Meanwhile in other news ^{(tass, independent)}, Ksenia Karelina, who donated fifty-one US dollars and eighty cents to Razom in February two years ago, awaits sentencing. If the prosecutors have their way, she'll face years in prison.
Reportedly ^(forbes), the Ukrainian skies have been seeing old Yak-52 propellers with shotgun-wielding hangers-on chasing drones.

When the situation is sufficiently bleak, 'balanced' analysis just betrays an unwillingness to face reality.

Ukraine is strategically lost, and from such a position there are no tactical master strokes, unconventional military strategies or 'wunderwaffen' that can conceivably turn the tide. The worse one's situation becomes, the less options one has.

I think the problem is people watch too many movies.

↪unenlightened When the situation is sufficiently bleak, 'balanced' analysis just betrays an unwillingness to face reality.

Ukraine is strategically lost, and from such a position there are no tactical master strokes, unconventional military strategies or 'wunderwaffen' that can conceivably turn the tide. The worse one's situation becomes, the less options one has. — Tzeentch

In the long run, we are all dead. In the meantime, if one starts from the fundamental irrationality that the wasting asset of one's life is worth spending in a good cause, then one does not give up the hopeless cause, because that alternative is worse than failure and death. And from that position one analyses the best desperate measure to take in the meantime.

Shades of the Tet Offensive, although this one doesn't look like a military failure so far.

In the long run, we are all dead. In the meantime, if one starts from the fundamental irrationality that the wasting asset of one's life is worth spending in a good cause, then one does not give up the hopeless cause, because that alternative is worse than failure and death. — unenlightened

Talks with the Russians / Ukrainian neutrality is a fate worse than death?

People who truly believe that are obviously brainwashed.

There were reasonable ways out of this conflict, and Ukrainian leadership, being so foolish as to take orders from the West and their double agenda, refused them all.

There's nothing heroic about that. It's folly. Though the deaths of so many men is tragic to be sure.

Talks with the Russians / Ukrainian neutrality is a fate worse than death? — Tzeentch

Yeah, of course; didn't you know? Any compromise at all is worse than death.

There's nothing heroic about that. It's folly. Though the deaths of so many men is tragic to be sure. — Tzeentch

War is always folly, and always a tragedy. Come to that, human life is mainly folly and tragedy. But allowing tyrants to triumph is no less foolish and tragic than warring against them.

I must say that i find the fact that The Great Dictator's ambitions have been thwarted for 3 years by a professional comedian rather wonderful. A picture painted in blood, but that is unfortunately the kind of picture we dictators enjoy. If only Putin could have been laughed out of Ukraine!

The idea of invading a country to ensure its neutrality is something worthy of the British Empire. Akin to enslaving a people to liberate them from their savagery.

It's hard to tell whether you're being facetious or not, because these caricatures regularly present themselves as genuinely held beliefs among this forum's denizens.

The idea of invading a country to ensure its neutrality is something worthy of the British Empire. — unenlightened

The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all its credibility literally one month into the war.

Russia spent over a decade trying to find a compromise with the West vis-á-vis Ukraine, and was continuously cold-shouldered by the West that perceived it as being weak enough to disregard. Even Minsk - an attempt at peace - was admitted by the West to have been agreed upon in bad faith and treated as an armistice to buy time for arming Ukraine.

Even after the invasion of 2022 started, the Russians were still looking to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table and showed little to no territorial ambitions.

But maybe your comment was a joke that flew over my shoulder. Such things tend to translate poorly via text.

The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all its credibility literally one month into the war. — Tzeentch

It was you that suggested that Ukraine was supposed to be neutral. If that is not the justification for the invasion, then it can only be that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia.

I would say that Ukraine was supposed to be independent. That is what we seem to disagree about.

It was you that suggested that Ukraine was supposed to be neutral. If that is not the justification for the invasion, then it can only be that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia. — unenlightened

That the Russians desire a neutral Ukraine is something that they've told us consistently over the course of some 15 years, and it's something they reiterated even after the invasion started.

It was part of the agreement reached between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in March/April 2022.

So there is plenty of evidence that suggests that it indeed was the question of Ukrainian neutrality that formed Russia's principal justification to invade.

I would say that Ukraine was supposed to be independent. That is what we seem to disagree about. — unenlightened

I wouldn't disagree with that, actually.

The difference is that I don't see anything that is happening today as bringing Ukraine closer to that goal. NATO membership wouldn't constitute independence, even more so considering Ukraine is now so indebted to the West and corporations like BlackRock that it couldn't repay that debt in a hundred years.

What Ukraine had to do to remain independent is what it did up to 2014. It had to maintain good relations with both sides.

In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US.

And well, as I've said here before, jumping in bed with a crocodile to protect oneself from the crocodile across the border makes no sense at all.

Geopolitically they failed, and the US & Cronies ensured it would not be allowed to reverse it.

In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US. — Tzeentch

But that, according to you, was the result of an US-backed coup, wasn't it?

How can it be both a US operation and a mistake?

That the Russians desire a neutral Ukraine is something that they've told us consistently over the course of some 15 years, and it's something they reiterated even after the invasion started. — Tzeentch

I dare say Ukraine would like a neutral Russia too. It seems to me that you nor Russia can understand what 'independent' means. It means you don't have to get what you want all the time from everyone.

In lesser news, Kadyrov received "a Nobel prize", but then his troops were accused of betraying Putin. Oh well, can't win'em all.
Meanwhile, blasting civilians (again) seems an unusual way of "liberating" them. Wouldn't the invading forces expect a negative attitude towards them?

NATO membership wouldn't constitute independence — Tzeentch

Not independence from NATO, no. (Unless they were to cancel such a membership again.)
The Baltics have (happily) chosen, Finland and Sweden freely chose, the Moldovans are jittery.
You can't speak of independence, without the independence for them to choose.

I live in Europe/a NATO country. We're literally a vassal of the US, with our politcians being literal stooges for the US. There's nothing independent about my country.

The term 'vassal' is often used to describe exactly that: a country that is allowed to govern its own domestic politics, but is expected to fall in line with the suzerian when it comes to foreign politics.

That describes the majority of NATO countries, including mine, accurately. (Ironically, it even describes the position of the American people inside the US - you're free to bicker over gender neutral bathrooms or which clown runs the White House, but in terms of foreign politics you have no say whatsoever).

What Ukraine did up until 2014 was true independence, and true independence relies on a proper understanding of geopolitics, and more often than not on the skillful use of diplomacy.

What Ukraine did up until 2014 was true independence, — Tzeentch

"True independence" is doing what Russia wants, and if you are so foolish as not be "truly independent". Russia will come and liberate you, and give you free access to their language and government as well. Now I understand.

I live in Europe/a NATO country. We're literally a vassal of the US, with our politcians being literal stooges for the US. There's nothing independent about my country. — Tzeentch

It would seem the Netherlands’ whole history would have had to be radically different in the 20th century for it to have a more powerful/independent position. Its neutrality in WW1 and it’s not increasing its military defense in the lead up to WW2 made it an easy target for the Nazis to take over and thus have the Americans and Allies liberate and thus be subordinate to to some extent in relying in its independence and defense, even more so after WW2 and the Soviet desire to increase its influence. Its path towards integration with Belgium, France, and Germany in the European Union has made it an integrationist nation. Being that it is surrounded by bigger nations, this makes sense. It also makes economic sense to combine forces on trade. Brexit for example, seems to have hurt the UK’s economy.

It would seem the Netherlands’ whole history would have had to be radically different in the 20th century for it to have a more powerful/independent position. — schopenhauer1

I think today's loss of independence started with end of the Cold War. That's when NATO and Europe's position with regards to the US fundamentally changed and Europe failed to notice (or noticed too late).

Before the end of the Cold War, the US couldn't afford to have weak, corrupt allies in Europe. After the Cold War that became the goal. Corrupt, porous democracies are easy to influence, and militarily weak nations are needy and pliant.

In my opinion, this loss of independence is primarily a result of US soft power, and therefore is largely a psychological phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is a psychological phenomenon that is difficult to reverse.

Keep in mind, it's perfectly possible to be a part of NATO, or even a great power's sphere of influence, and still maintain a high degree of independence, but that requires a robust, non-corrupt politicial system and skilled politicians. That's the main issue in the Netherlands currently.

"True independence" is doing what Russia wants, [...] — unenlightened

You are purposefully misconstruing my argument. If a weak country wants to be and remain independent, it must play its cards right. This is just the reality of geopolitics. And yes, sometimes that means placating the gorilla next door.

The suggestion that Ukraine was a slave to Russia prior to 2014 is just patently false. Its presidents manoeuvred between both sides, and did so fairly skillfully.

The problems arose when Ukraine's skillful diplomacy no longer suited Uncle Sam's agenda.

, I think most readers know your vassal stories by now.
By the way, democracy rights transparency freedom -versus- regression opacity authoritarianism oppression, has come up a few times in the thread (plus proliferation thereof).
Maybe return once Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden Netherlands et al cancel their NATO memberships?

In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US. — Tzeentch

Here's what they wanted (again):

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,⁽⁹¹⁾ and the influence of oligarchs.⁽⁹²⁾ — Euromaidan

I vaguely remember reading about some old-school Donbas separatists. They had this old dream of their own country (well, or two), that they could craft on a path of their own. Not on offer from the Kremlin, either.

I think today's loss of independence started with end of the Cold War. That's when NATO and Europe's position with regards to the US fundamentally changed and Europe failed to notice (or noticed too late). — Tzeentch

I guess my point regarding the moves made in the 20th century is that sometimes being neutral or doing very little to increase spending, resources, and troops is the wrong policy. For example, not putting enough into defense prior to WW2 created a very weak and easily defeated Netherlands that was either going to remain under Nazi control or be saved by the Allied countries. Luckily it was the latter. But the position of low military spending relative to other European countries has remained, and thus it's only position is to be integrationist, not independent. It relies on the military support of others, and has no standing in regards to its hard power other than small support roles like it did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Granted, it’s a much smaller nation than other European countries, but then, there’s part of your answer. Whether it’s an excuse or just the reality, you can interpret in different ways.

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,(91) and the influence of oligarchs.(92) — Euromaidan

It's the same old song: the US overthrows a democratically elected government for 'reasons' and then proceeds to create a mess several times larger, leaving the country in ruins.

You'd think that clear-minded people would wisen up to the charade at some point.

Widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations and oligarchs - , does this remind you of any nation?

Because to me this sounds exactly like the United States. :lol:

It's the same old song: the US overthrows a democratically elected government for 'reasons' and then proceeds to create a mess several times larger, leaving the country in ruins. — Tzeentch

That's how we role.

, alternatively, (once again) you deny Ukrainian agency, presuppose that it's not that they want democracy rights transparency freedom and wrestle free from the dominating (regressive opaque authoritarian oppressive) neighbor, joining Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden Netherlands et al (and the EU), and take the opportunity to point (conspiracy-alike) fingers at the evil US instead. Incidentally, you're echoing what came out of the Kremlin.^{(also check here, here, here)}

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of Russia and oligarchs, police brutality, human rights violations,^(33)(34) and repressive anti-protest laws.⁽³³⁾ — Revolution of Dignity

Maybe return once Estonia Latvia Lithuania Finland Sweden Netherlands et al cancel their NATO memberships? — Aug 11, 2024

But the position of low military spending relative to other European countries has remained, and thus it's only position is to be integrationist, not independent. It relies on the military support of others, and has no standing in regards to its hard power other than small support roles like it did in Afghanistan and Iraq. — schopenhauer1

But then few outside the Baltic States and former Warsaw Pact countries could fathom how belligerent and utterly insane Russia would be with starting wars annexing territories from it's neighbors.

One truly has to simply totally sideline the actual delusional rhetoric that has been repeated in this war. Perhaps people would understand just how crazy it is if we would assume that the prime minister of UK would have similar rhetoric of "All the people of the British Isles should historically and by all logic be part of the same nation" and that the Republic of Ireland is simply an "artificial state" and it should naturally be part of the UK and it's independence has been a huge tragedy. Now a British politician truly saying something like that would be considered insane and briskly removed from office due to his apparent mental problems. Or perhaps an Austrian politician make the argument that Hungary and Austria should become one again.

But with Russia, this is totally natural and actually insignificant for those that want to see absolutely everything in the World just happening because of the evil US. But that's the repeated arguments for hundreds of pages now.

Yet the Ukrainian attack into Kursk shows that evidently the war isn't over.

Yet the Ukrainian attack into Kursk shows that evidently the war isn't over. — ssu

War? There is merely an anti-terror operation in Kursk :wink:

Reportedly the russian military is using a mixture of conscripts, units from the strategic reserve and battle hardened units from other fronts to counter the Ukrainian thrust.

That seems sensible in purely military terms, though using conscripts is politically risky. It'll be interesting to see whether combat on this front if going to look significantly different from what we've mostly seen due to the absence of mines and heavy fortifications.

That seems sensible in purely military terms, though using conscripts is politically risky. — Echarmion

Not at all at this stage. Just look that they aren't from Moscow of St Petersburgh. And the fighting is in Russia.

It'll be interesting to see whether combat on this front if going to look significantly different from what we've mostly seen due to the absence of mines and heavy fortifications. — Echarmion

It makes sense from the Ukrainians if it lures Russian troops away from where they are focusing their assaults.

↪Tzeentch, alternatively, (once again) you deny Ukrainian agency, presuppose that it's not that they want democracy rights transparency freedom and wrestle free from the dominating (regressive opaque authoritarian oppressive) neighbor, — jorndoe

I'm not denying the Ukrainians anything, though it would be pretty silly to expect NATO or EU membership to magically change Ukraine into a functional state.

Anywho, the one who denied the Ukrainians agency is the Ukrainians themselves, when they made the remarkably foolish decision to put their security in the hands of Washington, crossing known Russian red lines while doing so. That was honestly pretty fucking dumb.

Incidentally, you're echoing what came out of the Kremlin. — jorndoe

Reality reflects poorly on the West. One doesn't need to be a Kremlin propagandist to deliver scathing, accurate criticism of our conduct in this conflict.

But with Russia, this is totally natural and actually insignificant for those that want to see absolutely everything in the World just happening because of the evil US. But that's the repeated arguments for hundreds of pages now. — ssu

I mean I agree with all of this. I am not sure why a poster's hatred for the US and its inevitable hegemony after the Cold War would lead to rooting for Russian aggression. What's the end game for such a person? They want to see the rise of Russian hegemony to counter it? But why? What good would authoritarianism do, even if one disagreed with policies from the US. At some point, one must account that even if there are no "good guys", there are certainly "better guys", and Russia ain't that.

It is a fallacy to think that because the US made bad decisions like overthrowing Mosaddeq in the Cold War, THUS the current Iranian regime is fine and dandy because it represents anti-US interests. Only when the US makes the "right" decision (like freeing Western Europe from the Nazis) one can like them, but any bad decision makes them irreconcilably no good any more, and thus one must align with far worse actors on the world stage? Sounds like slightly sociopathic thinking, at the least schizophrenic. Certainly, it's not realistic if you are from a country that barely spends on military. In that case, put in or shut up, might be the most appropriate thing to say.

I mean I agree with all of this. I am not sure why a poster's hatred for the US and its inevitable hegemony after the Cold War would lead to rooting for Russian aggression. What's the end game for such a person? They want to see the rise of Russian hegemony to counter it? But why? What good would authoritarianism do, even if one disagreed with policies from the US. At some point, one must account that even if there are no "good guys", there are certainly "better guys", and Russia ain't that. — schopenhauer1

In a world where everything that happens is a US plot, there is no russian aggression though. It's just an inevitable reflex of US machinations. In such a world, your only choices are to be a "US stooge" or to grind your teeth and make common cause with your strongest neighbors to try and resist the US. There are no "better guys", there's the USA and there's everyone else.

I'm not quite clear on why, in such a world, anyone would choose to not be a "US stooge", given that they all seem to be doing fine, while the alternative seems to be being targeted by coups and embroiled in wars.

, right, don't forget to blame the victims for looking to democracy rights transparency freedom (handy, so as to maintain a narrative).
Are the Russians trembling now that Finland and Sweden joined NATO? Maybe the Kremlin circle is trembling, though it's of a different kind.
The EU presents a carrot, the Kremlin presents a stick, the Ukrainians have chosen.


Ukraine and Russia trade accusations over fire at occupied nuclear plant
^{— Tom Balmforth, Yuliia Dysa, Andrew Cawthorne, Josie Kao · Reuters · Aug 11, 2024}
Fire at cooling tower of Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
^{— AFP · Aug 11, 2024}

Whatever is going on, it would be reassuring if the on-site IAEA personnel had done a close inspection and reported. (Or...was it a CIA plot?)

EDIT: links and such

, the thread established way back that "Everyone bad". ;)

I'm not quite clear on why, in such a world, anyone would choose to not be a "US stooge", given that they all seem to be doing fine, while the alternative seems to be being targeted by coups and embroiled in wars. — Echarmion

Well, Nazism and Communism led to American hegemony. When Communism fell in the Soviet Union, you had Yugoslavian breakup, ethnic wars in Africa, communist or narco-capitalist nations in Latin America, the Middle Eastern mess, and the rise of China. What became of the Soviet Union became an oligopoly that then coalesced into neo-tzarism under the character of Vladimir Putin. So, if you want to call it being a "stooge" to be the better option out of Tzarism, Chinese Communism, or Political Islam, then go right ahead, but your case just strengthens why it's best to ally with the US over the rest.