Putin is a piece of shit. — frank

All the empty smart-arse rhetoric from the Putin apologists in this thread, and yet that is indeed what it comes down to.

A roughly remembered quote from the 3min segment:
" No child should die from starvation today, given the 430 trillions of dollars around the world". — Amity

No child should die from starvation but from the trillions spent on weapons, used in illegal armed conflicts over the world.

For countries that are democracies, it follows that people want war. For those which are not democracies, the people of that country are off the hook.

I had such high hopes when President Barak Obama was elected, but subsequently things changed. Something changed along the way. George W. Bush spoke about 'America's arrogance' many years ago but maybe he changed his mind. Maybe he forgot. Let's say I do not have the same opinion I had of him before. Let's see how President Putin and for that matter, President Biden handle this, and judge for ourselves. No country has outlawed using its forces in an aggressive war yet. Why? I am very disappointed that they do not have the brains (meaning advisors) to avoid armed conflict but maybe it has to so with effects of Covid 19 who knows?

I am not for insulting or disrespecting anyone much less for refusing to take official high-level phone calls.

It's easy. It could go like this, in the sort of detached, ultra-formal way the Russian governments makes its statements:

"Mr. President, we welcome the United States statement that it is 'not interested' in nuclear war. As we have said before, Russia will continue to act to protect its strategic interests, and to achieve its stated objectives. As partners we make a request to respect our decisions as a sovereign nation"

"Mr. President These peace talks with Zelenskyy how is it going?"

" As President Zelenskky has said, he needs more time to consider his options. He may have the requirement to consult with his allies and partners, that is his right. We have nothing to add to this but we need to state that Ukraine's sovereignty must be respected, both by allies and adversaries alike."

Of course President Putin could throw in a bit about Neo-Nazis or bio-weapons and the like. People need to talk after all, the Saudis, the Russians, the Chinese, what could possibly happen by talking?
President Biden could ask if the President Putin is feeling the sanctions yet. Maybe that may be too much.

Cyber-activists/criminals hit war-activists/criminals ...

Anonymous declared a ‘cyber war’ against Russia. Here are the results (Mar 16, 2022)

However, if Ukrainians aren't going to win, the diplomacy now is almost always better than diplomacy tomorrow in this sort of situation. — boethius

So who should be involved in this 'diplomacy' and who should have the most weight? Is it Ukraine - Russia or is it Ukraine-Russia NATO/USA ? Proxy diplomacy?

For countries that are democracies, it follows that people want war. — FreeEmotion

No, it follows that people want security. It's totally wrong-headed, I know, but as long as there are countries who continue to develop arms and increase their military capability, other countries prosperous enough to do so will follow suit.

What can be said? We're a fucked-up species.

I'm beginning to think there are people in here that are truly part of the Russian propaganda machine, apologists for Russia and this war. — Christoffer

I agree that Boethius must be on their payroll. Otherwise, his behavior here makes no logical sense.

Too one-sided a view of right and wrong is what created this situation to begin with. In international politics (and honestly, I could leave out the "international" part) everyone is a piece of shit (excuse my French) and your only choice is which flavor of shit you'd like jammed into your mouth.

It's all about economic prosperity. For whom? Those below the poverty line? The starving of the world?

Many humanitarian crisis are actually caused by conflict. Maybe the current crises will raise awareness of people around the world, I think and put pressure on governments to maybe focus on illegal bloodless coups rather than on war. Maybe that is what started this in the first place.

Conflicts map: I never knew there were so many.

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/maps-and-graphics/2017/04/04/updated-mapped-world-war

In international politics (and honestly, I could leave out the "international" part) everyone is a piece of shit (excuse my French) and your only choice is which flavor of shit you'd like jammed into your mouth. — Tzeentch

You are welcome to go live in North Korea. We'll send you our good wishes and an orange once in a while.

I guess it was the same around Germany in the 30s, lots of people trying to point out the pretty clear reality of what is going on while some people just couldn't accept it. — Christoffer

Plenty of people in the 30's thought that Hitler and Mussolini made a lot of sense.

I don't think anyone has taken for granted what the Russians said, except for one thing: they have repeatedly pointed out they do not want NATO to expand eastward. That doing so nonetheless would lead to war has been repeatedly stated since the 90s even by our own advisors and think tanks. It's only through the lens of "rights" that we can pretend this is solely Russia and Russian imperialism. But it's naive and it's not even the paradigm on which Western countries operate.

Speaking of that imperialism, Russia simply doesn't have the economic basis or military capacity to project an empire so I find such claims divorced from reality. Talk of Russian empire is a form of nationalism, just how the Dutch look favourably on our east India company and Italians talk about the Roman empire and Greeks about the cradle of civilisation.

What's worse is, I think, that the US and NATO were fully aware of provoking the Russians in which Ukraine was nothing more but a pawn. There was never an intent to defend Ukraine against any form of Russian aggression so creating a situation where this became Russia's only viable (in their view) action to take, means US and NATO are complicit in the deaths of innocent Ukrainians.

So what was the end game here? Could've been a couple of things in my view. Either a wish to further intensify sanctions to weaken Russia. Make it spend a lot of money on a, possibly protracted, war. I don't really know and I Wonder if they actually thought that far. I find it more likely that hubris and incompetence have led to this.

Plenty of people in the 30's thought that Hitler and Mussolini made a lot of sense. — Olivier5

I find the following quote the most chilling:

“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”
― Adolf Hitler

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.”
― Adolf Hitler — FreeEmotion

That was part of his cynicism. I believe that in actual fact people do think, which is why a dictator needs to intimidate and misinform his own people.

Come to think of it, the current situation is akin to Hitler's invasion of Austria in March 1938, in an alternative history version where instead of marching unopposed all the way to Vienna, the Germans would have only captured 20% of Austria after three weeks of war, at great cost to their war machine.

The war in Ukraine is a failed Anschluss.

JFC even a murderous war criminal like Kissinger had better foresight than some of the very silly people in here. from 2014:

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them. Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington.

https://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/how-the-ukraine-crisis-ends/

Putin is a piece of shit.
— frank

All the empty smart-arse rhetoric from the Putin apologists in this thread, and yet that is indeed what it comes down to. — Janus

Yep.

Is Putin the only one ? In that case we are done. - Anon.

even a murderous war criminal like Kissinger — StreetlightX

Looks like he has retired.

And hopefully dead soon, probably peacefully, unfortunately.

And of course, the war is accelerating the catastrophe of American-sponsored genocide in Yemen...

New nationwide assessments confirm that 23.4 million people now need assistance – about three of every four people. Among them are 19 million people who will go hungry in the coming months – an increase of almost 20 per cent from 2021 – while more than 160,000 of them will face famine-like conditions. Noting that Yemen relies on commercial imports for 90 per cent of its food and nearly all its fuel, he said one third of its wheat comes from Russia and Ukraine, where the conflict sparked on 24 February may push food prices, which already doubled last year, even higher.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114002

Speaking of that imperialism, Russia simply doesn't have the economic basis or military capacity to project an empire so I find such claims divorced from reality. — Benkei

Trying to invade Ukraine and overthrow the Ukrainian government was totally delusional on divorced from reality. Yet Putin did it.

Having the grandeur thoughts of Novorossija, are also divorced from reality, but really is at the core of the genuine Russian imperialism. Disguised naturally in the "protection" from the evil West. The whole issue of territorial annexations should make it totally clear that it isn't just jingoistic "loonie talk".

I don't think anyone has taken for granted what the Russians said, except for one thing: they have repeatedly pointed out they do not want NATO to expand eastward. — Benkei

And that is the pretext Putin surely uses and many believe want to continue their self-flogging. Yet simply the Russian rhetoric makes it totally clear (and Russian actions in ex-Soviet countries that aren't anywhere close to NATO) that Russia will continue it's imperialist policies, will try to control them. Will with a heavy hand lay done a truly imperialist "sphere of influence".

Were the Baltic States not in NATO and not in the EU, there fate would be totally obvious: they would have Russian military bases and Russia would dictate their foreign policy. That should be absolutely totally clear to people. It is totally clear to us Finns. Why simply Vladimir Putin has any justification to say how sovereign states manage their alliances?

It's a blessing that Eastern European countries and the Baltics did have the chance to join NATO and the EU. We have now seen just how dangerous Russia is.

It works well on both sides. "We're prepared for war because they are." The arms vendors win.

I can't respond to all the responses to me just yet.

However, I wanted to drop this analysis that seems, so far in my research, the best overall view of the crisis and each expert more-or-less predicts exactly the current situation in their area, and also agree on where their subjects overlap.

Anatol Lieven even predicts the exact Russian political strategy, which is to not "occupy" and passify the country, but just hold territory militarily, blowup everything that's a threat, and basically demand Ukrainian Neutrality and independence for Dombass regions.

The military experts correctly predict it will not be "half measures" but a full scale invasion, and the political experts correctly predict Russia can likely withstand the sanctions.

When searching for theories, you don't actually want too much analysis of current "just happened" information (although that's useful too, and necessary to even have some idea of what a theory would need to explain, just that so many theories can fit today's data), but rather theories in the past that predict the current information; i.e. predictive power, is what is most insightful.



The absolute key takeaway is: "The Swedes could join NATO, or could join any other alliance, they still won't fight."

Why simply Vladimir Putin has any justification to say how sovereign states manage their alliances? — ssu

This is again the trap of thinking rules-based. While I agree that this is and should be what we should aspire to, the reality is sovereignty means fuck all. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, rendition etc. That's the same stuff. That doesn't absolve Putin but knowing geopolitics isn't rule based clarifies that responsibility lies with NATO just as much. It's not a pretext, it's how every country, including our own operates. The Cuban crisis was averted because the Russians pulled back. NATO decided to play chicken with Ukrainian lives on the line.

I just typed "BBC" in the search bar and it was the first story. A theatre in Muripol. There was a short video clip, a still picture of the theatre from march 14 below that.
Also, why would they have an aerial picture of a building from 2 days before it was bombed? They just took pictures of every building in the city, hoping to get some before and after shots?

This would be considered insurance fraud where I am from: I just happened to take pictures and video of my basement showing all my expensive stuff a day before the fire destroyed everything. Lucky eh.

Found a link.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60776929

Mariupol theatre: 'We knew something terrible would happen' Why?

Mariupol city council said a Russian plane dropped a bomb on the theatre, calling the attack "deliberate and cynical".

A single Russian plane releasing a single bomb on a theatre? Is that theatre? Of course it may be true, but usually they use more than one bomb and more than one plane.

A related BBC article is worth reading for its deadly mix of propaganda and fact.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60785754

Maybe someone could explain the following lines or maybe it needs no explanation?

Ukraine would have to undergo a disarmament process to ensure it wasn't a threat to Russia. There would have to be protection for the Russian language in Ukraine. And there is something called de-Nazification.

This is deeply offensive to Mr Zelensky, who is himself Jewish and some of whose relatives died in the Holocaust, but the Turkish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelensky to accept. Perhaps it will be enough for Ukraine to condemn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them. — BBC

Reuters.

From your Reuters link:

The International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] called on the warring parties on Thursday to let people leave Mariupol safely and to allow aid in.

Up to 40 ICRC staff and their families had to flee the port along with other civilians on Wednesday, because they had "no operational capacity any more," the organisation's head Peter Maurer told a news conference.

----

Even in this hell, ICRC maintained some staff there all this time. Hats off.

He's never not been a piece of shit; e.g. never shied away from targeting civilians in Georgia and Syria. What's remarkable to me though is how he's taking bits from the Western military playbook and throwing it in our faces. Bullshit about weapons of mass destruction (see U.S. v Iraq); Dubious accusations of genocide (see NATO v Serbia); Invasions dressed up as "special operations"/civilian casualties blamed on "human shields" (see Israel v Gaza); and so on. Almost as if he's trolling.

In international politics (and honestly, I could leave out the "international" part) everyone is a piece of shit (excuse my French) and your only choice is which flavor of shit you'd like jammed into your mouth. — Tzeentch

I agree with this, particulary with regard to the aggressors in the most notable conflicts we've had over the past twenty years or so. We should recognize that powerful nations will pursue their interests as brutally as they can get away with, regardless of who they are. The side-taking then becomes about supporting the victims not our particular flavor of shit.