there. Instead that will be about the time that the Western banks declare they won’t accept repayments in rubles, and the four-hour queues for sausage will once again become reality for the vast reality of Russians.

Or then the war can continue. Putin might simply admit that it's a war. Of course he will portray it in a way that Russia is fighting a war with NATO, but anyway. The weapons assistance to Ukraine is large at least.

It may all fall to the trap of WW1 where making peace in 1915, 1916 or 1917 was off the table as so many lives had been lost actually in the first months. After hundreds of thousands had already perished, it's not easy just to call the thing off without any gains. For Putin it seemed one missile cruiser was humiliating enough for him to not to go further with peace talks.

Quoting boethius

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them.

Why not? As you said, Putin has figured all out, already. He will win anyways. And his people will support any leader who proves how powerful Russia is. Besides the Ukrainians are Nazis, America bombed Japan with strategic nukes even if there was no existential threat to America, why shouldn’t Russia be able to justify an attack with tactical nukes against a Nazi government committing genocides against Russians, threatening to use chemical weapons against Russians, with the support of corrupt and blood thirsty capitalist imperialists?! Is Putin too stupid or too coward? Because either way the Westerners will profit from his stupidity and cowardice and continue the war precisely because Putin refuses to escalate.

Quoting boethius

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies.

Oh I see, so you are saying that Kremlin is waiting for the green light from China and India to fire tactical nukes? Why? Why does Putin need to wait if he will win anyways and why would his allies not support him if his victory will definitely show to the world how US and NATO are powerless?

Quoting ssu

then the war can continue..

With what resources? Presumably, if one wins a war, one can then lay claim to the spoils. Oil, wheat, all the minerals and resources that Ukraine has to offer. But what if there is no victory? Can Russia continue to engage in this campaign of wanton destruction and mass killing indefinitely while making no actual gains? Wars are not simply media opportunities, some party actually has to win. And since day 1, Putin has not been winning, and he’s still not winning. When are Russian tractors going to be tilling those wheat fields and Russian companies running those oil wells? That is what ‘victory’ would look like, and we’re not seeing anything remotely resembling it.

Putin’s plan was the Ukrainian army would fold and Russia would install a puppet regime in days or st most weeks. They even had the press releases drafted. That is the fantasy he had which all the sycophants around him echoed. But he’s been mugged by reality.

Quoting boethius

All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine.
— Olivier5

Fantasy.

Six months ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get Javelins. Now they have thousands. And one month ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get heavy artillery from NATO. Now the Canadians and US are giving them dozens of M777 Howitzers.

If the Russians nuke Kyiv, you can bet the Ukrainians are going to nuke Moscow.

Quoting Wayfarer

With what resources?

War can continue just like WW1 continued: by stalemate and falling back to defensive positions. Russia can always choose to cease the attacks and go on the defensive. Then look at the next go let's say in the summer or in the fall. That might not what Putin wants, but wars have their own way of going.

"Luckily" it seems that Putin has made the mistake of simply throwing the forces from the Kyiv front directly into battle in the Donbas. Likely better would have to be two reorganize them, resupply them which would have meant that it would have taken at least a month.

Quoting Olivier5

If the Russian nuke Kyiv, you can bet the Ukrainians are going to nuke Moscow.

I'm not so sure about that. There are limits on just what weapons the US will give to Ukraine.

Quoting ssu

There are limits on just what weapons the US will give to Ukraine.

They would support retaliation, I think, if it comes to that. And the US is not the only player. Europe cannot tolerate a nuclear terrorist state at its doorstep. Ukraine also has the capacity to build their own nukes, given a year or two.

Quoting Olivier5

They would support retaliation, I think, if it comes to that. But the US is not the only player. Europe cannot tolerate a nuclear terrorist state at its doorstep. Ukraine also has the capacity to build their own nukes, given a year or two.
4m

What sort of fantasy land are you living in where countries can just be given nuclear weapons, or develop their own while their country is being destroyed?

Reply to Tzeentch Ukraine is being destroyed? In which version of reality is that happening? The Vladimir Chronicles?

Quoting Olivier5

Ukraine is being destroyed?

Kind of proving my point there, buddy.

Quoting ssu

Russia has a lot to lose if it uses nukes against Ukraine. First, what would actually Russia achieve with using tactical nukes?

In the current situation, I agree with your evaluation, why I mention some further escalation as the trigger, from Ukraine or from NATO and/or both.

However, to understand the rational for using nuclear weapons, one needs to explore what happens if the premises of your current argument changes. As I mention, things only "seem stable" because we have gotten accustomed to the carnage, but the situation may be far from stable in terms of all sorts of variables we cannot currently see.

Quoting ssu

Assuming if there would be a large Ukrainian formation nicely packed up, then tactical nuclear weapon could take out of action one Ukrainian formation.

This is still pretty convenient in terms of military tactics to simply "take out" a Ukrainian formation. However, there's also fortified bases and bunkers that cannot easily be completely obliterated by conventional means.

Quoting ssu

A concentrated use of let's say strategic bombers with conventional weapons would come close to a similar strike, but wouldn't actually create any outcry.

I'm not sure if NATO and the EU can escalate the current "outcry", for one, and the Kremlin may simply no longer care what NATO and the EU do or say if the context develops in which using nuclear weapons has more pros than cons.

Quoting ssu

The simple way to counter the use of nukes is to spread your forces and not have large formations, large airfields or concentrations that would be optimal for nuclear weapons. Or then Putin could attack civilian targets and get some Ukrainian city to be remembered similarly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is not simple.

I doubt civilian targets would be targeted, although civilians would certainly die as well.

Quoting ssu

For starters, if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, I doubt that China, India or South Africa among others will be as if nothing has happened and openly do business with Russia. Let's just remember that there are countries that are willing to buy that Russian gas and oil. Especially for China to back the use of nukes against a non-nuclear state would be a tough spot.

These are the main political reasons against using nuclear weapons. However, the world view and political response of Russia's remaining partners is not so easily predictable. But China and India (governing elites) may have now, or then it develops in the future, some reason to either accept Russia using tactical nuclear weapons (sets the precedent that they can too).

The world also doesn't solely run on social media judgements. Russia has resources countries need and it's easy to rationalise buying what you need from the cheapest source.

Do we not too wear Nikes?

(or some equivalent symbol of questionable fabrication practices that make our sneakers cheaper than they otherwise would be?)

Quoting ssu

And Ok, if you do use one or two tactical nukes, what if Ukraine doesn't budge? What if Zelensky is the real McCoy continues fighting and doesn't throw in the towel? Iranians didn't throw in the towel when Iraq used chemical weapons against them.

The anti-Russian rhetoric should maybe taken more seriously.

If Russia is "being the bully" and has no legitimate grievances in Ukraine that justify, at least from some arguably Western (aka. the truth) normative perspective, then the reason for using nuclear weapons to intimidate other neighbour's to maintain bully credibility is so high that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is essentially inevitable at this point if the premises of the rhetoric are true.

If Putin is evil, literally Hitler, already committing genocide, and the risk of a strategic response from NATO is very low, then I honestly don't see why Putin wouldn't use nuclear weapons? Definitely seems to me like an evil thing to do.

In our discussions I believe we both agree the situation is more nuanced, but the rhetoric on this point could be true. We don't really know what Putin and the Kremlin wants or how he'd react in this or that situation.

I word it "breaking the ice" on the use of nuclear weapons due to the wider contextual consequences, not because it would immediately win the war in Ukraine.

In terms of military tactics in Ukraine, it is possible that Ukraine can withstand one or two tactical nukes as you describe, but it would certainly result in a stalemate as spreading your forces out essentially rules out any concentrated offensive, and formation that concentrates for a breakthrough manoeuvre just gets nuked.

Quoting Olivier5

Six months ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get Javelins. Now they have thousands. And one month ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get heavy artillery from NATO. Now the Canadians and US are giving them dozens of M777 Howitzers.

It wasn't fantasy.

Ukraine was already being armed and trained by NATO for their war in the Dombass.

The precedent of waging proxy war with conventional weapons goes way back, there's nothing particular unusual in the situation.

NATO giving Ukraine nuclear weapons to strike Russia is pure fantasy and Russia is unlikely to accept this "aha, technically we only 'loaned' some nukes to Ukraine, no string attached as nuclear powers are want to do, so, gotcha, you can't nuke us back".

All NATO would be achieving by giving a couple of nukes to their friends in Ukraine to casually nuke Moscow and Saint Petersburg, would be to risk strategic nuclear response without even the benefit of a nuclear first strike.

Quoting Olivier5

Ukraine is being destroyed?

?

Are you ok?

Quoting Wayfarer

Putin’s plan was the Ukrainian army would fold and Russia would install a puppet regime in days or st most weeks.

This was certainly plan A and the preferred result was either collapse of the Ukrainian regime or then accepting the peace terms on offer.

But considering they took their positions in south of Ukraine in a matter of days and "denazified" the Azov brigade all the to a few starting holdouts in Azovstal, it seems non-credible to say the Kremlin, or then at least the Russian generals, had a plan B.

Also, the whole analysis that Russia expected Ukraine to collapse completely ignores the last 8 years, the size of Ukraine, and the US and NATO support to Ukraine.

Ukraine has been waging a fanatical war against the Dombass breakaway regions for 8 years, training up with NATO, getting fighting experience, and developing further a fanatical war fighting ideology (NAZI or otherwise), and any competent military analyst would view a total war response by Ukraine as one obvious potential outcome as well as NATO escalating sanctions and flooding arms into Ukraine.

What is unknown is how probable the Kremlin viewed the current total war scenario.

What is equally unknown is the extent the Kremlin actually wanted to bait Ukraine into a total war scenario to obliterate their long term war fighting infrastructure, make the point of walking up to the biggest and baddest country in the region and punch them in the face, while also raising commodity prices.

Reply to boethius

Good post, I agree with much of it. :up:

Reply to boethius There is no precedent for it, that is true. But there is also no precedent to use tactical nukes. If Russia uses them, it will create a precedent, which others will follow. And the first one following will be Ukraine.

Putin can't casually drop nukes over Ukraine and expect no retaliation to happen. That's I suspect why he doesn't drop them, and will IMO never drop them. He knows there would be consequences, and he is not the suicidal type.

In other news:

Ukrainian Astronomers Discover ‘Exocomets’ around Another Star
By Briley Lewis on April 14, 2022

Astronomers from the Main Astronomical Observatory (MAO) of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv recently published a discovery of five new exocomets—comets orbiting a star other than the sun—in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, using data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). They also independently confirmed a handful of exocomets that were previously detected by other researchers.

Quoting boethius

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO.

A tactical nuke would however put them in a position where they have nothing left in terms of diplomacy with the west. Russia would solidify its existence as a criminal nation and they would probably not be able to heal any diplomatic ties for a very very long time. It's basically the nail in the coffin for Russia as a nation, slowly disintegrating down into a nation that's falling behind on any front. In 20 years, the world will have moved past them in every way, probably putting up defensive systems around the nation to block any attempts of nukes going out of it while the technological advancements outside of Russia will make them look like the stone age.

Many here argue for each nation to be responsible for their own development, that it's each and every independent nation's right to develop however they want. That also means that actions stretching outside of a nation can have consequences; that becoming an isolated nation is part of the internal development each independent nation is responsible for. No one is to blame for Russia's failures and how they're now treated. The rest of the world can choose however they want to interact with Russia and if they don't want to interact with them, then Russia has no right to demand anything.

However the outcome of this conflict may be, there will be no way for Russia to "heal" even if the war ends as long as the top people, including Putin stays in power. As long as they are there, Russia will be isolated. The only way back for Russia would be to conduct a total reform of government, to show the world that they're not the crazy asswipes they are now. They brought this on themselves.

Quoting boethius

However, if Ukrainians do "win" and push the Russians back to their borders then certainly everyone would agree that's failure, and nukes would be the only thing left at that point.

Ukraine might continue to fight as long as there's material support from the west. They had massive morale going into defending their country and being able to push back the big bear Russia this much would seriously have boosted their morale even further, combined with the anger of the war crimes.

I don't think Ukraine will settle easily, they want justice for Russia's crimes and they might fight until every single Russian in Ukraine is killed, captured, or sent home.

Quoting boethius

Untrue.

Lot's of conventional military options still available.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO.

Tactical nukes won't be the same as regular nuclear weapons.

But the problem is that their regular efforts have been pathetically bad so far. Even when all the experts said that the battle for the eastern region would be more conventional mechanical warfare in open areas and that Russia has the advantage, we haven't even seen that yet.

They continue to fail because they're stupid. Only stupid armies dig trenches in the Red forest. This kind of stupidity is obviously more widespread than just those soldiers and leaders in Chornobyl. And they can't use air superiority because of their inability to use high-tech GPS missiles, so the pilots need to drop down under 5000 meters in order to strike at visible range, which is dangerous because of ground troop MANPADS.

So all they have is maybe bunker busters and large long-range missiles that do massive damage. But that could lead to such devastation that Ukraine needs to retaliate in order to stop it, meaning firing at a much larger scale into Russian territory, especially to take out those launch sites.

The thing is that the conventional military options from Russia should have been seen by now, but they aren't, because it would risk diluting the entire Russian army to the point where the nation is seriously undefended. The Russian army is stupid, low on morale have worn out old tech (some drones found were fueled by a DIY water bottle because they didn't have the actual tanks), they are pretty pathetic and there's little for them to do but just brute force try with what they have.

The only thing that is a large risk is that they blow Kyiv up with a nuke right before May 9th to spin some bullshit story that they "had to". But if they do, the rest of the world will do everything in their power to destroy Russia, and rightfully so (not talking about nukes, but about other means, including extreme isolated economical means).

Quoting boethius

They may not see it that way, nor care. US used Nukes against Japan and Russia could use the exact same reasoning of needing nukes to save the lives of their soldiers.

The consequences of the nukes in Japan should not be understated. It wasn't trivial, it was world-defining and there weren't any political or existential consequences imagined before the bombings as there were after the bombings. Historical context is very important here.

If anyone in the world were to nuke a city today, that nation would be in such serious trouble that they might as well nuke themselves in the process. Russia won't care, of course, but it would solidify their isolation to the point where I think not even China would feel comfortable dealing with them. Russia would become persona non grata everywhere and that's all fine and good in their opinion... until it isn't.

People forget that the reason such consequences didn't happen for the US was that there were no protocols, no modern international law or any such things in place as we have them today. The world changed for the better after world war II to prevent such acts to happen again with the US very much at the helm of such preventative acts. The reason they still have nukes is for the same reason anyone has them, as a deterrent.

Russia on the other hand doesn't talk about nukes in the same way, they have them as actual military options. So it's an ocean between how Russia handles nukes and how the US handles nukes, regardless of the US being the only nation who previously used them before. The argument that "because they used them before, everyone else is innocent and the US is always the guilty one", in this context, is a ridiculous logic that has nothing to do with Russia's actions right now.

The use of nukes post the use in Hiroshima/Nagasaki is an extremely different matter than in a world that had never seen those consequences. The disregard of such historical context makes it impossible to discuss these things in a modern context and it becomes a ridiculous circle jerk of changing perspectives based on a "pick and choose" historical reference rhetoric. The fact is that no one in their right mind would use nukes today, the US would never use nukes as an offensive measure because the consequences would be so extreme that even if it doesn't lead to nuclear war, the political fallout would be suicide for the US if they did and they absolutely know it. Russia however, does not have the same mindset as they have nuclear arms as actual military options, not just as a deterrent, its part of their war machine in another way.

Russia's reasoning doesn't matter, only their actions do. And if they use nukes, they can sit there and think that they're on top of the world, but their nation will become an isolated cesspool of decades-old technology in a nation just living through survival of national food supply and rusting cars with no actual progress.

The Russian people will care when their nation is in the gutter, at least the people will care when they realize what they could have had if not for the fat and rich elite in the Kremlin fucking their nation up so hard. This is how revolutions happen and if things go down this route, there will be civil war in Russia.

Quoting boethius

Unclear. As has been discussed at length, only the West is angry with Russia and no one else seems to care about it. If anything the large majority of the world feels satisfactory schadenfreude that the reckless and cynical warring ways of the West is coming home to roost (regardless of "who started it").

But this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes.

141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained and five voted against

The way you describe what "the rest of the world" feels are your own feelings not reflected in the real world. And the risks to Europe is there because we live next door to Russia so it's fully reasonable that a nation on the other side of the world won't care, but so far the global condemning of Russia's actions are very consistent anyway.

And if they use nukes they're done. There will be harsh diplomatic consequences for nations who support Russia if they nuked a major city. Even if they just use tactical nukes on military objectives, it would be a diplomatic nightmare for nations turning to Russia.

And who would want to? They have nothing but oil really, look at their export variety. When the world moves on from oil dependency, what would Russia really have? I mean, we're talking about decades of economical progress, it took this long for Russia to get on their feet after the soviet union fell and the sanctions and economic collapse they see now has thrown them back 30 years. If the sanctions keep in place and no one wants to work there as a career choice, and people in Russia rather move out of the country if they want to work in anything other than farming, then the coming 30 years won't see an economic heal that we've seen previously since the early 90s. That will also happen during 30 years of progress in the west.

Russia will be a shithole if things stay in place and any nuke from them would be the nail in the coffin. If they aren't aware of this, that's their stupid hubris talking, the same hubris that put them in the embarrassing position they're in right now.

Quoting Olivier5

and he is not the suicidal type.

That's up for debate though... never doubt a lunatic.

Quoting Olivier5

In other news:

Ukrainian Astronomers Discover ‘Exocomets’ around Another Star
By Briley Lewis on April 14, 2022

Astronomers from the Main Astronomical Observatory (MAO) of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv recently published a discovery of five new exocomets—comets orbiting a star other than the sun—in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, using data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). They also independently confirmed a handful of exocomets that were previously detected by other researchers.

I thought Ukraine "was being destroyed"? How on earth can they do this while being destroyed? :sweat:

Quoting Christoffer

this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes.

141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained and five voted against

By population that amounts to just over half the world abstaining. Funny how readily you forget the grossly disproportionate power Western countries have in the UN.

Evidence some Ukrainian women raped before being killed, say doctors
Forensic specialists carrying out autopsies north of Kyiv say they ‘still have hundreds of bodies to examine’

Lorenzo Tondo and Isobel Koshiw in Kyiv
Mon 25 Apr 2022 07.13 EDT

Forensic doctors carrying out postmortem examinations on bodies in mass graves north of Kyiv say they have found evidence some women were raped before being killed by Russian forces.

“We already have a few cases which suggest that these women had been raped before being shot to death,” said Vladyslav Perovskyi, a Ukrainian forensic doctor who with a team of coroners has carried out dozens of autopsies on residents from Bucha, Irpin and Borodianka who died during Russia’s month-long occupation of the area.

“We can’t give more details as my colleagues are still collecting the data and we still have hundreds of bodies to examine,” he said.

Perovskyi’s team has been examining about 15 bodies a day, many of them mutilated. “There are many burnt bodies, and heavily disfigured bodies that are just impossible to identify,” he said. “The face could be smashed into pieces, you can’t put it back together, sometimes there’s no head at all.”

Quoting Isaac

By population that amounts to just over half the world abstaining. Funny how readily you forget the grossly disproportionate power Western countries have in the UN.

But population means nothing as a pure number without any context and 141 nations voted for the resolution, 35 abstained, and 5 against. Only the five nations that voted against can really be positioned to be fully against. The abstainers could have voted because they weren't fully on board with the consequences and fallout of this war or the actions against Russia.

But I guess you would stretch things to fit your narrative of things, that's what you keep mr doing professor expert. Just because you don't believe in democracy or education and such things doesn't mean the world shapes around your opinions.

Quoting Christoffer

and he is not the suicidal type.
— Olivier5

That's up for debate though... never doubt a lunatic.

We shall see... IMO, all these talks about nukes are just more blah blah, designed to scare opponents and placate supporters. The latter are growing nervous with the string of humiliations suffered by their heros on the battlefield.

Quoting Olivier5

We shall see... IMO, this talk about nukes is just blah, designed to scare opponents and placate supporters.

Obviously, they want to scare off any further help for Ukraine because they are losing. All military-strategic experts pointed out that they needed to create a corridor as soon as possible between Russia and Crimea and push out Ukrainian soldiers from cutting off that line and that Russia could easily do that with regular mechanical warfare... but they still haven't so either they don't have the means to do it or they just demonstrate the same level of incompetence and stupidity that they've shown so far in their strategic efforts.

Reply to Christoffer I agree. The Russians are looking for an escape from the mess they created, and this talk of WW3 is a form of 'nuclear escapism'.

Reply to Olivier5

It's gonna be interesting to see what the post-war status of Russia would be. Let's say they make some bullshit up, withdraw their troops and present a "victory" on May 9th. Even if some sanctions are lifted, Russia has created a bad taste in the mouth of everyone who previously did business with Russia. Even if sanctions are lifted, many will not want to do business with them. And what about Facebook and websites deemed "extremist" in Russia, that will probably stick.

I see little opening for Russia to be anything other than a new North Korea, even if the war ends. I wonder how long it will take before the population has had enough. Even the pro-Putin soviet-hags and old farts who see their boys come home in coffins seem to be on the critical side against Kremlin. While the young in the major cities seem to hope that the end of the war will make things return to normal, only to realize that nope, there's no such thing as normal anymore, which might lead them to leave as the last highly educated people to do so since there's no real academic or engineering future in a nation like Russia, as long as it's not about making future war crime weapons, which they might not be able to do as there's little import of tech that can support it compared to tech that could counter it being developed outside of Russia.

Russia will be a mess, all thanks to Putin and his minion's bullshit. Hopefully, the Russian people will wake up to that reality soon and do something about it.

Reply to Christoffer :up:

Quoting Christoffer

I see little opening for Russia to be anything other than a new North Korea, even if the war ends.

A North Korea with vast oil reserves, though. It makes an important difference. It's also a much larger country than NK, and can't be isolated the same way as small NK. My take is that Russia will remain an important country in this world no matter what happens.

Quoting Olivier5

A North Korea with vast oil reserves, though. It makes an important difference. It's also a much larger country than NK, and can't be isolated the same way as small NK. My take is that Russia will remain an important country in this world no matter what happens.

At the same time, the reports of climate change show a much worse outlook than previously thought, so the need to move away from oil needs to happen sooner. This war might even be good for the work against rapid climate change since it rips the band-aid off politicians with too much crap for brains. Now there's an incentive to actually move away from oil that's not about that climate change that's too complicated for their tiny capitalist brains, and instead, they will see it as a prosperous economic change for the better when cutting oil ties with Russia.

This extreme cut from oil supplies and increase in oil prices is exactly what is needed to push the climate solutions, that needed a push, into fruition.

Regardless, Russia will not be able to survive on oil alone and they have little else of value except for some minerals that could be found elsewhere if needed. At least, that would be a diplomatic card to pull in the future, if Russia goes down into the cutter economically, the world can demand them to remove their stupid leaders, dismantle nukes, and only then they will give them transactions for their minerals. This would, however, demand that Russia really tanks its economy, far beyond what we've seen recently.

Quoting Christoffer

the world can demand them to remove their stupid leaders, dismantle nukes, and only then they will give them transactions for their minerals

I don't know, seems to me it's not the way the world works. For one, 'the world' doesn't act as one, in a coordinated manner. For two, the world is addicted to oil and there will always be buyers for it. E g. the Chinese will buy Russian oil, at a discount. Other folks too, including in the West, if the price is right.

What my crystal ball tells me is that nobody is immortal, and thus there will be a time after Mr Putin. This would IMO be a good time to reassess the relationship between NATO/EU and Russia.

Quoting boethius

If Russia is "being the bully" and has no legitimate grievances in Ukraine that justify, at least from some arguably Western (aka. the truth) normative perspective, then the reason for using nuclear weapons to intimidate other neighbour's to maintain bully credibility is so high that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is essentially inevitable at this point if the premises of the rhetoric are true.

Russian nuclear weapons will basically halt any incursions into Russia proper by Ukraine. Putin doesn't have to keep large formations on his side of the border. What he does have to do is to keep his Air Defence on alert and security at a heightened level to prevent sabotage. Ukraine can and has used already tactical artillery missiles to attack targets inside Russia.

And Russian nuclear weapons have already done what they were supposed to do: have Joe Biden declare that under no circumstances US troops won't be deployed to Ukraine and NATO aircraft won't create a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

That's the power of nuclear weapons.

Quoting Christoffer

A tactical nuke would however put them in a position where they have nothing left in terms of diplomacy with the west.

You assume Russia needs diplomacy with the West.

... and that the current situation is the West handing out fig leaves or something?

Quoting Christoffer

Russia would solidify its existence as a criminal nation and they would probably not be able to heal any diplomatic ties for a very very long time.

According to "us", the West ... which, see point above, they may not care about nor their strategic partners such as China, India and co.

Quoting Christoffer

It's basically the nail in the coffin for Russia as a nation, slowly disintegrating down into a nation that's falling behind on any front. In 20 years, the world will have moved past them in every way, probably putting up defensive systems around the nation to block any attempts of nukes going out of it while the technological advancements outside of Russia will make them look like the stone age.

We're already discussed at length that affect of sanctions largely depends on the sentiment of the ordinary Russian, which as far as we know has consolidated around support for the war, as well as substitutes of all critical equipment and services from China, which as far as we know covers everything.

Quoting Christoffer

Many here argue for each nation to be responsible for their own development, that it's each and every independent nation's right to develop however they want. That also means that actions stretching outside of a nation can have consequences; that becoming an isolated nation is part of the internal development each independent nation is responsible for. No one is to blame for Russia's failures and how they're now treated. The rest of the world can choose however they want to interact with Russia and if they don't want to interact with them, then Russia has no right to demand anything.

I don't disagree with this.

Quoting Christoffer

Ukraine might continue to fight as long as there's material support from the west. They had massive morale going into defending their country and being able to push back the big bear Russia this much would seriously have boosted their morale even further, combined with the anger of the war crimes.

I don't think Ukraine will settle easily, they want justice for Russia's crimes and they might fight until every single Russian in Ukraine is killed, captured, or sent home.

"Morale" does not in itself win battles or wars.

... If you're suggesting settlement (peace terms) is the only possible resolution of the war (as nearly all wars end), then the optimum time to settle was in the early days, leveraging exactly that morale you mention to fanatically engage in chaotic total war.

Quoting Christoffer

Russia's reasoning doesn't matter, only their actions do. And if they use nukes, they can sit there and think that they're on top of the world, but their nation will become an isolated cesspool of decades-old technology in a nation just living through survival of national food supply and rusting cars with no actual progress.

Sure, maybe.

Quoting Christoffer

Tactical nukes won't be the same as regular nuclear weapons.

A tactical nuclear weapon is a regular nuclear weapon, only of smaller yield and delivery vehicle for use in battle, such as a cruise missile or even artillery shell. The word tactical simply connotes the design purpose to be aid in the winning of battles.

A strategic nuclear weapon, is an extension of as strategic bombing ... with simply a lot bigger bomb, and is not designed to win battles--delivery vehicles, such as ICBM's, may have minimum ranges of thousands of kilometres and minimum yields so large that there is no plausible battle situation where it would make sense to use--and are designed to change strategic economic factors like "cities existing".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but this is just a quick note for people who wonder what the difference between tactical and strategic comes from. The criticism of bombing cities to rubble far from the front lines was met with the rebuttal "it's strategic", and that nomenclature has stuck.

Quoting Christoffer

They continue to fail because they're stupid. Only stupid armies dig trenches in the Red forest.

If you put soldiers nearly anywhere they will start building trenches. It's unlikely this was some "battle plan" coming down from the top.

I honestly fail to see the Russian actions as "stupid". They may fail, now or then later as you say, but the decisions are clearly well thought out and not stupid. Ukraine has embarrassing failures as well, such as letting Russia capture "bio labs".

Quoting Christoffer

The consequences of the nukes in Japan should not be understated. It wasn't trivial, it was world-defining and there weren't any political or existential consequences imagined before the bombings as there were after the bombings. Historical context is very important here.

I did not say the use of nuclear weapons in Japan was trivial. It was, more than anything, the events that started the cold war that defined nearly the rest of the century.

However, the point of this example is that there can be a context in which ordinary people support the use of nuclear weapons. The justification of the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was to save American lives, and, faced with a equally fanatical enemy willing to fight to the death (for good reasons or bad) it may at some point make as much sense to Russians to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine for the same reasoning.

I am not saying that context currently exists, only it could be far closer than it seems.

Quoting Christoffer

But this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes.

@Isaac already pointed out the face-value flaw in that metric.

However, more relevant metrics would be trade relations and sanctions and diplomatic pressure and sending arms to Ukraine all of which is a "West" thing. I.e. metrics of caring that actually matter and are not essentially symbolic due to Russia's security council veto in the UN.

Quoting ssu

Russian nuclear weapons will basically halt any incursions into Russia proper by Ukraine. Putin doesn't have to keep large formations on his side of the border.

Exactly, in terms of military logic, it makes enormous amounts of sense, not only vis-a-vis Ukraine if they ever did successfully counter attack, but of any other bordering country to Russia ... would obviously think twice.

The Kremlin may also be start to be feeling there's a target on their back as we enter into ecological collapse, that they have what countries will be craving: arable land, water and energy ... and more than they had before.

There is now only political factors, in my opinion, preventing the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Political factors which seems less and less relevant as time goes by as far as I can see.

Quoting ssu

And Russian nuclear weapons have already done what they were supposed to do: have Joe Biden declare that under no circumstances US troops won't be deployed to Ukraine and NATO aircraft won't create a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Agreed, standing up to a bully is only "heroic" if the bully can be beaten in a Hollywood style coming of age movie.

The truly powerful take what they want and are idolised for it.

... Take our friends the Americans ...

Quoting ssu

Greece is different. But one should note that it was the Greek leaders that opted eagerly to follow the advice of Wall Street bankers to create the problems at the first place. And this just underlines that every country actually has it's set of problems and possibilities. There's of course similarities, but you cannot bunch the states together.

Yes, those very same bankers that then threatened the EU that a default would have a cascading effect, basically blackmailing the EU into bailing out Greece instead of letting it default. In the long run, Greece pays more. It was just a temporary relief in interest.

The combination of debt and corruption is one that will leave a country floundering in debt for decades. Which is my prediction for Ukraine irrespective of the outcome of this war.

Reply to boethius

Here's a picture what the world thinks about this war. In green countries with sanctions against Russia. In blue, Russia. In grey the rest.

Quoting Christoffer

It's gonna be interesting to see what the post-war status of Russia would be. Let's say they make some bullshit up, withdraw their troops and present a "victory" on May 9th.

I'm not so sure this conflict will end in a few days. Too much is put on some date.

I think this will be something like the Russo-Japanese war for Russia. A fiasco that will result in political turmoil in Russia.

It's going to be interesting to see if Putin actually visits his troops. Yeltsin visited Russian troops during the Chechen War ...once, very briefly and looked extremely uncomfortable doing it. If he is fit enough to do it.

Quoting boethius

Exactly, in terms of military logic, it makes enormous amounts of sense, not only vis-a-vis Ukraine if they ever did successfully counter attack, but of any other bordering country to Russia ... would obviously think twice.

Which just tells the obvious to any sane person: nobody will attack Russia. NATO won't attack Russia, the US won't attack Russia. It's just all a lie Putin has invented to give a reason for his totalitarian dictatorship and why any political opposition is violently opposed.

You could argue that Western Russophobes and anti-Russian hawks have Russia just where they want it to be bleeding off it's military capabilities. In fact, even John Mersheimer has said this. But this didn't happen because of some hawks (which at least you don't find many in the Republican party anymore). Putin chose to escalate a war, make the full invasion of Ukraine.

Quoting Benkei

The combination of debt and corruption is one that will leave a country floundering in debt for decades. Which is my prediction for Ukraine irrespective of the outcome of this war.

It's a possibility. Of course the whole argument for Zelensky's victory was to oppose that. At least it was a better option than Americans voting for... Trump. And if Ukraine wants to join the EU, it has to change.

Yet we don't know how long this war will last and what the outcome of it will be. Wars can have unexpected turns. I remember few years ago many were writing of the Assad regime. Didn't go that way. In fact, this war can be far longer and far bloodier than anybody estimated. We can soon be in similar death toll as we saw in Yugoslavia.

Reply to boethius

Sorry for my very brief reply earlier, it was too early and I only skimmed it. I read it better now. No, I mean, what you say is undoubtedly true. And nations will use any excuse they can find to justify the craziest of all acts, as history has shown us many times.

The one hope we have left, in terms of having some sense of security and calm, is the belief that they must know better than others, what the consequences of such an act would entail.

Right now, this could be mere barking. But there's no way to see this conflict without putting nuclear weapons very high in the list of concerns. If this was a war between two non-nuclear countries, it would be hard to imagine it would get nearly a 5th of the coverage it currently gets.

Good analysis.

Quoting Manuel

Right now, this could be mere barking. But there's no way to see this conflict without putting nuclear weapons very high in the list of concerns. If this was a war between two non-nuclear countries, it would be hard to imagine it would get nearly a 5th of the coverage it currently gets.

And yet, nuclear powers have lost wars against seemingly weaker enemies before -- e.g. the US in Korea and Vietnam, the USSR in Afghanistan -- without ever resorting to nuclear weapons.

Reply to Olivier5
Yes, the thing about how MAD works is that a preemptive strike would require a massive saturation of fire to avoid having launch sources taken out by the other side. But having the chance to launch all one's missiles does not stop other people firing before they are hit.

Lavrov is not referring to the possible use of tactical nukes because that would signal a loss of confidence in the methods already being employed to defeat Ukraine which are going swimmingly by his account.

Russian casualties in Ukraine. Mediazona investigation
https://zona.media/translate/2022/04/25/bodycount_eng

Quoting Paine

Lavrov is not referring to the possible use of tactical nukes because that would signal a loss of confidence in the methods already being employed to defeat Ukraine which are going swimmingly by his account.

Good point.

Recently news media and analysts have been discussing a reported comment made by some Russian general about Russia's goals in the next phase of the war, which, according to him, consist of taking Donbas and southern Ukraine all the way to Transnistria (a Russian-controlled breakaway border region of Moldova). While many took this to be the new official direction, it's not at all clear whose position this general was expressing and why. Gen. Minnekaev serves in a large military district, but he does not participate in the "special operation," his position has nothing to do with military planning, and he does not commonly give public statements. He made his apparently unsolicited comment at a meeting with local business representatives. Was he just sharing his personal opinion of what Russia should be doing?

These veteran investigators of Russian security services think so. In a recent article on a Russian-language site Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan report on the prevailing attitudes among their contacts in the FSB (the successor of the KGB) and the army. It seems that officers are not happy with the direction the war has taken, and they even criticize Putin himself (in private, mostly). But they don't oppose the war - on the contrary, they want more of it. They are disappointed that the initial push to take Kiev was abandoned. One widely shared video recorded by a veteran special forces officer with a popular Youtube channel urges Putin to wage a total war with airstrikes targeting all of Ukraine's infrastructure. "Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, please make up your mind: are we fighting a war or jerking off?"

Reply to SophistiCat
This response from the Russian military reminds me of how the U.S. decided not to wipe out populations in Vietnam they were capable of doing at the time. And there are those who insisted that reluctance, in that regard, was the cause of defeat.

The Westmoreland cost / benefit analysis was given a shot in blood and dollars. Is there a parallel in the present situation?

Reply to Olivier5

Sure, though nukes were very much considered in Vietnam.

The situation is a bit different. It's the unconscious comfort of thinking that it couldn't possibility happen.

In a sane world, one would be assured.

So when do we think Biden will award Putin the presidential medal of freedom for allowing the US empire to keep its head above water for a few more years? Two months? Three?

Reply to Apollodorus

Can imperialists be Pariahs? I vote for this one.

Quoting Manuel

It's the unconscious comfort of thinking that it couldn't possibility happen.

Fear doesn't reduce danger. Whether we worry about it or not will not change anything, and certainly not the odds of it happening. Which are very low, I think.

It's just a form of escapism from the resident FSB influencer here, i.e. @boethius. Nothing more.

Quoting StreetlightX

So when do we think Biden will award Putin the presidential medal of freedom for allowing the US empire to keep its head above water for a few more years? Two months? Three?

NATO awarded him already.

Reply to ssu They really should.

Time for a break from all this lay speculation... Let's hear from some independent experts.

Reply to Isaac Comes to mind that Germany is now sending 50 Gepard Self propelled anti-aircraft guns to Ukraine. Now that is a big number and so in all is the amount of weapons going into Ukraine. The vast amount of these are "legacy" weapon systems, meaning old Cold War era weapons that Ukraine can easily use as they already have them and they can be fielded immediately. The real issue is the rearmament that Germany itself will do after promising to raise defense expenditure from 1,4% last year (and 1,1% in 2018) to 2%. That basically means DOUBLING the defense budget of a very large country. That's where the defense contractors will make their money.



All thanks to the genius of Vladimir Putin.

Reply to ssu As I was saying the biggest story emerging out of this crisis is Germany and therefore the EU waking up to the necessity to provide their own security.

Thanks to Putin, Trump and Johnson.

Quoting ssu

All thanks to the genius of Vladimir Putin.

Tsk tsk, look at you taking away the agency of the poor poor Germans, who clearly had no choice but to send machines of death to Ukraine to mete out additional blood.

Bulgaria and Poland ‘refused’ to meet Russia’s roubles demand https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/26/russia-warns-poland-bulgaria-it-will-cut-off-gas-supplies-liveblog

Quoting Punshhh

As I was saying the biggest story emerging out of this crisis is Germany and therefore the EU waking up to the necessity to provide their own security.

What do you mean?

Quoting ssu

All thanks to the genius of Vladimir Putin.

He is not a genius if he cannot find and destroy these things (or capture and sell for Rubles -there is an idea) - Russia does not even have spy satellites to track movements. Superpower and all that.

Quoting Olivier5

It's just a form of escapism from the resident FSB influencer here, i.e. boethius. Nothing more.

You state NATO passing nukes to Ukraine to nuke Moscow and Saint Petersburg is not only plausible in some version of reality, but also that Russia would be just like "so clever" and that technically Ukraine launching NATO's nukes would matter in the slightest.

You state I'm a "FSB influencer" for saying things you don't like and have no rational response to.

Yet somehow I'm living a fantasy.

And escapism from what? Obviously Russia could use tactical nuclear weapons, and obviously from a military perspective it is completely rational to use a bigger bomb if you have a bigger bomb, and obviously the long list of political reasons that no one would be using Nukes anywhere that we could list only 3 months ago is getting thinner by the day.

How close are we to literally no political reasons left to dissuade from the use of nuclear weapons? I have not said, only that the required context maybe far closer than it seems.

Ignoring the obvious by simultaneously dismissing the risk, while also believing NATO would give Ukraine nuclear weapons in such a scenario is the escapism.

Reply to frank Trump spoke of leaving NATO, Johnson has become disingenuous about the EU and Putin sees the EU as a threat. The EU can’t rely on the US/U.K. axis any more, for their security.

Quoting boethius

escapism from what?

From the current situation, where Russians forces have no easy way out, and are set to get pummeled for weeks on end. You are dreaming of a possible way out of this mess, and towards victory for Moscow. It will not happen, it's only a wet dream of yours.

Quoting Olivier5

From the current situation, where Russians forces have no easy way out, and are set to get pummeled for weeks on end. You are dreaming of a possible way out of this mess, and towards victory for Moscow. It will not happen, it's only a wet dream of yours.

Russia has nuclear weapons. Russia can use nuclear weapons to easily win battles. That is not a dream.

Claiming Ukraine will be given nuclear weapons by NATO or then could make their own nuclear weapons in a few months ... sounds familiar ... sounds really familiar.

Sounds exactly like:

From the current situation, where Ukrainian forces have no easy way out, and are currently getting pummeled for weeks on end. You are dreaming of a possible way out of this mess, and towards victory for Kyev. It will not happen, it's only a wet dream of yours.

Quoting Punshhh

Trump spoke of leaving NATO, Johnson has become disingenuous about the EU and Putin sees the EU as a threat. The EU can’t rely on the US/U.K. axis any more, for their security.

That's been true for a while, though.

Quoting boethius

Russia can use nuclear weapons to easily win battles. That is not a dream.

It is a dream because so far it has never ever happened. The USSR had nukes, and could have nuked Afghanistan to dust (or to more dust than habitual). Yet they didn't. They chose to withdraw instead, when they realized that they couldn't win. And the Russians will most probably do the same in Ukraine: lose a lot of blood and money, and then go home.

The sooner the better.

In the meantime, do get all excited about your nuclear fancies, by all means, if that brings you solace. The rest of us don't need to worry about it.

[I]Ukrainian farmers are regularly filmed using their tractors to capture Russian military equipment all over the country. In the new game Ukrainian fArmy, you can play one of the scariest players on the Ukrainian battlefield: the tractor driver. Fight against the weather and "high precision" artillery strikes and capture as many Russian tanks, trucks and artillery as you can.[/i]

Reply to frank It needed a jolt to wake them up. Re’ Germany’s dependency on Russian gas.

I find it increasingly incomprehensible how Russia boosters can claim continuing this war is a good strategic choice for Russia. Even if you take a totally amoral, power politics look at it, all they are doing now is grinding down their military, losing irreplaceable hardware in large numbers, and absolutely tanking their economy as Europe looks to cut Russian energy imports by 2/3rds now and totally by 2027. The EU sucks at follow through, sure, but even half this plan would be a disaster. 42% of Russian state revenues come from energy exports. Europe buys 90% of those. Even partial implementation would tank government revenues, making rebuilding the military impossible even if they hadn't also lost themselves access to a ton of the imports they need for that.

Strategically, it showed they had absolutely no back up plan for Ukrainian resistance. They used all of 195,000 troops for this campaign. By contrast the US had 500,000 for the invasion of Iraq, a smaller country with more favorable geography, after they had decimated its military already and defacto partitioned the Kurdish third of it. They had almost a million troops for the Gulf War. Troops levels for controlling half of Vietnam, with a significantly smaller population than Ukraine, peaked at 1.4 million total.

Reply to Olivier5
:lol:

One of the videos of the guy who stole a $13 million AA system appeared to have had a BAC of at least 1.6 while doing it. Not good when the town drunk is stealing your elite hardware.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus But what is Putin's choice? End the war with no concessions from Ukraine? I don't think he would remain in power if he did that. I don't think Ukraine wants to make any territorial concessions at this point.

Quoting RogueAI

But what is Putin's choice?

Putin is counting war of attrition, economic collapse of Ukraine because Ukraine won't be able to finance it's war indefinitely.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

a BAC of at least 1.6 while doing it

That's about average in this part of the world I reckon... :-)

In an ex-USSR country, I once shared a frugal meal with a team of wheat harvesters, in the shadow of their combine harvester. And they were all washing it down with decent amounts of vodka of course, but the driver of the combine was drinking medical grade alcohol. He was taking very small sips in series of three, like once a minute, making a grimace each time... The bottle said 90%. They showed to me, laughing; me dutifully opening my widest occidental eyes. Then he climbed back on his exotic-looking* monster of a machine.


* Unlike, say, Japanese cars, Soviet designs for cars, planes and tractors etc. look very much like they come from another civilisation.

Quoting Punshhh

It needed a jolt to wake them up. Re’ Germany’s dependency on Russian gas.

Supposedly every country is going to be moving more towards self sufficiency, but not so much because of Russia, but because of the way the US went after Russia.

Remember, Russia attacked Ukraine once and nobody thought much about it.

Why is this time so different?

Quoting Punshhh

As I was saying the biggest story emerging out of this crisis is Germany and therefore the EU waking up to the necessity to provide their own security.

Thanks to Putin, Trump and Johnson.

It's good that you mention Trump, because that hasn't gone unnoticed. And even if Johnson's UK wants to be part of the defense of Europe (through NATO), being out of the EU does mean a lot. (Just like, well, Canada)

Quoting StreetlightX

Tsk tsk, look at you taking away the agency of the poor poor Germans, who clearly had no choice but to send machines of death to Ukraine to mete out additional blood.

Well, at first they did try to refer to their policy of not assisting countries at war (and their hypocrisy was immediately shot down by referring to the arms deals to the Gulf States, which fight the war in Yemen). Perhaps when they were sending helmets ot Ukraine, some smart ass Ukrainian proposed that they could also send coffins too. Were Merkel could have moved slower, the new Chancellor had to make a dramatic change and so did Scholz do: rarely has Germany or any country made such a dramatic 180 degree turn as this administration.

I think it has itself been startled how much it changed course.

Yet if Putin wouldn't have enlarged this war (that started eight years ago), this change wouldn't have happened. And my country wouldn't be applying to NATO.

Quoting SpaceDweller

Putin is counting war of attrition, economic collapse of Ukraine because Ukraine won't be able to finance it's war indefinitely.

I think Ukraine can outlast Russia in a war of attrition. They have high morale, the moral high ground, and Europe and America in their corner.

Reply to boethius

If this is true, then nuclear weapons are the next step. Why would Russia just call it quits?

I’m not getting into the likelihood, or not of such scenarios, there is so much we don’t know and so much unpredictability. My point was that if Putin is legacy building, that legacy won’t include instigating nuclear proliferation, or annihilation. A climb down would be preferable, with a renewed conviction that Russia was the victim in all this. So not so bad for his regime.

So this rubles-for-gas confrontation that Russia got itself into is pretty bizarre. To be clear, there is zero economic sense in it for Russia - it's pure political posturing. Although Europe says that agreeing to pay for Russian gas in rubles would violate European sanctions against Russia's Central Bank (not to mention that it would violate existing energy contracts), it's not like getting their payment in rubles would somehow cushion the blow from financial sanctions for Russia.

Lately, Russian Central Bank requires all Russian companies to convert 80% of their foreign currency revenue into rubles, whether they need them or not. Gazprom is no exception. And if the government wanted Gazprom to convert all of its European revenue into rubles, it could just order it to do that. The end result would be the same as if its customers were paying it in rubles, except that there wouldn't be all this brouhaha.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/ukraines-military-advantage-and-russias-stark-choices/

Quoting RogueAI

I think Ukraine can outlast Russia in a war of attrition. They have high morale, the moral high ground, and Europe and America in their corner.

War of attrition means running out of resources required to continue war.
I don't believe EU and US will supply Ukraine for ever, Ukrainians are constantly barking how they need more weapons and more financial aid, while they do so Russia is advancing little by little.

If Russia captures maritime part of Ukraine, Ukraine is free to capitulate because what will be left is not worth fighting for.
Luhansks and Donetsk are the most industrious regions, and maritime part of the country is required for export, therefore Since Ukraine is loosing these regions, there is little left that is worth financing from EU or US, instead EU\US is likely to force Ukraine into peace if Russians capture southern part of country.

Quoting Benkei

In my view, the US/NATO are as much to blame for this war as Russia.

The Ukrainian NATO membership threat again...? It's already been conceded both by NATO and Ukraine.

Zelenskyy calls again for meeting with Putin ‘to end the war’ (Al Jazeera; Apr 23, 2022)



That story at least came and went. The invasion is a snaffle, a grab (or attempted anyway), orchestrated by Putin, perhaps planned well ahead or otherwise simmering for a year prior.

Quoting Microsoft discloses onslaught of Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine (Reuters · Apr 27, 2022)

The digital onslaught, which Microsoft said began one year prior to Russia's Feb. 24 invasion, may have laid the groundwork for different military missions in the war-torn territory, researchers found.

Except, this time around (unlike the Crimean "military operation"), Putin got a bloody nose (and perhaps lost a bit of pride, who knows).

Quoting SpaceDweller

War of attrition means running out of resources required to continue war.
I don't believe EU and US will supply Ukraine for ever, Ukrainians are constantly barking how they need more weapons and more financial aid, while they do so Russia is advancing little by little.

On the other hand, Russia simply cannot sustain similar losses it has experienced in this short time. The army is basically being ruined and they likely after one month, they simply have to take a breather and go to the defensive.

It's not the Soviet Army anymore. Furthermore, Putin has in the classic dictator style divided the armed forces into the Army and the National Guard, which the latter is commanded by Putin's friend and Yeltsin's former bodyguard Viktor Zolotov, a welder, who hasn't officer training. (Just shows that personal ties are far more important than ability.)

It's telling that the National Guard, which is tasked to quell demonstrators etc. is equal if not bigger in size of the Russian Ground Forces. Then the FSB has it's own troops. And then you have all kinds of power centers with various armed forces, even the railway troops (crucial for Russian logistics).

Then there's naturally the Navy (which has experienced it's flagship of the Black Sea fleet being sunk) and the Air Force (which hasn't shown a spectacular effort) and the Strategic Rocket Forces (which by their existence have made that Biden or NATO won't send troops to Ukraine or deploy no-fly zones).

The combined effort and resources of NATO outmatch the resources of Russia, so if the Ukrainians keep on fighting, things look good to them.

Just like in the interview @RogueAI gave above, Russian Ground Forces will be spent after this offensive and they simply have to build their forces up, which will take far more than just weeks to do.

Reply to Olivier5
Yeah, unfortunately it's about average for some work sites I've been to as well, including a US National Guard company I worked with. On the upside, someone who didn't want to deploy with someone who might be drunk when called for support turned them in and they were pretty severely punished, which does not seem to be the case for all militaries (Russia seemingly, certainly not the ANA, where you could muster in the middle of a heroin nod and not be exceptional).

I also picked up a hitch hiker in a blizzard once who was actually the operator of a plow truck that had run out gas. He offered to hold the wheel for me while we "blasted some nips" from his shopping bag of little whiskey bottles. I was pretty young then so I didn't think to ask him to consider if there might be some connection between the whiskey and joints, and his managing to run out of gas in the middle of his shift...

Reply to ssu

It's good that you mention Trump, because that hasn't gone unnoticed. And even if Johnson's UK wants to be part of the defense of Europe (through NATO), being out of the EU does mean a lot. (Just like, well, Canada)

I wouldn’t trust a populist like Johnson as far as I can throw him. Also he has been actively hostile to the EU and many of his backers including in his own political party and government would like the EU to collapse.

I know that at this point, the stability of NATO isn’t threatened, but if a few bad political steps occur, it could be. I don’t think the EU will take that risk.

Here in the U.K. there are concerns about the Orbanisation of U.K. politics. Which is moving at a scary pace at the moment. Just yesterday a bill was passed removing the independence of the electoral commission, which is now answerable to the government.

Reply to frank

Remember, Russia attacked Ukraine once and nobody thought much about it.

Why is this time so different?

I would think it is the explicit attack on the Kiev, with the rhetoric that Ukraine should not exist, which is different. Following the annexation of Crimea, I realised how nasty Putin was and was surprised how little Western leaders seemed to care.

Reply to ssu :100:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/28/donetsk-separatists-desperate-draft-campaign-empties-streets-of-men-ukraine

Quoting frank

Why is this time so different?

"fool me once fool me twice ..."?

Reply to jorndoe
I don't think nations are usually that wise. They usually act on the basis of the most immediate concerns.

Lol US$33B to Ukraine.

Because keeping American Empire alive is far more important than helping shitty squalor-living, terrorized-by-cops, drowning-in-debt, unable-to-rent, American citizens.

It makes sense tho the American state exists to enrich its plutocrat masters so who cares about its citizens lol.

At this point Ukraine is literally an American vassal state.

I wonder when the last Ukrainian will drop dead so the US can achieve its geo-strategic aims. Seems like a fair trade. Anyone not horrified by American escalation does not give a single shit about Ukraine or Ukrainians and should probably stop pretending.

Collectively, every single war-mongerer and revanchist deserves to drop dead before a single Ukrainian does. Equally, American war dollars ought to fuck off home forever.

Reply to StreetlightX
What's bizarre is that you think 33 billion is a lot. They spent more than a trillion on covid19.

Reply to frank It would cost about US$20b to end homelessness in the US.

And yes, the biggest transfer of wealth into the hands of billionaires by means of legislation took place thanks to Covid, there's nothing surprising about that.

And you are right. $33b isn't alot. Which is why the US will undoubtedly send more, as it keeps doing. This is what, the fourth tranche of money and weapons so far? I mean you can't even buy a single Twitter with that pocket-change.

Quoting frank

What's bizarre is that you think 33 billion is a lot.

It's a lot in Ukraine. About the same as their total annual government expenditure.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Ukraine/government_spending_dollars/

Reply to Baden I was looking for this stat! But I was getting weird sites so I gave up. But yes. That was what I wanted to post when I said that Ukraine is effectively a US state without representation. They get to die to fight in an American war. How fun for them.

Reply to StreetlightX

20 billion of that is for weapons and only 3 for humanitarian aid, apparently. :sad:

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-looks-congress-oligarchs-more-cash-help-ukraine-2022-04-28/

Reply to Baden Someone(s) at Lockheed and Raytheon is throwing a grand party right now.

Which is great because these guys are keeping the American economy going. Or at least the dead foreigners which they help produce.

Reply to frank

Regardless of everything else, you've got to question the sanity of throwing 20 billion more in weapons into this tinderbox.

Reply to Baden Is it 20 billion? I think it's a tinder box if they give too much, and another box if they give too little and Putin decides he can do more of this.

But I get your point.

Quoting StreetlightX

It would cost about US$20b to end homelessness in the US.

Really? You mean if we invested it in crypto and made trillions out of it? We'd need to invest in mental health facilities to end homelessness in the US.

Quoting frank

You mean if we invested it in crypto and made trillions out of it?

Ahahahahahahahaaaha

Budget to stop the impending irreversible death of the planet thanks to climate change: $44b

Budget to help accelerate the death of the planet: $33b

Securing US hegemony: Priceless.

No# of dead Ukranians: who cares?

Quoting StreetlightX

No# of dead Ukranians: who cares?

But you care very much for them, don't you?

Quoting StreetlightX

It would cost about US$20b to end homelessness in the US.

Uh, how???

Basically this isn't just a thing that will go away with throwing money at it: you do have to have truly effective programs and a lot of prejudices have to be gotten over with to really minimize the problem. The US has really a lot of problems in creating effective welfare programs. Just look at how costly health care system is and how weak it is compared to other countries.

Do you know how much just California puts into fighting homelessness? If there's one thing American cannot do and what will end up in a racket, it's welfare programs:

The state budget provided a total of $7.2 billion ($3.3 billion General Fund) in 2021?22 to about 30 homelessness?related programs across various state departments. - The Governor’s 2022?23 budget proposes $2 billion one?time General Fund over two years that is intended to address near?term homelessness needs while previously authorized funds for long?term housing solutions are implemented: $1.5 billion for behavioral health “bridge” housing and $500 million for the Encampment Resolution Grants Program.

So that's nearly 10 billion in just one year in just California. Someone surely is profiting from those programs.

Quoting Baden

Regardless of everything else, you've got to question the sanity of throwing 20 billion more in weapons into this tinderbox.

So better that Putin would win and create new "People's Republics" that could join later Mother Russia?

It's up to the Ukrainian to fight or not.

Afghanistan is the perfect example how important that will to fight is. Taliban's budget wasn't much compared to the billions the US poured into the country.

Quoting Baden

Regardless of everything else, you've got to question the sanity of throwing 20 billion more in weapons into this tinderbox.

We are drifting into a brittle situation where we are gleefully arming Ukraine with heavy weaponry. I support helping Ukraine fight off Russia, but I can see a plausible chain of escalation that ends very badly.

Quoting ssu

So better that Putin would win and create new "People's Republics" that could join later Mother Russia?

Better that this gets deescalated. My expectation is the more you escalate it, the more Putin will demand as a penalty for the extra dead Russians you create. That penalty being more dead Ukrainians and harsher terms for ending the conflict. Probably the only route to this 'People's Republic' you refer to is, ironically, the complete decimation of Ukraine caused by an indefinite extension of the war fuelled by an indefinite influx of foreign weapons: A neat way to give cover to Putin to completely destroy and subjugate the country. As a bonus you might get to start WW III.

Quoting RogueAI

We are drifting into a brittle situation where we are gleefully arming Ukraine with heavy weaponry. I support helping Ukraine fight off Russia, but I can see a plausible chain of escalation that ends very badly.

Yes, it's all about probabilities, of course, and my take is that the probability of this being a constructive rather than a deductive move is very low. Talking heads in Russia are already saying WW III would be preferable to defeat in Ukraine. Do we want to bet the house that Putin doesn't feel the same way? I wouldn't. I don't think it will go there, but I also don't think Putin will back down. So, ball back in our court.

Reply to StreetlightX
Right, because if Ukrainians end up having to defend themselves with old Kalashnikovs and improvised explosives, less of them will die.

In general, asymmetrical wars cause more military and civilians casualties for the disadvantaged side, by a pretty significant margin.

Given Russian planes will continue to bomb Ukrainian cities, it seems like a SAM system that will either convince the Russians not to fly sorties over those cities, or will shoot down their planes if they insist on trying, seems like a way to keep Ukrainians alive. Same goes for the more destructive shelling; given it doesn't seem to be stopping any other way, my guess is the people having their apartments randomly destroyed might appreciate a longer range howitzer with guided munitions that can silence those guns.

In any event, close to half of it is economic aid, food shipments, etc.

Our immediate reaction to this war should have been the realization that we fucked up and misjudged Russia's determination to get Ukraine to bend to its will, and then we should have been focusing on building alliances with countries like India and China, who Russia actually cares about, to put diplomatic pressure on it to 1) agree to a ceasefire 2) engage productively in talks in that context. Instead we went it alone, got nowhere, and are now doubling down on a failed approach.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

You're completing missing the escalation point. Russia has strategic objectives, which don't necessarily involve levelling Ukraine. If they had got what they wanted initially, they wouldn't even have started the war and you wouldn't need SAM missiles to protect Ukrainians. But if we keep fomenting the situation, maybe you can let me know what's going to protect them from a tactical nuclear strike. Prayers?

Quoting Baden

and then we should have been focusing on building alliances with countries like India and China, who Russia actually cares about, to put diplomatic pressure on it to 1) agree to a ceasefire 2) engage productively in talks in that context

That was never in the cards wrt China. Putin cleared the invasion with them before he started. They gave him the thumbs up.

Reply to frank

If you accept the premise of Chinese influence being a factor in the war being started then it makes sense to accept they could be influential in finding a way to end it.

Reply to frank
I also think it's misleading to claim they gave him the thumbs up. Unless you have sources to back that up, they might just as well have tried to talk him out of it but failed.

Anyhow, I think we should all ask ourselves the simple question, 'Will delivering an additional $20 billion of weapons into that region end well?' If you can honestly say you believe 'yes', then fine. I doubt many here can say that though. And 'maybe' isn't good enough, considering the dramatic tail risks of such escalation.

Quoting Baden

I also think it's misleading to claim they gave him the thumbs up. Unless you have sources to back that up, they might just as well have tried to talk him out of it but failed.

They were spewing American intelligence about it early in the war. Do you care enough for me to look it up? If you looked it up yourself would you believe it?

Quoting Baden

And 'maybe' isn't good enough, considering the dramatic tail risks of such escalation

I thought you were all about it ending with negotiations. I realized a couple of weeks ago that this could actually lead to WW3. You're catching up!

Quoting Baden

Anyhow, I think we should all ask ourselves the simple question, 'Will delivering an additional $20 billion of weapons into that region end well?'

I must say, it's a big number, a massive crank up as compared to what's already been sent (which is already a lot). According to the BBC, as of 21 April, "more than $3bn in military aid has been sent [by the US] to Ukraine since Russia invaded on 24 February."

What weapons has the US given Ukraine - and how much do they help?
By Bernd Debusmann Jr
BBC News
18 March 2022
Updated 21 April 2022
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60774098

Maybe Biden is asking for $20 Bl in order to get 10?

Reply to Baden
How exactly do you escalate from throwing all the troops you can muster (as evidenced from the fact that no fresh units are rotating into the theater) for a multi-pronged full invasion of a country?

It is certainly unclear if Russia would have been successful in taking Kyiv regardless of what other countries did. Maybe the lack of external support would have resulted in a collapse in Ukrainian morale? It doesn't seem super likely though. The Russian advance had already started stalling before any new was making it to the Ukrainians. Their problem was that they had a ridiculous number of lines of attack, vehicles that hadn't seen proper maintainance and so were breaking down all over the place, and an completely insufficient force for the mission.

Ukrainian willingness to fight also seemed quite high, with citizens taking up the surplus rifles offered to them, making piles of Molotov cocktails in the street, and people offering bribes to get into the gaurd units.

So it seems likely what you'd see is just a further Russian advance, and then sort of urban fighting you saw in Mariupol on a larger scale in Kharkiv and Kyiv.

Russians began hitting residential neighborhoods in an attempt to hit morale in the first week of the war. It's not like "the gloves came off," they were never on.

Reply to Baden
It's $20 billion in security assistance, not $20 billion in weapons. $5 billion of it is just a spending authorization. The funding doesn't necissarily cover new weapons, it's for all the normal costs of running a military.

Could it make things better? Certainly, it could change the calculus for pursing further operations against Ukraine.

It already has done a world of good. As noted above, the most likely outcome of witholding all aid would have been a Mariupol/Grozny style meat grinder in two vastly larger cities. NATO hasn't given Ukraine wonder weapons. They just started giving them artillery, a large scale resistance wasn't contingent on NATO telling Ukrainians to resist; without aid they still would have had the ability to carry out a significant resistance. The key difference would be more urban combat, which would lead to more destroyed infrastructure and more civilian deaths.

As to weapons, it really depends on what type of weapons are supplied. Cruise missiles capable of blowing up Putin's Victory Day parade, not such a good idea. Guided shells that are exponentially less likely to accidentally hit civilians? Not a bad one.

If Putin nukes Ukraine, then Russia will get eyes-on (of the world), and send whoever NATO's way. It would further legitimize blasting Russia's military concentrations just the same. Might embolden Kim Jong-un too, who knows.
At no point (until then), would Moscow have been particularly threatened, unlike Ukraine, hence Putin would have brought Russia into greater danger (perhaps also from China), whether of particular concern to him or not.
The Ukrainians apparently aren't bending over, so now what? Get them to talk instead of bomb.
This is how you threaten more or less everyone, using "world war 3" as a deterrence so you can do whatever:

Quoting Sergey Lavrov (reported Apr 26, 2022)

The risks now are considerable. I would not want to elevate those risks artificially. Many would like that. The danger is serious, real. And we must not underestimate it.

Quoting Vladimir Putin (reported Apr 27, 2022)

if anyone sets out to intervene in the current events from the outside and creates unacceptable threats for us that are strategic in nature, they should know that our response... will be lightning-fast. We have all the tools for this, that no one else can boast of having. We won't boast about it: we'll use them, if needed. And I want everyone to know that. We have already taken all the decisions on this.

What's next?

• List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War (Wikipedia)
• Ukraine Support Tracker (Kiel Institute)

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, because if Ukrainians end up having to defend themselves with old Kalashnikovs and improvised explosives, less of them will die.

The US has never given a shit about people dying, not once, ever, unless it is in their strategic interests. And everywhere they have intervened, they have spawned monsters, which, incidentally, have gone on to kill tens of thousands of Americans down the line, to speak nothing, sickeningly, of non-Americans

Israel has bombed Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine in nothing but the last 7 days. Ethiopia is in the throes of a civil war that has killed, and will continue to kill, tens of thousands. The only reason anyone at all gives a shit about Ukranine, apart from the good old fashioned racism of seeing poor dead white people, is because the US gives a shit. Nah, the US should fuck right off, right the hell off, forever.

I was not sure about this before, but it is clearer than ever that Ukraine is nothing but an opportunity for the US, and that it will allow any escalation and any number of deaths so as to keep it's global dominance. If WWIII breaks out, and this kind of fucking escalation is how that kind of fucking thing happens, it will be entirely - en-fucking-tirely - on US hands. Say it with me now: US money, fuck off back home.

Quoting ssu

Basically this isn't just a thing that will go away with throwing money at it

Funny what you are so passionate about when it comes to money and what it can't solve. No doubt you will continue to offer nice, uselessly picture laden posts about all the latest weapon systems sent to Ukranie while offering your continued amatuer opinion about how they will effect things. But ending homelessness? Oh, no, too big a task! Bloodsucking warmonger.

Reply to StreetlightX
Yeah, yeah, the West controls everything, people elsewhere lack all agency.

But by your logic, isn't it Iran's fault that Palestine is getting bombed? After all, if they didn't have any weapons to defend themselves with, Israel wouldn't be bombing them.

Likewise, it's sort of Russia's fault that Israel bombs Syria, right? If they hadn't sold Assad weapons, he'd be gone, and so no reason for the bombs! (Although in reality, Israel has overwhelmingly be bombing Iranian targets in Syria, so that might not hold up).

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah, yeah, the West controls everything, people elsewhere lack all agency.

What exactly has this got to do with anything? I'm saying the US should fuck off. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't about recrimination any longer, although at one point, it most certainly was.

Quoting StreetlightX

I'm saying the US should fuck off. Nothing more, nothing less

:lol:

Reply to frank I know. Hard to imagine the world's most murderous empire being slightly less murderous.

Reply to StreetlightX There's always some nation waiting its turn to be most murderous.

:kiss:

One of the great learning experiences of this war is just how fickle people's claim to being 'anti-war' is. I think people like to think of themselves as anti-war. But as soon as a war breaks out, those same "anti-war" people will suddendly start braying for blood like their life depended on it. I think of people like Muhammad Ali who were nearly thrown in jail for opposing war, and all the admiration that people exhibit towards him for that today, and it's clear to me that the majority of those same people would cheer on his being thrown in jail if the Vietnam war took place today.

[Quote]Everyone’s anti-war until the war propaganda starts. Nobody thinks of themselves as a warmonger, but then the spin machine gets going and before you know it they’re spouting the slogans they’ve been programmed to spout and waving the flags the flags they’ve been programmed to wave and consenting to whatever the imperial war machine wants in that moment.

Virtually everyone will tell you they love peace and hate war when asked; war is the very worst thing in the world, and no healthy person relishes the thought of it. But when the rubber meets the road and it’s time to oppose war and push for peace, those who’d previously proclaimed themselves “anti-war” are on the other side screaming for more weapons to be poured into a proxy war that their government deliberately provoked.

Being truly anti-war isn’t easy. It doesn’t look like people picture in their imaginations. It looks like getting smashed with a deluge of information designed to manipulate and confuse and working through it while getting screamed at by those who’ve fallen for the brainwashing. It’s not cute. It’s not fun. It’s not the feel-good flower power time that people intuit it is when they look at the part of themselves that seeks peace. It’s standing up against the most sophisticated propaganda machine that has ever existed while being offered every reason not to.

...Because selling the war to the public is a built-in component of all war strategy, the war will always look necessary from the mainstream perspective, and it won’t look like those other wars which we now know in retrospect were mistakes. It’s always designed to look appealing. There’s never not going to be atrocity propaganda. There’s never not going to be reasons fed to you selling this military intervention as special and completely necessary. That will be the case every single time, because that’s how modern wars are packaged and presented.[/quote]

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/04/27/everyones-anti-war-until-the-war-propaganda-starts/

This is how the grift works: the US can't just hand people's tax money directly to it's weapons manufacturers as a gift (this would look bad), so the money has to be cycled via Europe, only to end up, after a brief detour, in the hands of said arms manufacturers anyway. End result is that the taxpayer gets the privilege of funding yachts for enablers of mass murder. The US state exists to enrich its friends, nothing more.

[Quote]More than a dozen European allies will get nearly $400 million in new U.S. grants to buy American military hardware to backfill weapons they’ve donated to Ukraine from their own stockpiles, the State Department announced Monday.

Of more than $700 million in newly announced aid for Ukraine, $391 million in Foreign Military Financing is for 15 allies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans, while another $322 million is for Ukraine forces to “transition to more advanced weapons and air defense systems,” State Department Ned Price said in a statement.

Such financing is different from previous U.S. military assistance for Ukraine. It is not a donation of drawn-down U.S. Defense Department stockpiles, but rather cash countries can use to purchase supplies from the U.S.[/quote]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/04/25/us-pledges-391-million-for-euro-allies-to-buy-american-to-backfill-weapons-donations-to-ukraine/

Quoting StreetlightX

One of the great learning experiences of this war is just how fickle people's claim to being 'anti-war' is.

I wonder how anti-war one can be while also spewing so much constant anger and hatred.

Quoting StreetlightX

But as soon as a war breaks out, those same "anti-war" people will suddendly start braying for blood like their life depended on it.

It sorta seems like a lot of people secretly want there to be at least one big war in their life that they can watch on TV. Peace is boring, meh who cares, they want death, blood, fire, genocides, bombs, rapes, pillaging, destruction, jihads, executions, coups, butchered babies...the more dramatic the better. Lotta people back Ukraine not out of sympathy but because they want a team to cheer for in a gladiator pit. rah rah rah, whatever gives them the best opportunity to release all this repressed frustration...

Reply to _db

At least us philosophers are above that vile pit of filth.

Reply to Noble Dust nah, I doubt it

Quoting _db

It sorta seems like a lot of people secretly want there to be at least one big war in their life that they can watch on TV.

Yep. It's pretty clear that Westerners are getting-off on getting to spectate what is to them a real life Star Wars episode. - Darth Putin vs. The Western Alliance. Ukrainians are nothing but intellectual sci-fi sex toys to them, used to rub one out on their fantasies of playing "resistance-fighter".

I never add things on.

Reply to _db

Twas a joke.

Quoting StreetlightX

what is to them a real life Star Wars episode

Yes, we love this; we crave it. Please send more.

Quoting StreetlightX

Ukrainians are nothing but intellectual sex toys to them.

Did you add this on?

All of this was a parody of y'all, which I think wasn't apparent.

Oh man, how I hate the morning TV in which we are told by army functionaries in uniform about the intricacies of the war and crying woman are shown in quantities they have never been shown before. How it is told that people in the whole western world are solidary with the Ukranians, that we should be so happy to live in freedom, Putin is called the new Hitler, and the army asks for more money, and we are told about the vile propaganda used while the propaganda of freedom is just as hard downplayed on us. And how cute and how nicely naive is the woman presenting it. Yes, I know, the TV has an on/off button.

Quoting _db

It sorta seems like a lot of people secretly want there to be at least one big war in their life that they can watch on TV. Peace is boring, [...]

:D

Well, there are people trying to make a difference in the face of power extremism money madness ...

Quoting Baden

I also think it's misleading to claim they gave him the thumbs up.

My impression was that Putin somehow managed to sell "safety and freedom for Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk" to Jinping, something like that, but I may easily be wrong. Do you think there's a "nervous" or "uneasy" relationship here?

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

It already has done a world of good. As noted above, the most likely outcome of witholding all aid would have been a Mariupol/Grozny style meat grinder in two vastly larger cities.

Classic. "It's already definitely done loads of good because it's prevented the thing I just completely made up would have happened if we hadn't done it"

Reply to jorndoe Surely is it more: sure, you go ahead and draw the US into a regional conflict while we continue making inroads to literally everywhere else on Earth. Good luck! It helps too that with the sanctions in place there just so happens to be one major country that can supply a great deal of Russia's needs. Oh yes and the advantage of further fracturing the US dollar hegemony.

And I will register my dislike that the only rationale that you able to come up with is that China simply got sucked into Russian rhetoric. Seems a bit Western chauvinisty to me. Have a think about it.

Quoting Baden

we should have been focusing on building alliances with countries like India and China, who Russia actually cares about,

In the real world, India and China are bitter rivals, locked in an arm race and occasionally fighting each other at the border. You cannot build an alliance where both of them would be happily sitting. There is also no clear way you can align India or China squarely in one camp within a new cold war, because during the old cold war, both China and India have been the (competing) leaders of the non-aligned movement, the G77, with a staunch anti-imperialist position. They are not going to suddenly change their mind and align themselves with the US.

Moreover, to say that "Russia cares for India or China" is meaningless. Russia is not a person. States have only interests and no friends. As for Russians, they couldn't care less about Indians.

Welcome to the cold and foggy world of geopolitics. It's a bit different from Pollyanna. "Non-western" states are not better, or more ethical than "western" ones. There's no innocence in poverty.

Quoting Baden

Better that this gets deescalated. My expectation is the more you escalate it, the more Putin will demand as a penalty for the extra dead Russians you create. That penalty being more dead Ukrainians and harsher terms for ending the conflict.

It was already shown in Kyiv how you get Putin to de-escalate: inflict serious losses and show he cannot achieve his objectives. Putin's blitz campaign utterly and decisively failed. The VDV failed in it's air assault on Antonov Airport and the attempt to either take or surround Kyiv failed. Putin did acknowledge his defeat with the total withdrawal from the Kyiv front. He understood that the Ukrainians would fight and that he would have to limit his objectives.

The West is giving Ukrainians the possibility to end this war as simply Russia won't have the ability to sustain such losses for months onward. That's the only way to make Putin to look at other options than continuing the war.

Quoting Baden

. Probably the only route to this 'People's Republic' you refer to is, ironically, the complete decimation of Ukraine caused by an indefinite extension of the war fuelled by an indefinite influx of foreign weapons: A neat way to give cover to Putin to completely destroy and subjugate the country.

Western aid isn't killing Ukrainians, it's the Russians arms and their basic doctrine of fighting wars with maximum firepower and total disregard of civilian casualties. It's up to the Ukrainians themselves how much they are going to sacrifice in this war. If they choose to throw in the towel, nobody will or can stop them from doing that. Likely they won't do that. They see the route to peace in destroying the Russian war machine, which they have been partly successful in. That's the correct way to handle Russia. You simply have to stop the Russian advances, have the ability then to go on the counteroffensive and then they will come to negotiate about an armstice. That's the only way.

The First Chechen war is one example of how you get Russians to negotiate a peace deal:

Despite Russian troops in and around Grozny numbering approximately 12,000, more than 1,500 Chechen guerrillas (whose numbers soon swelled) overran the key districts within hours in an operation prepared and led by Aslan Maskhadov (who named it Operation Zero) and Shamil Basayev (who called it Operation Jihad). The separatists then laid siege to the Russian posts and bases and the government compound in the city centre, while a number of Chechens deemed to be Russian collaborators were rounded up, detained and, in some cases, executed. At the same time, Russian troops in the cities of Argun and Gudermes were also surrounded in their garrisons. Several attempts by the armored columns to rescue the units trapped in Grozny were repelled with heavy Russian casualties (the 276th Motorized Regiment of 900 men suffered 50% casualties in a two-day attempt to reach the city centre). Russian military officials said that more than 200 soldiers had been killed and nearly 800 wounded in five days of fighting, and that an unknown number were missing; Chechens put the number of Russian dead at close to 1,000. Thousands of troops were either taken prisoner or surrounded and largely disarmed, their heavy weapons and ammunition commandeered by the separatists.

This kind of situation lead to the Khasavyurt Accords and finally a peace in Moscow... and later Putin's revenge attack on Chechnya that was basically his "Presidential Campaign".

It is a similar account for my country in getting to have the ability to negotiate a separate armstice with Russia in 1944, as then all attacks towards Finland had been repulsed, the Finns still had behind them a formidable Salpa-defensive fortification line and Finns had even made a counterattack in Ilomantsi. As there was the competition on who will get to Berlin first, Stalin made the decision to halt the fighting with Finland.

Reply to Baden

You're completing missing the escalation point. Russia has strategic objectives, which don't necessarily involve levelling Ukraine.

The problem is that this was always going to come to a head. If Putin had successfully assimilated Ukraine without military involvement. He would feel empowered and immediately look to the assimilation of a number of other previous USSR states. Growing in confidence at each turn. Meanwhile there would have been no significant sanctions and the EU would not have decided to stop buying oil and gas asap. In another five years we would have been confronted with a more powerful and confident Russian provocation. If Trump were in office at the time, or Marine LePen had won in France things could have been far worse a few years from now.

We should count ourselves lucky that the threat is currently being contained and defused. Yes there is the real threat of nuclear war, but this is nothing new and we just have to live with it. It looks to me that the best outcome from here is Russia getting preoccupied and bogged down in eastern Ukraine with continued strict sanctions on Russia and to keep Putin’s army stuck there until they are sufficiently degraded.

Quoting Punshhh

It looks to me that the best outcome from here is Russia getting preoccupied and bogged down in eastern Ukraine with continued strict sanctions on Russia and to keep Putin’s army stuck there until they are sufficiently degraded.

Oh wow how coincidental that your views are exactly those of the US imperial agenda wow its like you haven't simply regurgitated US propaganda verbatim at all so cool how you probably came to this view entirely on your own.

Reply to StreetlightX Yeah. Obviously you don't even read what others write. So why point out for example to policies that have been successful here, and how problematic is for the US to implement similar policies, because your not ready to have an actual discussion about them.

Live in your dreams of stereotypes and in your own prejudices.

Reply to ssu No I absolutely read the sci-fi fantasy that was in presented in Push's post but please, continue to wave the flag of blood-hungry murderers who cannot wait to give Russia their own Afghanistan, you included.