How could you know my qualifications, or his for that matter? He could be just another clown, for all you know. — Olivier5

You've told me yours before and his are written in the article, and the quote source.

I told you about my qualifications? You must confuse me with someone else.

Yep. So many ways this could have been avoided, all the way from Russian appeasement one one side of the spectrum to bulwarking Ukraine on the other. It's hard to see anything other than malfeasance. Even with gross incompetence you'd expect some of their actions to have gone in Ukraine's favour. — Isaac

Yes it is puzzling like an accident waiting to happen and someone waiting for that accident to happen.
I hope it ends soon.

but if it turns out that's what the Russians mean then I don't see how that changes things. — Isaac

By taking a bite out of Ukraine one bit at a time. But that doesn't matter I guess. Sorry for the people living in those places not being able to be the Ukrainians they want to be, but that doesn't matter to you I guess? Relocate yourself into an authoritarian regime, is that something you would like to do? And how about Russia then falling back, gathering strength, and invading again at a later date, how do we know Putin won't do that? I mean, this is literally the second invasion, even though it's bigger.

What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently — Isaac

How can you even confirm that? And do those Ukrainians not have a say in this?

so why anyone would cheer on the idea of continuing a bloody war just in the vain hope of avoiding such an outcome is beyond me. — Isaac

No one is cheering anything. You seem to use that argument all the time when someone stands on the side of Ukrainians fighting for their right to independence and freedom from Russia. Maybe it's easy to take freedom and independence for granted if you live in a nation where everyone takes it for granted, but for people who's just begun to feel free of the previous Soviet regime, looking to a brighter future for themselves, they might just rather die than give up that freedom to another dictator.

And if civilians are getting killed, that's pure brutal terrorism from Russia, which means you argue for giving in to demands by someone killing civilians. Why do you think police forces like SWAT don't give in to demands by a perpetrator holding people hostage? Because it tells perpetrators that it works for getting them what they want. If killing civilians gets Russia what they want, they'll will keep doing it. The only thing that helps is to have no positive outcome for Russia for doing so. That killing civilians leads to worse outcomes for Russia. It also informs Russia that any future conflict where they do the same would lead to the same bad outcomes for themselves. Imagine if they invaded another nation in the future and since they got what they wanted with Ukraine they use the same strategy of bombing civilians until they get what they want.

Avoiding bloodshed has more dimensions than just doing anything to avoid it. It's not that simple and it also doesn't mean people cheer for it.

Via Mike Davis:

On the other shore, Biden conducts a nonstop seance with Dean Acheson and all the ghosts of Cold Wars past. The White House is visionless in the wilderness it helped to create. All the think tanks and genius minds that supposedly guide the Clinton-Obama wing of the Democratic Party are in their own way as lizard-brained as the soothsayers in the Kremlin. They can’t imagine any other intellectual framework for declining American power than nuclear-tipped competition with Russia and China. (One could almost hear the sigh of relief as Putin lifted the mental burden of having to think global strategy in the Anthropocene). In the end, Biden has turned out to be the same warmonger in power that we feared Hilary Clinton would be. Although Eastern Europe now distracts, who can doubt Biden’s determination to seek confrontation in the South China Sea – waters far more dangerous than the Black Sea?

Meanwhile the White House seems to have almost casually chucked its weak commitment to progressivism into the trash. A week after the most frightening report in history, one that implied the coming decimation of poor humanity, climate change rated nary a mention in the State of the Union. (How could it compare to the transcendental urgency of rebuilding NATO?) And Trayvon Martin and George Floyd are now just roadkill rapidly vanishing from sight in the rear-view mirror of the presidential limousine as Biden rushes around reassuring the cops that he’s their best friend.

...We are living through the nightmare edition of ‘Great Men Make History’. Unlike the high Cold War when politburos, parliaments, presidential cabinets and general staffs to some extent countervailed megalomania at the top, there are few safety switches between today’s maximum leaders and Armageddon. Never has so much fused economic, mediatic and military power been put into so few hands. It should make us pay homage at the hero graves of Aleksandr Ilyich Ulyanov, Alexander Berkman and the incomparable Sholem Schwarzbard.

https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/thanatos-triumphant

A fun exploration to look up the names he mentions.

Regarding the bolded bit, that's a thought I had myself - Biden should be thanking Putin for finally providing him - and the rest of the West - a good old fashioned war to take everyone's minds off the failing systematic capacities of the West.

Yes it is puzzling like an accident waiting to happen and someone waiting for that accident to happen. — FreeEmotion

Armchair geopoliticians and wannabe generals tend to overestimate their own capacity to predict the future and see things coming.

Armchair geopoliticians and wannabe generals tend to overestimate their own capacity to predict the future and see things coming. — Olivier5

So true...

The Russians obviously can't win this one. They are being bled to death, their army is humiliated, and the country is soon going to be bankrupt. — Olivier5

Lol.

You guys think Russia will have no economic problem? Really?

You are indeed amusing.

By taking a bite out of Ukraine one bit at a time. — Christoffer

What evidence have you that they'd do this and is it sufficient to justify continued bloodshed?

Relocate yourself into an authoritarian regime, is that something you would like to do? — Christoffer

I provided the latest indices of corruption. Russia scores marginally higher than Ukraine. Democracy isn't the be all and end all of human flourishing. Freedom from Russian puppet-mastery doesn't mean freedom from all forms of authoritarianism.

And how about Russia then falling back, gathering strength, and invading again at a later date, how do we know Putin won't do that? — Christoffer

We don't. Shall we sacrifice an entire generation of young men on the off-chance?

What little measures there are of such things indicate the average Ukrainian will be no worse off in a Russian puppet state than they are currently — Isaac


How can you even confirm that? And do those Ukrainians not have a say in this? — Christoffer

It has nothing to do with average Ukrainians' wishes at this stage, there will be no referenda no election manifestos, this is about what the current sitting Ukrainian authorities should do based in the information they currently have. Continued war in the vain hope of winning, or give those regions independence and risk them coming under Russian influence. That's the choice.

No one is cheering anything. You seem to use that argument all the time when someone stands on the side of Ukrainians fighting for their right to independence and freedom from Russia. — Christoffer

Yep. Is it the word 'cheering' you take offense to. I might have said 'supporting'. Equally unjustified. The average Ukrainian is fucked either way. Yoke of Russian authority, yoke of Western financial indebtedness. The difference is that one way doesn't have half of them die first.

And if civilians are getting killed, that's pure brutal terrorism from Russia — Christoffer

No, it's as much Ukrainian decisions to arm civilians, egged on by the Star Wars version of warfare painted in the media. Funny how when Israel kills civilian Palestinians its all a complex issue muddied by the blurred line between resistance fighter and civilian in Palestine, but when Russia do it the line suddenly becomes crystal clear. Where's the call for sanctions against Israel?

The only thing that helps is to have no positive outcome for Russia — Christoffer

Great. How do we ensure that? And exactly how many lives is it worth in trying?

Couldn't resist. It was practically gift-wrapped.

You guys think Russia will have no economic problem? Really? — Olivier5

Nobody here has said the sanctions and the cost of the war itself don't have immense economic impacts.

wrote a few key points about the economic impacts.

The question about the sanctions and economic impacts are:

1. Will they actually stop the war somehow
2. Will they be effective long term to "punish" or "weaken" Russia
3. Will increase in commodity prices and re-orienting to China / India make a neutral (or even positive) economic outcome for Russia.

True, China will be buying at a discount ... but if the prices are sky high internationally, then selling at a discount may still be far higher profit anyways.

... And, last I checked, the Germans and the entire EU are still buying Russian gas at top Euro.

What evidence have you that they'd do this and is it sufficient to justify continued bloodshed? — Isaac

Because this is what they've done since 2014. Would you give up your home and your life as you know it to bend down to authoritarian control? At what point would you fight back?

I provided the latest indices of corruption. Russia scores marginally higher than Ukraine. Democracy isn't the be all and end all of human flourishing. Freedom from Russian puppet-mastery doesn't mean freedom from all forms of authoritarianism. — Isaac

Do you actually call Ukraine authoritarian compared to what Russia is today? The latest acts of the Russian regime against its own people just show exactly how authoritarian it actually is. And democracy, as it is normally being used as a term, is about more than just elections, it's about freedom of speech, independent media, freedom of movement etc. Neither exist in Russia and especially now, there's nothing of that. You also ignore all the work Ukraine has been doing to fight back against national corruption, compared to Russia not doing much at all to fight theirs.

What exactly is your argument here? That "because democracy doesn't mean everything is good, there's really not that different from living in an authoritarian regime without freedom of speech?" How is this in any shape or form a rational argument?

We don't. Shall we sacrifice an entire generation of young men on the off-chance? — Isaac

You argue for giving into a dictator's demands to stop the current bloodshed. What about the blood under the boot of a regime? Would you have argued the same in the rise of Nazy Germany? "Give in to Hitler's demand, just stop the bloodshed for now, it's not worth your freedom. Give them your freedom so you can live". That turned out great.

Can you name any authoritarian regime that treated people well after they forced them to surrender or be killed?

You still don't understand what the Ukrainians themselves fight for, you seem to be unable to understand what fighting for freedom actually means.

It has nothing to do with average Ukrainians' wishes at this stage, there will be no referenda no election manifestos, this is about what the current sitting Ukrainian authorities should do based in the information they currently have. Continued war in the vain hope of winning, or give those regions independence and risk them coming under Russian influence. That's the choice. — Isaac

You mean that the Ukrainian authorities shouldn't do what the people want? So if the people want to fight for their freedom, defend their nation against an aggressor killing their people and threatening their independence, the authorities shouldn't represent their people's will and fight?

Maybe you want to be under the boot but they don't. That's what they're fighting for. And blaming Ukrainian authorities or the people of Ukraine for any of the civilians getting killed is fucking moronic. Russia is the aggressor, Russia holds the blame here. You cannot blame Ukraine for not stopping the war by giving in to the demands of their invaders. That's as backwards as thinking about this can possibly get.

Yep. Is it the word 'cheering' you take offense to. I might have said 'supporting'. Equally unjustified. The average Ukrainian is fucked either way. Yoke of Russian authority, yoke of Western financial indebtedness. The difference is that one way doesn't have half of them die first. — Isaac

You still ignore what the Ukrainians want themselves. Stop thinking for them for a moment, stop speaking for them in your internet armchair and listen to what they are actually saying, what they want with their life and nation. No one is cheering for bloodshed, no one is supporting it, what we support is standing up against an aggressor taking freedom and independence away from a people who just want to be their own nation.

It's kinda disgusting that you speak "for them" in the way you do. That you know what's best for them and how they should act. You continue to criticize how the west influences the world, how the US is bad, how NATO is bad, but when the east (Russia) demands and wants to control you're like "LET THEM!" and when I say you should listen to what Ukrainians want with their own life and nation and what they feel about the situation, you ignore that and point out "what they should do", just like any other figure from the west that you complain shouldn't interfere in others business.

So what's it gonna be? Should the west tell Ukrainians what they should do? Should Russia tell them what they should do? Should they be able to decide for themselves? And if the west listens to what Ukrainians want to do and supports their choices and backs them up on their choices, how is that bad? Isn't that exactly how it should be done?

No, it's as much Ukrainian decisions to arm civilians — Isaac

So all the Ukrainian civilians who want to fight for their nation, even those flying home from all over the world just to fight for their nation, that's the Ukrainian authorities' fault?

Funny how when Israel kills civilian Palestinians its all a complex issue muddied by the blurred line between resistance fighter and civilian in Palestine — Isaac

No it's not, Israel killing civilians, especially using phosphorus bombs, is a war crime. Anyone thinking that's a complex issue doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Where's the call for sanctions against Israel? — Isaac

You don't think there are sanctions? Or that people don't care? I live in one of the only countries in the world that actually acknowledges Palestine as its own state. So whatever the fuck others do I don't care. It doesn't however have anything to do with the current war in Ukraine and if you think you can use that as a sort of rhetorical trap in an idea to show some hypocritical perspective in which people support Isreal in one case and Ukraine in another, that's not gonna fly with me since I criticize Isreal in the same way I do Russia when it comes to aggressions. Isreal is long overdue for a Hague court trial.

So don't use other conflicts to back up your ill-conceived arguments about what Ukraine should do. They want freedom, independence and not what Russia and Putin stand for. They fight to protect that freedom. A fight that for some can be worth more than the lives lost since it will inform the rest of that nation's existence and the lives of everyone living in that nation for decades or centuries to come. But you seem unable to understand such things or to actually listen to Ukrainians and what they want. If Ukrainians want the war to end, they're not pleading to the authorities to give into Putin's demands, they're pleading to Russia to stop the aggression, to stop the invasion.

Stop being confused as to who's the bad apple here. Stop blaming the Ukrainians for being invaded and killed, it's a preposterous perspective.

Nobody here has said the sanctions and the cost of the war itself don't have immense economic impacts. — boethius

Good to know we are all in agreement then.

Russian general killed, Ukraine defence ministry claims
Ukrainian intelligence says major general in Russia’s 41st army died outside Kharkiv along with other senior officers

Julian Borger in Washington
Mon 7 Mar 2022 20.51 EST

A Russian general has been killed in fighting around Kharkiv, Ukrainian intelligence has claimed, which would make him the second general the Russian army has lost in Ukraine in a week.

The intelligence arm of the Ukrainian defence ministry said Maj Gen Vitaly Gerasimov, chief of staff of the 41st Army, had been killed outside the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, along with other senior officers.

The ministry also broadcast what it claimed was a conversation between two Russian FSB officers discussing the death and complaining that their secure communications were no longer functioning inside Ukraine.

The investigative journalism agency Bellingcat said it had confirmed Gerasimov’s death with a Russian source. Its executive director, Christo Grozev, said they had also identified the senior FSB officer in the intercepted conversation.

Gerasimov took part in the second Chechen war, the Russian military operation in Syria, and the annexation of Crimea, winning medals from those campaigns.

If confirmed, Gerasimov would be the second Russian general from the 41st Army to die within a week in Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. At the beginning of March, its deputy commander, Major General Andrei Sukhovetsky, was confirmed by Russian media to have been killed.

The loss of top ranking officers has come at a time when much of Putin’s invasion force has become bogged down by logistical problems, poor morale and Ukrainian resistance. The failure of its encrypted communications system could be another severe blow.

So you were just pretending to disagree with me about that. Ok. — Olivier5

Disagreeing about what?

Obviously the sanctions have an impact. But, if they won't cause Russian's to rise up nor affect the Kremlin's war policy, they are irrelevant in ending the war at hand.

Now, if you're talking long term economic impact, it easily can increase Russia's relative economic strength. It is not a foregone conclusion that sanctions will hurt Russia in the long term.

Commodity price increase is good for Russia ... they have nearly all the critical commodities which means they not only make bank on selling those commodities at historic prices, but also they can easily subsidize the consumption of those commodities for their own citizens.

Who commodity price increases isn't good for is Western nations, where key commodity price increases can easily cause inflation and recession and social discontent.

From a geo-political strategic perspective, the West's power is in decline and this war in Ukraine could easily be a brilliant geo-political strategic move (in terms of pure power politics).

The narrative that this is bad for Russia because the Western media doesn't like Putin even more than before, may not be a true narrative and things far more complex than they seem. Yes, the western media disapproves, but, no, Putin can't be cancelled like some "toxic" male executive trying to host Jeopardy .

Because this is what they've done since 2014. — Christoffer

No, what they've done since 2014 is annex Crimea and assist separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk. The rest is speculation on intent.

Would you give up your home and your life as you know it to bend down to authoritarian control? — Christoffer

No, but as I've indicated, measures of well being in Belarus are no worse than in Ukraine. Crimea recieved s huge boost in public infrastructure investment after 2014, and reports of satisfaction are at least mixed https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2020-04-03/russia-love.
There's no indication that the Eastern regions will suffer some kind of authoritarian nightmare compared to their current situation.

Do you actually call Ukraine authoritarian compared to what Russia is today? — Christoffer

No, I said democracy is not the only measure of human flourishing. As I've shown there aren't any conclusive indicators that life for the average Ukrainian would be overall worse as a Russian protectorate than their current state.

You mean that the Ukrainian authorities shouldn't do what the people want? — Christoffer

No, I mean the Ukrainian authorities will not and could not possibly assess what their people want because they lack both the time and the facility to carry out any sort of referendum or election. We are all assuming what they want because nobody can ask in any statistically robust way. A few vox pops on the street is not a mandate.

listen to what they are actually saying — Christoffer

From what source? Which source gives me robust data on what 'the Ukrainians' are saying?

what we support is standing up against an aggressor taking freedom and independence away from a people who just want to be their own nation. — Christoffer

The question isn't one of support for the goal (which we all agree with), it's one of support for the method.

if the west listens to what Ukrainians want to do and supports their choices and backs them up on their choices, how is that bad? — Christoffer

The dispute is over the 'if'. One could say "if Putin just wants to protect pro-Russian groups in Donetsk, and if he can't see any other way than war, then he's doing the right thing, how's that bad?". We would dispute them over the 'if'.

So all the Ukrainian civilians who want to fight for their nation, even those flying home from all over the world just to fight for their nation, that's the Ukrainian authorities' fault? — Christoffer

If they're encouraging it, yes. Arming civilians is fraught with legal problems in war, namely...

To protect civilians, combatants – and anyone directly participating in hostilities – must distinguish themselves from civilians in all military operations by wearing identifiable insignia and carrying arms openly.

And...

Parties to an armed conflict must "at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives".

Both from https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-rules-of-war-FAQ-Geneva-Conventions

:up:

Do you know how genocidal the war in Checnya was? — ssu

Yes. And tragically, after some initial restraint, that is the tactic to which he has defaulted in Ukraine: heavy bombardment of cities intended to break the morale of the resistance and drive out the civilian population that might lend support to them.

But here I was thinking about Putin's domestic concerns. The real threat to his power comes not from NATO, but from his own surrounding. However cracked he might be at the moment, anyone who clawed his way to the top of the power hierarchy in Russia and stayed there for 22 years has this knowledge in his bones.

Many in Russia still don't believe what's going on and believe instead the propaganda on TV. But that can't last forever. A North Korea-like isolation cannot be instituted in days or weeks (although the authorities are taking steps in that direction). Information will filter in eventually. Perhaps more importantly, people will feel the full brunt of the sanctions within the next months (not soon enough for Ukraine though).

Putin's social contract was to deliver stability, relative prosperity, and a sense of national pride (at the expense of freedom and much else). He has tried to compensate for the gradual loss of the former by doubling down on the latter. Crimea was a major coup for him, but that has since evaporated, partly due to the sanctions. And now, in the space of just a couple of weeks, he has ruined it all. Lies about the NATO threat and the dastardly Neo-Nazis can only go so far, and the economy will soon be in ruins. So what does he have left? He will have to reformat the arrangement. His only chance to stay in power and secure a lasting legacy is to fashion himself into a new Stalin, if he can. Which is to say, terrorize the population into awe and submission. And that will go double for the occupied Ukraine. Soviet-era persecutions of "Ukrainian nationalists" come to mind...

The narrative that this is bad for Russia because the Western media doesn't like Putin even more than before, may not be a true narrative and things far more complex than they seem. Yes, the western media disapproves, but, no, Putin can't be cancelled like some "toxic" male executive trying to host Jeopardy . — boethius

Correct. Russia may be behind in high-tech and, apparently, in conducting large-scale military operations (which, incidentally, isn’t Putin’s fault but the fault of his lazy and unimaginative generals). But it is a big country with a wealth of natural resources and enough intelligent people to devise strategies to counteract Western sanctions.

Russia produces enough grain, meat, fruit and veg to feed its population and the government will make enough money from selling oil, gas, coal, metals, and other materials to China and others, to fund its military.

Unless US-UK stage a coup or something, the government will last for long enough to make Biden’s life difficult.

On the plus side, the sanctions will get rid of some of Russia's super-rich and put a brake on oligarch (or monopolistic) capitalism. So, that’s one development that should be welcomed by all - even though it might go against Wall Street plans. :smile:

Also, greater isolation from the West means greater economic independence from the West and less cultural and political influence from the US. Russians will be able to focus on their own cultural heritage and develop an authentic alternative to American guns-and-drugs gangsta "culture".

So, I definitely don’t think Putin should be “cancelled”. I believe that a US-dominated unipolar world order would be a disaster for humanity. The world needs Russia, India, China, and others to challenge and balance US hegemony.

Moreover, we need to remember that no US presidents were cancelled for deliberately bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. A balanced debate needs to analyze things in the right perspective, not in isolation of everything else.

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia

Germany's forgotten victims - The Guardian

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

Well Putin expressly talked about antisemitism too in denouncing the Ukrainian government. — neomac

Which is another sign of how hypocritical and divorced from reality this Nazi rhetoric is. Just before the invasion, Dmitry Medvedev (former PM and the chairman of Putin's Security Council) gave a speech in which he disparagingly referred to Zelensky's "particular nationality." The expression doesn't translate well from the Russian, but to any Russian, particularly one who've lived in the Soviet Union, that is an immediately recognizable antisemitic dog-whistle.

But yes, let's spend 30 more pages discussing whether Putin's war propaganda has a grain of truth in it. That is obviously the most important question now.

The narrative that this is bad for Russia because the Western media doesn't like Putin even more than before, may not be a true narrative — boethius

This war will likely prove a very bad move for Russia, irrespective of the technical outcome in Kiev. In any case, that is my own prognosis, and it has little to do with the press. Rather it's based on my experience in places like Afghanistan and Kosovo. The USSR got out of Afghanistan humbled and crippled, and the same will most probably happen here.

The USSR got out of Afghanistan humbled and crippled, and the same will most probably happen here. — Olivier5

In both cases their defeat will be because of American support.

Hmm.

No, what they've done since 2014 is annex Crimea and assist separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk. The rest is speculation on intent. — Isaac

And you define that as not being a bite into Ukraine?

No — Isaac

Should be enough as an answer.

measures of well being in Belarus are no worse than in Ukraine. Crimea recieved s huge boost in public infrastructure investment after 2014, and reports of satisfaction are at least mixed — Isaac

How do you know that people won't self censor under the boot? It happens in Russia, why not in Crimea? And why does that matter anyway? You take a bite into Ukraine, install puppets and people are "happy". And Belarus is also not trustworthy, it has a dictator that's a puppet to Russia, you don't think that Belarus has the same kind of information flow? Ukraine is the only true democracy out of these nations. You can jump back in time all you want but that's where Ukraine is now and was improving. You seem to not include progression into your calculation. Where is Russia heading? Where is Belarus heading? You think things will be better for their own people going forward? People are fleeing Russia as we speak because Russia is becoming a totalitarian state. You don't think Belarus will be affected by that, as well as Crimea and the new "bites" Russia took?

No, I said democracy is not the only measure of human flourishing. As I've shown there aren't any conclusive indicators that life for the average Ukrainian would be overall worse as a Russian protectorate than their current state. — Isaac

That has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with corruption. And as mentioned numerous times, Ukraine has been fighting against corruption for a long time, they were actively moving away from that kind of post-Soviet "lifestyle". Democracy is part of being able to fight corruption and as corruption gets lowered, so does democracy's ability to improve life. I'm of course speaking of well-working democracy, that enforces laws of freedom of speech, which is needed to be able to fight corruption. You can't use indexes of how things are in nations that have JUST enforced the results of their corruptions. Do you think those indexes will show the same after 2022 is over? If Russia and Belarus keeps this up, they will fall on those indexes like the Rubel has done. Your comparisons are so flawed and your blatant strawman of the concept of democracy is extremely naive. To what point? What point are you trying to make here? That you "can be authoritarian and also have a happy population"? Sure, for everyone licking Putin's boot, everyone else will be silenced, including people under the power of Lukashenko. You think those voices will be included into the indexes?

No, I mean the Ukrainian authorities will not and could not possibly assess what their people want because they lack both the time and the facility to carry out any sort of referendum or election. We are all assuming what they want because nobody can ask in any statistically robust way. A few vox pops on the street is not a mandate. — Isaac

The people speak for themselves, you can make conclusions based on listening to the collective voices from everyone. You don't have to do a referendum for any of this. Talk to the refuges, do they complain about Zelenskyy, do they complain about the fight? What do people say in Ukraine? Also, look at the actions of the Ukrainian people, what do they do? Do they conduct demonstrations against Zelenskyy and the people in power? There are NO reports on this, nothing to support anything you say about the people of Ukraine not supporting Zelenskyy and the authorities' actions to defend against Russia. Everything points to Ukrainians being overwhelmingly united against Russia. So what in the world are you basing your conclusion on?

You're grasping at straws just to support your conclusion that Ukrainians should accept the boot, give Russia their land, give up freedom and just give in to Putin's demands because people are dying. You are unable to understand the Ukrainians because you don't actually listen to them, you just want to win an argument, whatever apologistic idea it would demand. Listen to them instead of your own words.

From what source? Which source gives me robust data on what 'the Ukrainians' are saying? — Isaac

Turn on the news for once! Check social media accounts from Ukraine, listen to interviews etc. etc. etc. There's basically an overwhelming 24/7 global coverage about the war, interviews being done over and over from a vast amount of sources globally. If you are unable to assess the actual situation through the collective result of that coverage, then you are unable to actually make rational conclusions in this matter. Give me any kind of source that points to anything other than overwhelming support for Zelenskyy and this fight, in and outside of Ukraine.

The question isn't one of support for the goal (which we all agree with), it's one of support for the method. — Isaac

Method? You mean defending against the aggressor? Your method is to kiss their boots and give up their freedom to the glory of Russia. You have zero solutions that the Ukrainians would agree with, based on everything we've seen from the people of Ukraine, outside and inside, so why are you suggesting some method that have no documented support?

Is the method of defense against invading killers a bad method? What should we do instead? Thoughts and prayers? :shade:

One could say "if Putin just wants to protect pro-Russian groups in Donetsk, and if he can't see any other way than war, then he's doing the right thing, how's that bad?". We would dispute them over the 'if'. — Isaac

You are unable to understand Putin's propaganda machine, that's for sure. The west supports Ukraine because the people ask for our help against a violent killing invader. There's little evidence to show that Putin would back down through peace talks or the west putting pressure on him to do so, therefore, defense measures for Ukraine are needed in order for them to survive against a powerful invader. That is the support from the west and beyond. That was the answer to your remarks of "support" for Ukraine. What Putin says is irrelevant, he's the aggressor, he conducts propaganda, silences his own people, do whatever it takes to control the narrative. Anyone taking him seriously have no idea how to rationally deduct valid conclusions in this.

f they're encouraging it, yes. Arming civilians is fraught with legal problems in war, namely... — Isaac

And they are willingly dying for their country and freedom. Are you calling the Ukrainians willing to defend their nation, stupid? That they can't think for themselves, that encouraging defense means luring them into situations they didn't choose for themselves? Are you calling them unable to decide for themselves? If so, when you talk about what the people want, you also mean they cannot decide that either? So Zelenskyy and his authorities can't assess what the people want because all it takes is a little encouragement and you have fooled the entire nation into defending the country and no single one of them can think for themselves?

What the hell are you smoking? The Ukrainians would tell you to shut up if you expressed this directly to them. But this isn't about actual Ukrainians, this is about you trying to win the argument, what is true about their wants and needs is irrelevant to the point that you portray them as unable to make their own decisions or understand the decisions they've made after being encouraged.

To protect civilians, combatants – and anyone directly participating in hostilities – must distinguish themselves from civilians in all military operations by wearing identifiable insignia and carrying arms openly.

And...

Parties to an armed conflict must "at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives". — Isaac

It's the Ukrainian civilians' own choice to fight. No one is forcing them to fight as civilians and most civilians who choose to fight get equipment to do so. You have so little knowledge of what's actually going on in Ukraine that it becomes impossible to discuss these things.

And Putin's forces are the ones who actively shoot at civilians so how can Ukrainians defend themselves against an enemy who doesn't care if they're shooting civilians or not? Then it doesn't matter for the civilians who want to fight that they don't have the necessary gear. You don't seem to understand what a fight for survival is. You're just grasping whatever your think fits your argument without actually doing the rational work to make sense of it.

Listen to the Ukrainian people instead of speaking for them like you are an expert on what they need to do. They choose to fight for their freedom and their nation, they choose it with such overwhelming majority and collective spirit and morale that your argument that they should put down their guns just sounds like Putin apologist bullshit.

But yes, let's spend 30 more pages discussing whether Putin's war propaganda has a grain of truth in it. That is obviously the most important question now. — SophistiCat

No, please don't, I'm tired of fighting that fight against people unable to rationally understand simple authoritarian politics.

In both cases their defeat will be because of American support — frank

In a significant manner, yes, amongst many other factors. The stingers are widely believe to have turned the tide in Afghanistan. But note that the Ukrainians are receiving far more support than the Afghans ever got...

We seem in agreement on the key points.

Certainly Russia doesn't prepare for a US style minimal casualty conflict that it conducted at the start.

In my view, for mostly PR purposes of "easing into conventional warfare"; due to failures in that kind of warfare, even Western talking heads are like "well, Russia's going to have to do better". In some strange way their the underdog in a lot of commentary.

Also easing their own population into the war was certainly a factor.

Now that they are doing what they train for, using their heavy artillery, we'll see if it's effective or not.

Moreover, we need to remember that no US presidents were cancelled for deliberately bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. A balanced debate needs to analyze things in the right perspective, not in isolation of everything else. — Apollodorus

I was going to bring this up too that there was millions of people protesting the war in Iraq before it happened, as it happened, after ... war still happened. Western media seems to suddenly think that criticism of the kind the US gets about wars is a game changer all of a sudden (how many war crimes accusations has the US faced for example). Indeed, in the US voters still tend to pick who they think will best "win" the war.

I don't know if this video has already been linked to in this thread, but just in case it hasn't, here it is. It is a MUST WATCH! It explains better than anything else, in a short time, what this is really all about. Hint: it isn't about Nazis. :wink: It is about what these things are usually about. The video is slightly dated now, but still clarifies the situation greatly. Everyone should see it!

https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE

Apparently, Zelensky has said he is prepared to consider Putin’s four-point request.

Obviously, Zelensky is a professional actor, but unless this is some kind of US-UK deception, it looks like Zelensky – or the oligarchs behind him – has more sense than some “philosophers” on here .... :grin:

In nod to Russia, Ukraine says no longer insisting on NATO membership - AFP

President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine, a delicate issue that was one of Russia's stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbor.
In another apparent nod aimed at placating Moscow, Zelensky said he is open to "compromise" on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that President Vladimir Putin recognized as independent just before unleashing the invasion on February 24.

And you define that as not being a bite into Ukraine? — Christoffer

You didn't just say 'a' bite, you said "one bit at a time" as if it were a process inevitably ending in the subsuming of all Ukraine. I'm just saying there's no evidence that's going to happen. On the table is a Russian Crimea and an independent Donetsk and Luhansk and no membership of NATO.

No — Isaac


Should be enough as an answer. — Christoffer

If you want to avoid the issue, yes. The point is that you simply assume the choice is between authoritarian oppression and a some kind of hippy love-in version of Enlightenment era Europe. We have nothing but your speculation to support this, you've not provided a shred of evidence, nor cited a single informed analyst.

How do you know that people won't self censor under the boot? — Christoffer

The measures are calculated by the United Nations Development Program. I know it must be confusing for you, but those sections of my writing in red are called 'citations'. It's how we demonstrate that we're not just full of shit. If you click on them they take you to the source of the information. Another concept I see you struggle with, but the 'source of information' refers to some outside expert, we use rather than just making any old shit up and then posting it.

Or have the UN been fooled by Putin's propaganda too, he's crafty isn't he!

If Russia and Belarus keeps this up, they will fall on those indexes like the Rubel has done. — Christoffer

No, they won't. They'll get better.

See how this whole citation thing works. We could go on like this forever... or you could cite someone with actual expertise in the field to support this claim, then we've actually got something to talk about other than just pulling speculations out of our arses and expecting them to be taken seriously.

Sure, for everyone licking Putin's boot, everyone else will be silenced, including people under the power of Lukashenko. You think those voices will be included into the indexes? — Christoffer

Yes. as I said, the indices I cited are produced by the United Nations Development Program, they've no cause to submit to dictatorial pressure.

The people speak for themselves, you can make conclusions based on listening to the collective voices from everyone. You don't have to do a referendum for any of this. Talk to the refuges, do they complain about Zelenskyy, do they complain about the fight? What do people say in Ukraine? — Christoffer

There are 41 million people in Ukraine. In what sense does a chat with a specific group of half a dozen of them have any statistically robust value? Have you any idea how large a sample you'd have to take to even have a robust estimate, let alone a mandate. Seriously. Imagine if the UK went into the war in Iraq on the grounds of having chatted to some people on the street and then claiming they spoke for the whole of the UK.

nothing to support anything you say about the people of Ukraine not supporting Zelenskyy — Christoffer

Where have I made any such claim. This habit you have of just ascribing opinions to me is unacceptable. The site has a quote function. If you can't quote me saying the thing you're responding to that should be a good indicator that I didn't say it.

Turn on the news for once! Check social media accounts from Ukraine, listen to interviews etc. etc. etc. — Christoffer

Seriously? Social media. 41 million people's opinions and you think a sweep of social media is going to give sufficient mandate for something as serious as war.

Method? You mean defending against the aggressor? Your method is to kiss their boots and give up their freedom to the glory of Russia. — Christoffer

No, my method is to engage in peace talks with a view to achieving a realistic solution, the same method that's resolved hundred of conflicts.

And they are willingly dying for their country and freedom. Are you calling the Ukrainians willing to defend their nation, stupid? That they can't think for themselves, that encouraging defense means luring them into situations they didn't choose for themselves? Are you calling them unable to decide for themselves? If so, when you talk about what the people want, you also mean they cannot decide that either? So Zelenskyy and his authorities can't assess what the people want because all it takes is a little encouragement and you have fooled the entire nation into defending the country and no single one of them can think for themselves? — Christoffer

Arming civilians without clearly identifying them as military targets is against the Geneva convention. It's that simple. It's against the Geneva convention for a reason, or do we just chuck that out of the window too because it complicates your hero narrative.

It's the Ukrainian civilians' own choice to fight. No one is forcing them to fight as civilians and most civilians who choose to fight get equipment to do so. — Christoffer

It's not about whether they're forced. It's against international law to have combatants who are not clearly uniformed or otherwise identifiable as military targets. If you're advocating breaking international law then on what grounds are you going to condemn Putin. Pick and choose which laws you want to apply as you feel like it?