The talk about 'fighting to the last soldier' reminds me of the words of a President of another country, years ago, when India was, according to some sources, planning to Invade Sri Lanka.

The signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord, so soon after J.R. Jayawardene's declaration that he would fight the Indians to the last bullet, led to unrest in the south.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Indian_intervention_(1987–1990)

In due course, both the Indian "Peace Keeping Forces" and the terrorist army that they were supporting were defeated, the Indians left, and the terrorists were defeated many years later. Ironically the prolonging of the conflict was fuelled by external sources, India and certain other countries providing the facility for import of armaments and for funding.

I am not asking Ukraine to give up, just to agree to a halt in the fighting, and, as a sovereign country, they have to make a decision what they are going to do next: insurgency, subservience, whatever.

Zelensksyy's words seem to indicate that he is playing some sort of a role, and while others are fighting to the last man, he is in his safe house, and there may be the option of 'extracting' him at the last moment if needed, by NATO.

Some of the other news channels give a different, if not accurate, perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-uRaAbjUM

"Greatest intellectual", that's a stretch. "A while now"? Like what, sixty years? That's a pretty good legacy. Imagine if he was born in Russia, criticizing the policies of his him country like that. He probably wouldn't have lasted for sixty days. It's a real nice life being a great proponent of freedom of speech, when you live in a country which allows it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can see how ineffective his criticism is, in Russia, however, such an intellectual may be able to influence the way things go, hence the crackdowns, book banning and so on. It may be just paranoia or just being careful.

On the other hand, not only are RT and Sputnik banned in the West (because they are effective)?
Because they 'spread lies'. Who believes these lies? Only Putin supporters, right? Might as well let them make fools of themselves by lying.

What exactly is Europe and America afraid of in these 'news' channels. The only thing that makes sense is that these channels do tell the truth sometimes, draw attention to verifiable details and that is most inconvenient.

But of course we could talk about one if not the most obscenely rich and powerful, Vladimir Putin. — ssu

I thought capitalists want people to be rich (and powerful).

Chomsky has condemned this Russian war clearly and unequivocally. — Manuel

He is a captive critic.

Does anyone know what's going on in this world anymore? And now that all the soldiers know the enemy, who wants to kill and die for warlords anymore. 21st century war is lazy and lumbering. GOOD.

Tom Southern, WIRED (Mar 10, 2022) writes:

The Spectacular Collapse of Putin’s Disinformation Machinery

It seems Putin has a vision of (or for) Russia as among the grand nations of the world, an assertive force to be heard and reckoned with on the world stage, respected/heeded throughout.

Of course a nuclear-weapons power with a large military is to be reckoned with.
Who in their right mind would want to invade Russia?

Ukraine seeking NATO membership violates said vision, though.
And so, Ukraine is a victim of Putin's vision (Russia isn't facing an invasion threat), though it seems unlikely they'd ever attain NATO membership.

It's not so much that anyone is out to humiliate Russia here as such, more like Ukraine is looking elsewhere than Russia, taking their own steps forward as a sovereign state.
Yet, the Ukrainians are the real victims on the ground here, not the generals in the Kremlin.

I came across this video, thought I would share it. I never worried about supremacists but this is a little worrying. I suppose it is an internal thing for Ukraine to handle.

More important is, why did TIME do such a video, about a year ago? What was its purpose? To draw Putin's attention? To expose the West to these 'Malitia' so they would understand the concept? To damage Ukraine's reputation? These are all questions worth asking. Why did it show up in my suggested videos list?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy910FG46C4

"It's like the Great Germany of before" Robin

These figures look even worse I'd you include Belarus and Moldova.



The program was mentioned in public documents, numerous times. Hence all the super sleuths "confirming" the story by "uncovering" public documents on the lab. In 2010, US financed a nefarious upgrade to a BSL-3 facility, which they ingeniously hid from the public with a press release and ribbon cutting ceremony to make it look like they weren't hiding anything.

Obviously, the West was already planning its anti-Russian coup of Yanukovych, who, of course, was totally independent and not beholden to Russia at all, just like Lukashanko, but whose ouster by fake NATO-funded nationwide protests was an attack on Russia. Why else would the US start building the bioweapons lab before they ousted the Russian backed leadership? So you see, this just proves they were planning on attacking Russia even back then!

They further covered their tracks by letting journalists tour the facility, and, most diabolical of all, had Russian scientists working there to diffuse suspicion.

Unfortunately, Nuland had to mention the top secret military program (the type of thing diplomats are always told about) because otherwise she could get in trouble for perjury. Now, you might say, "you can't get charged for perjury about classified information in public hearings," but they probably didn't classify it to keep it secret. Very suspicious.

:roll:

Your blind faith in capitalism is noted, but the charge involved impoverishment, not a failure to get richer.

Why not "Stop, Ukraine". "Stop, Putin". "You will have to raze out city to the ground" - Zelenskyy (Sky News) . I this suicidal or not? I don't see this as an exit strategy.

As for Putin, I do not see an exit strategy, let's see how smart he really is to get out of this one.

I quote below an obviously a pro-NATO/US website (not necessarily pro-Ukraine.) Propagandists are smart, but they don't have to be smart in a world where people can't tell the difference between RT and FOX news. Intentions will usually show. Hope you read between the lines.

The U.S. has begun quietly preparing for a Ukrainian government in exile although it’s unlikely that that would be led Zelensky, who seems intent on staying in Kiev. Presumably his would-be successor has already left the capital for the relative safety of Lviv in the west or even Poland, ready to lead Ukraine from a distance if Zelensky is assassinated. — Hot Air

Ukrainian government in exile - is it true? Here is what CNN says:

(CNN)US and European officials have been discussing how the West would support a government in exile helmed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should he have to flee Kyiv, Western officials told CNN.

The discussions have ranged from supporting Zelensky and top Ukrainian officials in a potential move to Lviv in western Ukraine, to the possibility that Zelensky and his aides are forced to flee Ukraine altogether and establish a new government in Poland, the officials said — CNN

.

US and Europe weigh plans for Ukrainian government in exile

By Natasha Bertrand and Kylie Atwood, CNN

Updated 0637 GMT (1437 HKT) March 7, 2022 — CNN

So, going by Reuters, the deal the Kremlin offers is something like ...

• Russia halts military operations in Ukraine
• Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
• Ukraine change its constitution to enshrine neutrality
• Ukraine acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory
• Ukraine recognize the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states

How about this instead?

• Russia ends their military presence in Ukraine
• Ukraine grants the Russian parliament veto right on Ukraine becoming a NATO member
• Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine
• Russia recognizes Ukraine as an independent state
• Russia rebuilds (or pays for rebuilding) what they ruined in Ukraine
• Russia returns (or pays for) what they took from Ukrainians

Think that'll fly? :) Not likely.

No. Not likely at all. That's rather the point. If we were talking about what the deal ought to be then it'd be.

1. Russian military fucks off and leaves Ukraine alone.
2.... there is no 2

...but as this isn't a Hollywood film, Ukraine has to choose between the deal on the table or continued bloodshed.

Since the deal on the table represents what is de facto the case already, it's nothing short of warmongering for agents outside of Ukraine to be encouraging them continue their defence instead of taking it.

Putin will never compromise. You can’t negotiate with terrorism.

Putin will never compromise. You can’t negotiate with terrorism. — Wayfarer

So I guess the International Centre for Counterterrorism, Chatham House, and Professor of Defense studies at King's College don't know what they're talking about. If only they'd come to you first.

https://icct.nl/event/negotiating-with-terrorists/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/01/we-do-not-negotiate-terrorists-why

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5177-faurenegotiating-w-terrorist--a-discrete-form-of

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2007-01-01/negotiating-terrorists

You going to fight him are you? Or are you going sit in your fucking armchair and agitate for more Ukrainians to die upholding your naïve principles?

Since the deal on the table represents what is de facto the case already, it's nothing short of warmongering for agents outside of Ukraine to be encouraging them continue their defence instead of taking it. — Isaac

On the contrary, it is war mongering for you and the other guys #trollinforPutin to support the aggressor like you do, since if Putin leaves this conflict with whatever territories he wants, it would give incentives for people to invade their neighbour the world over. Your "surrender already" line is the most dangerous for the world, one that leads to many many wars.

if Putin leaves this conflict with whatever territories he want — Olivier5

Territories he already has. He's asking for Crimea which is de facto already part of Russia, and independence in Donbass which is already de facto the case under the Minsk agreement.

it would give incentives for people to invade their neighbour the world over. — Olivier5

And if Putin wins with NATO powerless to stop it? What message do you think that will send? We can all come up with contingencies which would be bad.

Territories he already has. — Isaac

That he already sized by war, yes. He can lose them too.

And if Putin wins with NATO powerless to stop it? — Isaac

NATO is not willing to get involved, which is not the same thing as being powerless. If Putin won this war, it would have the same effect as the Soviet suppression of the 1956 revolution in Budapest, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968: quash democratic aspirations in this part of the world for a generation.

That he already sized by war, yes — Olivier5

All territory is seized by war.

If Putin won this war, it would have the same effect as the Soviet suppression of the 1956 revolution in Budapest, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968: quash democratic aspirations in this part of the world for a generation. — Olivier5

And you think that's a good thing?

All territory is seized by war. — Isaac

Indeed, and all territory can be lost by war.

And you think that's a good thing? — Isaac

Nope. I think that's a bad thing, reason for which I'd rather see him lose this war.

Nope. I think that's a bad thing. — Olivier5

So what's it got to do with your argument?

So far we have.

You: Ukraine should keep fighting because a bad thing could happen if they agree to terms

Me: But a bad thing could happen if they don't agree to terms

You: Yes

A bad thing could happen if they agree to terms, a bad thing could happen if they don't. So your argument for why they shouldn't agree to terms can't just be because a bad thing might happen if they do, can it? You need to provide more than that. You're trying to justify continued war here. All the bloodshed and destruction that goes along with it. Such justification needs a little more than a balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences.

Bad things can always happen. But to disincentivise ie punish aggression is generally perceived as a good thing in geopolitics.

If Ukraine fights on, it has some reasonable hope of regaining territory and forcing its will onto Putin. I suppose that is why they keep it on. What's your explanation?

If Ukraine fights on, it has some reasonable hope of regaining territory and forcing its will onto Putin — Olivier5

Yep. It also has a reasonable hope of losing hundreds more of its people and not getting anything more than it's already got. Again, simply presenting one of the two options doesn't constitute an argument for it.

I suppose that is why they keep it on. — Olivier5

I didn't ask you why they keep on fighting. I'm quite well aware of their motives. I might well feel the same way if I were in their shoes. I'm asking you why you encourage them and vehemently suppress any discussion of alternatives.

You said...

f Putin leaves this conflict with whatever territories he wants, it would give incentives for people to invade their neighbour the world over. — Olivier5

Let's look at this claim in the light of...

NATO is not willing to get involved — Olivier5

So . Your claim is that other countries, seeing that Ukraine fought back, will be deterred from invading in a way that they wouldn't be if Ukraine agreed to terms? Why would, say China, assume , say Taiwan, would copy whatever Ukraine choose to do here? Why would Ukraine's response give them any insight at all into what Taiwan - a completely different country - might do if invaded?

I could understand your suggestion if it were about the international response - that would apply to Taiwan as much as to Ukraine - but the international response seems not to be what you're talking about since you're clear NATO won't get involved, so we're talking purely about Ukraine. why on earth would the specific circumstances in Ukraine influence something like China's strategic decisions about Taiwan?

Do you imagine the intelligence agencies reporting all their highly specific details about Taiwan's military capabilities, political powers, economic buffers etc, deciding the time's not yet right to invade on the basis of this complex military and economic assessment... and then thinking "ah...but Ukraine lost it's war...maybe we'll have a crack after all"

Such justification needs a little more than a balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences. — Isaac

'Good luck with that.' he ironises. Perhaps a (non-consequential) moral principle is what you need, lacking omniscient foresight? Perhaps a free society is worth dying for, worth risking nuclear war for?

'Good luck with that.' he ironises. — unenlightened

Indeed. And then goes on to do exactly that...

Perhaps a free society is worth dying for, worth risking nuclear war for? — unenlightened

So Ukraine's win will result in a 'free society'? How has that in any way sidestepped the "balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences"?

As has already been shown, Ukraine's performance on the corruption index was on a par with both Russia and Belarus (Russian puppet). Reconstruction is already being linked to crippling IMF and EMF loans tied to restructuring away from social welfare toward freer markets. A NATO-friendly Ukraine would certainly destabilise the region and open it up to greater influence from America (whose track record on 'freedom' is shady at best).

I can see a very minor gain at best (poking Putin in the eye), for a tremendous loss of life and absolutely no guarantee the exact same gain couldn't be achieved the following year anyway by more effective sanctions and trade restrictions based on demands for greater democratic institutions in Russia.

I think it's very problematic invoking a kind of virtue ethics when it comes to the action of entire countries. Countries are artificial entities of law, they don't have moral interests, there's no moral component to Ukraine keeping its current territory. There is, however a moral element to the prevention and cessation of war.

You just keep going, long after you stopped making sense. That's interesting.

You bring up some good points I'll try to respond to later.

However, with all the different threats of the conversation overlapped, I think I'll briefly structure the argument myself, certainly @Isaac, and others, are making.

The first question is who are we talking to?

This is a discussion ... Putin's not in this discussion, the war on the ground is not going to won on social media. It doesn't matter how many retired generals and colonels the West puts on TV to say Ukraine is going to win (which they base on absolutely nothing), if Ukraine simply can't win. The more-or-less official position from actual Western officials (who do have lot's of intelligence and so can base their statements on something) is that Ukraine can wage an insurgency ... but that assumes losing the conventional war. US won the conventional war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Now, is this offer to the Ukrainians, to turn their country into an Afghanistan or Libya style failed state a good faith offer? Does it serve Ukrainian interests or does it serve the US interest to "bleed the Russians" by giving them an Afghanistan, which Western officials aren't even really coy about stating is their goal and strategy.

Furthermore, is years or decades of insurgency--which the most fanatical elements (who have no qualms about murdering anyone on "their own side" who disagrees with them; and the whole point of an insurgency is to have a murder machine, so if all you have is a murder machine every moderate looks like a nail needing murdering) will quickly take over, meaning the neo-Nazi's will run it--really a good outcome for Ukraine? Does that really serve any Ukrainian interests?

This is the policy: pump handheld missile systems into Ukraine which cannot possibly win the conventional war with Russia who will just "see your javelin and raise you thermobaric destruction of the entire area" and, critically, infantry cannot possibly assault dug-in locations, so any area the Russians want to defend they will be able to defend ... but if the handheld systems can't win the conventional war, what's their real purpose?

1. Advertise the effectiveness of these weapons for weapons sales. Conflicts are first and foremost an advertisement for different weapons systems, and this is the only reason every EU country is "sending their weapons" as they'll want not only those sweet, sweet views on facebook but also the positive association built up in social media between "Ukrainian resistance" and "peace loving". In 2 weeks, ATGM's and Manpads have become symbols of peace. But at how much Ukrainian blood pays for this advertisement?

2. The US policy, as described by Nuland before the 2014 in a leaked phone call discussing the coup and "who's their man" they'll place in power ... is "Fuck the EU". This war indeed fucks the EU in all sorts of ways. EU leaders seem to just love getting fucked by the US, more or less drop their drawers and bend over every time the US comes to town. Ok, American's can smile about that, but does it help the Ukrainians?

3. Give Russia they're "Afghanistan" (aka. their own constant arms commercial ... which also creates instability putting upwards pressure on oil prices and pretty much all commodities that then pay handsomely for said war commercial).

Now, given this purpose of US, NATO and EU policy ... is that somehow excusing Russia.

Certainly, Russian could have just lead with it's own economic sanctions of it's own (that could have actually prevented war, see how long EU could last without gas).

The difference is that bad mouthing Putin in some online group think is mostly false (as a truly evil person in charge of thousands of nuclear weapons would use them all tomorrow) and is not constructive anyways ... it's not going to change Putin's mind.

If you can't talk Putin out of the war effort for just "moral reasons" and no concessions from anyone, then it's basically like just talking to a big rock that's blocking your road.

You go to other people who could help you move the giant boulder and, if Western media is to believed as a sane basis of decision making, then people just join in your frustrated expletives about rock ... but aren't going to help you move it, but for sure the rock is fucking obstacle, is somehow a righteous movement.

So you go back to the rock and yell at it directly as that seems to be what everyone wants, but the rock isn't persuaded to move.

So you go back to the group of people that can help move the rock and they're just like "holy crap, fucking bitch ass rock fucking with your jive train, you totally have a right to move that rock, I'm posting this to social media right now,"

No amount of social media posting is going to move that rock. When you realize this you go back are like "ok cool, appreciated making me the greatest hero social media has ever seen for defending my right to move the rock from the path out of my house, but the rock is still there." Ok, feeling that they may indeed be hypocrites, they start supplying you with the tools to move the rock yourself (and posting that on social media while doing nothing to change the rocks actual location), and it's not really a question about tools but of man power and team work. You have now a bunch of stuff, and the rock is still there.

So you finally start complaining about no one actually helping you. What do they say?

"Woe, woe, woe, hold your horses," (which if you had you could maybe have moved the rock, but you don't have and you can't get because anyone seen giving you horses may start World War III), "We didn't cause this problem, you have a right to move the rock, and we totally respect that and totally want you to move it to get your truck out to go do your work and live a normal life, but we have nothing to do with the rock, rock did that to you. Did our policies lead to the rock falling off the cliff and landing in your driveway to begin with, sure maybe, but we're in the here and now and ontologically speaking we're not rock, rock is over there and we're over here; totally different things and not connected in anyway."

"Go talk to the fucking rock."

So Ukraine's win will result in a 'free society'? How has that in any way sidestepped the "balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences"? — Isaac

Well this is my understanding of a non-consequential morality. One does what is right with the understanding that it will usually fail; that no good deed ever goes unpunished. This is why what is right is different from what is expedient. Ukraine fights and probably loses, because 'better dead than red'. Or perhaps, better to die in the gas chamber than to operate the gas chamber.

And to update on the military situation ... it's possible Russia is just incompetently blundering to victory.

... Or it's possible one of its many generals can read, maybe even Putin himself can read, and they've actually bothered to read, at least one of them one time in a decades long career in the military, the classic text of strategic warfare.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

"In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity"

"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."

"Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate."

"""
There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.

Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:

1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain.
"""

"Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley."

"The greatest victory is that which requires no battle." (... maybe why Putin made a reasonable offer before the war started ... maybe would have just accepted people accepting his offer.)

"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.
Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting." (this obviously didn't happen, but could have in those more-or-less calm first days of the war; it's literally only the social media encouraging bloodshed without understanding anything that prevented a negotiated settlement in my opinion.)

It all comes from this Chinese book this guy wrote back in the day ... but, certainly an inferior civilization we can just ignore.