I am not Russian, I have in fact trained to fight Russians and would do so. — boethius

You would do so? Like, if Russia was to attack your country you mean?

If that was to happen, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities?

You would do so? Like, if Russia was to attack your country you mean? — Olivier5

Yes.

The difference is that there would be a credible plan, equipment, bunkers and escalation of mobilization in lockstep with Russian force buildup (the whole point of conscripts against a larger country with a larger military that would obviously win in a total war situation, exceed the tolerance for losses and, through diplomacy, remove any reason to have a total war fight to the death situation, and, therefore, not be an "easy target" for a standing army in a non-total war situation).

And the whole point of such a posture is not to "wait for the day" to finally fight the Russians to the death, but demonstrate a respectful realism, and, instead of fighting words, offer friendship and good faith collaboration and grateful burning of Russian gas (that literally heats my home right now).

The point of actually fighting, if it came to that as the situation got out of control due to reckless civilian leadership (otherwise we'd be fighting the Russians right now if they were just that bad and no way to work with them), is to reach a settlement as quickly as possible, in a good negotiating position of having a credible military plan that would require total war to defeat.

Ukraine is in total war, but Russia is not in total war. However, Ukraine is in a severe geographical disadvantage.

There are many countries that do not exist for military reasons, but due to their existing being convenient for the far greater powers that surround them for one reason or another.

Monaco doesn't exist because it can fight the French, but because the French allow Monaco to exist, and you won't hear Monaco picking a fight with the French but rather diplomacy is used to maintain the status quo and continuously convince the French Monaco as it is now is better for them. This is perhaps the most extreme example, but many countries have no military option against a more powerful neighbor. No one claims Canada or Mexico would win in some total war situation with the United States.

You have not answered the question:

If that was to happen, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities?

You're good at that, BTW, not answering questions.

The Nazi (and similar) creeps are a concern everywhere.
Where things get worse is when they attain political power.
In some places they hide more due to legislation, in other places not so much.

<sup>• List of neo-Nazi organizations
• Racism by country
• List of white nationalist organizations
• Geography of antisemitism



↑ A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries (The Washington Post; May 15, 2013)</sup>

That's not to say that "two wrongs make a right", though.

One day someone will explain to me how handing someone a gun while they are in the middle of a child murdering spree - and profiting from it - is somehow less contemptable than giving someone money so they can buy their own gun to murder children.

Presumably this someone will be a shameless apologist for murdering children. — StreetlightX

It all depends on the situation, and on who knows what about what. I'm not saying what the US has done in contributing to the oppression, suffering and killing of the Yemenis is justifiable.

But even there, merely selling arms to the Saudis and the UAE, while being able to claim (whether plausibly or not) "plausible" deniability is not the same as financing them specifically in order to attack and kill Yemenis.

The point is, turning a blind eye to something terrible (as terrible as that is) is not as bad as actively promoting it.

In your example it would depend on whether you gave money to someone on condition that they use it to buy a gun and murder children with it, or just gave them money to do whatever they want with.

In any case, why are we talking about that when the specific topic here is the question of whether Putin's actions in Ukraine are justifiable? The situation in Yemen has no bearing on this; each should be judged in its own right (or wrong).

↑ A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries in which countries it would be socially unacceptable to say they don't want people of another race as neighbours (The Washington Post; May 15, 2013) — jorndoe

Fixed it for you.

You have not answered the question. You're good at that, BTW, not answering questions. — Olivier5

Which question? I literally answered "yes" to your last question.

On the "gotcha" of morally condemning the Russians, I simply do not make moral condemnations without the same analysis I would ask people wanting to condemn me to make, and, in particular, after I have provided my own defense of myself as well, to my own satisfaction; analysis of the Russians I have not yet done, as it's mostly irrelevant to the current situation and actually saving a single life, helping a single child.

I view the purpose of analysis to make decisions, not morally condemn.

What decisions matter to me in this situation that I can affect: the policies of my own country and political block.

What are those decisions:

A. Go to war on the assumption of Ukrainian just cause ... well, nearly the entire country and political block believes in Ukrainian's just cause yet we are not going to put our boots where our mouths are.

B. Send arms to Ukraine in the hopes they fight our righteous battle "for the free world" for us and win.

C. Pump arms into Ukraine, not for the purposes of option B, but to ensure an endless insurgency that bleeds the Russians at Ukraine's expense ... Wooooweee!!!!

D. Use diplomatic leverage to protect civilians as much as possible and work on a diplomatic end to the war.

I, personally, don't know how option B is going to work, so, if it can't work, then it's foolhardy and gets a lot of Ukrainians killed for no better a military outcome.

I don't see how C, "give the Russian's their Afghanistan, with love from NATO" actually helps Ukrainians. I honestly don't think Afghanistan is better off after NATO gave NATO its own literal Afghanistan. Which is a bizarre part of that argument, as it's framed like "tit for tat" to the Russians ... as payback for something we did to ourselves ... and not to forget the Afghanis.

So, it seems to me D is the best choice.

Do Ukrainians "have a right" to defend their country: Yes, I would agree, I claim the same right for my own country.

However, simply because something is a right does not mean it's the best choice. I have a right to do a lot of things that are not in my, nor anyone's, interest to do.

Time will tell.

You have not answered the question. You're good at that, BTW, not answering questions.
— Olivier5

Which question? — boethius

The one you took care to delete from my quote, of course:

If Russia -- or anyone else for that matter -- was to attack your country, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the armies destroying your cities?

Were you ever a boy scout though?

If Russia -- or anyone else for that matter -- was to attack your country, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities? — Olivier5

Yes, if we had no chance of gaining anything militarily and we were just being used as pawns to bleed the Russians, setup before hand to bait the Russians into a war, genuinely believing those "foreigners" supporting us would come to our aid in some concrete "friendly ally" sense.

Being manipulated is far more disgusting than dealing with someone who does exactly what they say they're going to do, even. Being manipulated by your "friends" is a far worse taste than having some sort of clear foe.

I would also not expect anyone to give us free arms, and the honorable requirement to buy our own arms to fight our own wars, and perhaps take on massive debts to do that, would be part of the equation of whether fighting was worthwhile and what sort of deal (which would be the only possible positive outcome of the war ... as we're not about to march to Moscow and actually "beat the Russians" in any scenario whatsoever) would be a reasonable deal to end the war.

You fail to understand that there is no winning in this sort of situation.

The only possible end to this kind of war is negotiated settlement or then complete defeat in the field.

Even if the Ukrainians routed the Russians and they pulled back to the Russian border ... Ukrainians have not "defeated" the Russians, they would still be there, the war would still be ongoing, the Russians would come-up with some other strategy, maybe just drop a few tactical nukes and call it a day.

You don't win a war by not-losing for now, you need to actually go and defeat the enemy in their own homeland, defending their own soil, hoist your flag in their capital, put your feet up in the enemies government offices and drive down their boulevards smoking their cigars.

There is this righteous WWII narrative ... but no feasible WWII pathway to victory.

Not to learn something new or think issues from another point of view. — ssu

I find it funny how you pretend the other side isn't listening. Nobody has disagreed with what Putin has done is morally wrong and that the Ukrainians should be helped as much as possible. But if it's then argued sending weapons might not be the best choice for everybody involved or that the causes of the war are more complex involving a lot of shit from NATO and the USA that multiple people have warned about for decades to not to do, then there's simply condemnation and we get the stupid popularity contest questions again about who is supposedly worst? Or people whining about word choice because "mind your manners" is just another method of repression.

You have time and again been heard because nothing Putin has done is justifiable but you have certainly not listened to the other side. Neither I nor Isaac and Boethius are in this thread to bash NATO and the USA, but I do firmly believe in holding those to account that influenced these circumstances for the worst. That's not bashing, that's an attempt at putting the analysis in a broader context.

And I know you can do better so I think that this means you're truly worried about an escalation including Finland. I'm sorry if that's the case but I'm quite frankly a bit surprised that the real politik interpretation is one so difficult to accept for you. As a war/history buff that's what's it's always been, no?

And I know you can do better so I think that this means you're truly worried about an escalation including Finland. — Benkei

An escalation that would only happen due to Finland rushing ahead to join NATO ... but not actually be in NATO.

Otherwise, Russia would have already attacked Finland if that was "the plan all along" ... and, since that wasn't the plan as it hasn't happened, but the status quo has been acceptable to Russia, then if the status quo was maintained ... certainly Russia wouldn't attack Finland after being weakened by NATO in Ukraine.

However, if the exact same warning to Ukraine are sincere to Finland and Sweden, then tactical nuclear weapons would be dropped until they, too, accept neutrality ... the exact same status quo as before baiting Russia into dropping tactical nuclear weapons.

Which, may explain, rather than Finland's millennial Prime Minister, who is completely clueless about geopolitics, it is Finland's older president with far longer experience dealing with the Russians and talking with Putin, all of a sudden represents Finland on the international stage (after not a single woke article being written about him and Finland's wonderful young and woman led government ... where are those young woman leaders now?) and ... is one EU leader not just fiercely condemning Putin and calling him a madman but saying things like "the situation is complex".

If Russia -- or anyone else for that matter -- was to attack your country, would you see the foreigners supporting your country as more disgusting than the army destroying your cities?
— Olivier5

Yes — boethius

You're more submissive than most people, I guess.

Nobody has disagreed with what Putin has done is morally wrong and that the Ukrainians should be helped as much as possible. — Benkei

@boethius disagrees with that.

I feel like I want to give credit to @ssu for presenting the more or less pro-NATO case reasonably. I don't know if you've read everything but some of the flack directed towards him has been rather personalized and unwarranted.

You're more submissive than most people, I guess. — Olivier5

They can come and fight if they care, that would be welcome ... social media isn't "support".

It's hypocrisy.

A war should never be a charity case.

Empty words. Go bomb an Ukrainian if you want to be useful.

No, you disagree with him what the best way to help the Ukrainians is. If the goal is to minimise causalties, he questions the wisdom of sending arms.

I haven't read everything. I was under the impression boethius, Isaac and ssu were cordial until the last few pages and then I'm just reading things I'm not used to from ssu.

boethius disagrees with that. — Olivier5

I said I haven't analysed it yet.

However, I would agree with @Benkei that it's morally wrong in a very large sense of morality. In my view, "morally right" would be turning Russia into an anarchist direct democracy.

Condemnation is a much stronger statement, such as "true evil".

There is also a middle area of whether Russia's Imperial war is "worse" than the other great power's Imperial wars.

For example, all the great powers owe their existence to Imperial wars, but we view the Nazi's Imperial war as much worse in comparison.

We (the West) condemn the Nazi's for WWII ... but we don't have similar condemnation for US in Vietnam or Iraq or the French in Algeria (and pre-WWII Imperial conquests are simply off limits for moral analysis; "different time" kind of thing, I'm sure you understand).

↪boethius Empty words. Go bomb an Ukrainian if you want to be useful. — Olivier5

I don't have a problem with Ukrainians fighting, it's their choice.

I have a problem with neo-Nazi's, that's for sure; but I'm told that's a small part and the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

There is more than one war happening in the world at the moment.

Do you even know about the others, much less have picked one side and condemned the other?

Or do those people and whatever they're fighting about not matter in the slightest?

If so, why would you expect otherwise vis-a-vis Ukraine?

A few questions for you.

In my view, "morally right" would be turning Russia into an anarchist direct democracy. — boethius

Oh you know of things that are morally right? That wasn't apparent so far.

So what would be the ideal outcome of this war, according to you?

There is more than one war happening in the world at the moment.

Do you even know about the others, much less have picked one side and condemned the other? — boethius

I do. Why don't you discuss them, if they are so important to you?

Is that why you have to cheerlead the Russian side, a soddin' dictatorship bombing innocent people? Because there are other wars?

↑ A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries in which countries it would be socially unacceptable to say they don't want people of another race as neighbours (The Washington Post; May 15, 2013) — Isaac

Revision 2:

Heatmap of countries where people pick different races as people they don't want as neighbors (The Washington Post; May 15, 2013)

Does that work? :D

If the goal is to minimise causalties, he questions the wisdom of sending arms. — Benkei

He said that sending arms to Ukraine is more disgusting than bombing Ukraine. Literally.

Oh you know of things that are morally right? That wasn't apparent so far. — Olivier5

It's far easier to know what are good things, and a good life, and the difference between pain and suffering, love and hate, peace and war, than condemn another as having nothing of value and doing nothing but evil.

Mostly, people agree on what are good things and would prefer love and peace.

The question is how to get there.

So what would be the ideal outcome of this war, according to you? — Olivier5

The war has already started. Assigning blame to who is most morally responsible for the war, can be easily debated many, many years, to get into every moral and political nuance, after the war is ended.

The ideal outcome of the war would be what minimizes suffering in the short term and creates a lasting peace.

No one disagrees that Dombas is filled with ethnic Russians that want to separate from a Ethno-Ukrainian nationalst state, and that they have done so and that there is no way for Ukraine to "defeat them" militarily as Russia won't allow it.

No one disagrees that Crimea is de facto now part of Russia and that won't change.

No one except neo-Nazi's and their sympathizers agrees that neo-Nazi's are a bad thing and policies should be agreed on by NATO, the EU, Russia and Ukraine on how to dismantle neo-Nazi organizations.

Of course, the "ideal" end to the war would be everyone in the whole world, including Americans and gangs and the mafia, laying down their arms and start talking things out in a bottom up participatory direct democracy without nation-states in any similar sense as they exist now.

However, if that "ideal" has no practical way to bring about as an ending for the war, then recognizing the right of "self determination" of the Dombas and Crimea, and that they are de facto in Russian control now anyways without any means of changing that, is a more reasonable outcome than fighting for ... what? To achieve what militarily?

Mostly, people agree on what are good things and would prefer love and peace.

The question is how to get there. — boethius

And the answer is: through Putin.

Of course, the "ideal" end to the war would be everyone in the whole world, including Americans and gangs and the mafia, laying down their arms and talking things out in a bottom up participatory direct democracy. — boethius

Now you're talking. So ideally the Russians should lay down their arms and turn Russia into a vibrant democracy.

Glad we agree with that.

No one disagrees that Crimea is de facto now part of Russia and that won't change. — boethius

I actually disagree with that. I think it should be divided.

neo-Nazi's are a bad thing and policies should be agreed on by NATO, the EU, Russia and Ukraine on how to dismantle neo-Nazi organizations. — boethius

In Ukraine it is doable but I doubt it in the US, the EU or Russia. Neo-nazis are too deeply ingrained there.

I do. Why don't you discuss them, if they are so important to you? — Olivier5

Go ahead, enlighten us with who's right and who's wrong in every contemporary war.

Is that why you have to cheerlead the Russian side, a soddin' dictatorship, bombing innocent people? Because there are other wars? — Olivier5

I'm not cheerleading the Russians ... and no one in the EU is sending arms to the Russians.

The Russians can fight their own war, that seems clear, and what happens on social media doesn't affect their decision to do so.

You seem to think that "defeating" the Russians on social media will somehow defeat them in the field.

This is not the case. The war will not be fought in the sub-reddit's and the tweeting and the facebooking and in the forums, it's fought in the real world with real weapons and the affect of Western social media isn't very strong.

Pointing out the Ukrainians have no way of defeating the Russians, and therefore the war can only end with either the Ukrainians losing militarily or a negotiated settlement, is simply pointing out a fact, it's not cheerleading the Russians.

There is nothing that can be said on Western Social media that will change the Russian's policy and requirement of concessions for ending the war.

So, the choice are accept some concessions ... or fight to win.

If you have some plan that will have Ukrainians storming Moscow in any reasonable amount of time, then you do the Ukrainians a great disservice by placing your efforts here rather than going and telling them what to do.

I actually disagree with that. I think it should be divided. — Olivier5

The point is ... how will it change?

Ukrainians take back part of Crimea and if Russians don't accept that, they roll to Moscow?

enlighten us with who's right and who's wrong in every contemporary war. — boethius

What would be the point, pray tell?

You seem to think that "defeating" the Russians on social media will somehow defeat them in the field.

This is not the case. — boethius

Indeed. They might very well win here and lose in front of Kyiv.