the only war criminal convicted since WW2. — FreeEmotion

Err... no.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda

The point was that it becomes difficult to do so if you see the fight as part of some cosmic battle between Good and Evil. Note the capital letters. The fight here, for the Ukrainians, is to redress a particular evil, the invasion, not an absolute Evil. Zelensky is not going to fight all the way to Moscow. — Olivier5

Exactly.

Zelensky's objectives in a peace deal start from the obvious things that are decided in the battlefield. First would be that all of Ukraine isn't occupied and a functioning Ukrainian government exists. Well, that seems likely now.

Then comes the hard part. If simply surviving a Russian invasion is some kind of victory, then where to draw the line on the next consessions? Does Ukraine give Crimea to Russia? Does it accept that Russia takes the Donbas and gets a land corridor to Crimea (as the objective was already in 2014)? The thing here is, Ukraine isn't as small country as Finland was, hence with over 40 million people and having the support of the West, it can opt to continue the war.

Yep. And what does anyone do with that information? — Isaac

Good you asked. It tells a lot for example a) how committed Putin is to the war, b) are there any intensions against others and simply c) what one participant is saying to his people.

What Putin says is important. Some days before the invasion, I could tell from the speech Putin gave (and some others noted it too) that this was a man going to war. The whole idea of the staging of the troops to the border would be a way to get the US to talk and to solve the Ukraine problem went out of the window. This was an invasion force.

And you might have noticed yourself how this new Cold War has gone colder by Biden saying that Putin is a war criminal. Well, you don't talk to war criminals. Yeah, Biden can backtrack that, but still. Now I guess for the US there's one Stalin in Russia again.

Good you asked. It tells a lot for example a) how committed Putin is to the war, b) are there any intensions against others and simply c) what one participant is saying to his people.

What Putin says is important. Some days before the invasion, I could tell from the speech Putin gave (and some others noted it too) that this was a man going to war. The whole idea of the staging of the troops to the border would be a way to get the US to talk and to solve the Ukraine problem went out of the window.

And you might have noticed yourself how this new Cold War has gone colder by Biden saying that Putin is a war criminal. Well, you don't talk to war criminals. — ssu

Yep. And what does anyone do with that information? — Isaac

...I've bolded this time...see if that helps.

OK, I'll bolden myself. Hope it helps.

What Putin says is important. Some days before the invasion, I could tell from the speech Putin gave (and some others noted it too) that this was a man going to war. — ssu

We seem to be having a language issue. 'Do' refers to some action, not a change in knowledge. If I realise you're Finnish, I haven't done anything.

I asked what anyone would do. It's irrelevant people just 'knowing' things unless you have some real world strategy that's going to be taken in a different direction because of that knowledge. Otherwise it's inconsequential.

What is the Ukrainian negotiator going to do differently because Putin used religious language in his speech?

It is not over yet, which is too bad, but we can take stock of strategies then.

Does NATO have a strategy here or are they innocent bystanders? What is 'correct strategy' for them? — FreeEmotion

Of course NATO isn't an innocent bystander. Not even Sweden or Finland are bystanders as both countries are arming Ukraine.

I personally don't think that policies are either correct or incorrect, far better to think of them as "effective" or "ineffective". Relying on sanctions is more ineffective than effective: if there would be obvious incentive of the target country to get the sanctions lifted for the sanctions to be effective, if you get what I mean.

Hence for example the sanctions against South Africa because it's apartheid policies were effective. The South African leadership came to the conclusion that doing away with Apartheid would be better than to have those sanctions. Yet sanctions when are imposed to a country that also is threatened by war and is the target of covert attacks, then the sanctions are ineffective. The hostility creates an existential threat, so changing your policies is seen as dangerous appeasement. Iran (or Cuba) are great examples of this.

Giving weapons to Ukraine is a more effective. Ukrainians have the will to fight and will defend their country. Hence backing them up is very effective as already they have halted the primary Russian attack.

And naturally the "no fly -zone" isn't only ineffective, but extremely counterproductive. It will put NATO fighters in direct combat with Russia, and that is WW3. Hence the most effective policy would give all the help to Ukraine to fight Russia.

You describe results without relating that to the Russian strategic objectives. I asked you before what those probably were and you seemed to grasp it then. So go back to that post and then you'll see the results you mention are irrelevant. The only outstanding point is probably mariopol to create the corridor between Crimea and Russia. The main goal that Ukraine won't join NATO is already admitted by Zelensky, which is what this has all been about.

Moral indignation is always easier. Feel free to call me stupid if that's what you really believe but I you're pushing me buttons when you suggest I'm unethical or immoral.

I asked what anyone would do. It's irrelevant people just 'knowing' things unless you have some real world strategy that's going to be taken in a different direction because of that knowledge. Otherwise it's inconsequential. — Isaac

You think that understanding that Putin is going to attack even two days before is inconsequential? The Ukrainian government could have mobilized the reserves 48 hours prior to the attack. Not only afterwards the attack had happened. A thing that actually was a small mistake from the Zelensky government.

What is the Ukrainian negotiator going to do differently because Putin used religious language in his speech? — Isaac

He can trust even less what the Russian negotiator promises.

So your argument fails then. You've failed to distinguish the harm (to peace talks) of Russian faith-based, fight-against-genocide, propaganda, and Ukrainian, faith-based, repel-the-evil-tyrant rhetoric.

They both invoke religion, they both essentialise, they both talk about universals — Isaac

They don't, unless you have examples to provide.

He can trust even less what the Russian negotiator promises. — ssu

What's he going to do about that?

They don't, unless you have examples to provide. — Olivier5

I've provided examples.

You think that understanding that Putin is going to attack even two days before is inconsequential? — ssu

You think your brilliant insight was unique to you? Others saw it also. What's difficult is deciding what to do about it. Maybe mobilise the reserves, maybe that'd be too provocative... People have not acted out of ignorance, they've acted consequent to a decision - a weighing of facts pro and con.

You keep presenting only one side as if that did all the work for us, as if there were no counterbalancing information that needed to be weighed against it

You describe results without relating that to the Russian strategic objectives. — Benkei

And you should understand just how reaching any strategic objectives is compromised by the disastrous decision to make a large scale, or basically an all out invasion of Ukraine. It simply doesn't help the situation of Russia. It wasn't "the only correct move".

Will it help to tackle NATO enlargement? Sweden and Finland will now very likely join NATO. What do you get with that land corridor between Crimea? There's already a bridge connecting Crimea. But all this, being the new economic North Korea is really worth it?

No. It's like Hitler declaring war at the US after Pearl Harbour. What was the point to do that? How did it benefit Germany? If even 6 months or a year would have passed before the US would have joined the European theatre, how important would have been for Nazi Germany? (Just an example, let's not go to that).

Starting from the basics as:

- Russia isn't the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the second largest economy in the World. Russia's economy is the size of Italy or Spain. Putin has punched well over his class with his reckless gambles that had paid off until this disaster.

- Countries that got independent from the Soviet Union did it for a reason. They aren't coming back. And now they have been independent for 30 years and now you try to get them back?

What's he going to do about that? — Isaac

The obvious. No conclusion is reached. The fighting goes on. Putin wants this war, so he can have and will have it.

Maybe mobilise the reserves, maybe that'd be too provocative... — Isaac

If you know that the other side is going to attack, then by all means, why not go with mobilization. You won't lose anything. If you think that it really matters that the Kremlin says "Because of the Ukrainian mobilization, we have no other choice than to attack" and attacks in two days, well, nobody out of the blue attacks another in two days with 190 000 troops. But those 48 hours before the missiles start flying does matter.

The obvious. No conclusion is reached. The fighting goes on. — ssu

So warmongering for you too then.

And you should understand just how reaching any strategic objectives is compromised by the disastrous decision to make a large scale, or basically an all out invasion of Ukraine. It simply doesn't help the situation of Russia. It wasn't "the only correct move".

Will it help to tackle NATO enlargement? Sweden and Finland will now very likely join NATO. What do you get with that land corridor between Crimea? There's already a bridge connecting Crimea. But all this, being the new economic North Korea is really worth it?

No. It's like Hitler declaring war at the US after Pearl Harbour. What was the point to do that? How did it benefit Germany? If even 6 months or a year would have passed before the US would have joined the European theatre, how important would have been for Nazi Germany? (Just an example, let's not go to that). — ssu

It's not as if there's an "objective" measure as to whether it was worth it. That you think it isn't, doesn't make it so. Depends a lot also on what the alternative is that the Russians were worried about. Finland and Sweden joining NATO aren't really an issue; former Warsaw Pact members sharing a border with Russia appear to be.

What you get with a land corridor is less vulnerability since bridges are rather easy to destroy and now you have different ways to get there instead of one. It also gives access to Moldova, which might receive the same treatment. Then there are Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

So if Russia is serious about its "sphere of influence" any move by NATO to include these countries will likely result in another war. Putin has shown to be prepared to do what he said he'd do. So if I were any of those countries I'd be very careful about military integration with NATO since all NATO members give are thoughts and prayers and discounts on weaponry and debt. Despie the negative consequences, most of which were predictable and therefore accounted for, to reach this goal only war was available when NATO refused to stop the overtures.So, yes, strategically sound (even if illegal).

And you should understand just how reaching any strategic objectives is compromised by the disastrous decision to make a large scale, or basically an all out invasion of Ukraine. It simply doesn't help the situation of Russia. It wasn't "the only correct move". — ssu

So when Anatol Lieven, veteran reporter on Eastern Europe and senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, says...

Since the mid-1990s, when the issue of NATO enlargement first came up, Russian officials, Russian intellectuals, and leading Western experts, including George Kennan, the architect of containment — and myself in a small way — have all been saying that if this were extended one day to Ukraine and Georgia it would lead at best to deep confrontation and at worst to war. The [Boris] Yeltsin administration warned of this — this is not just a [Vladimir] Putin thing. And over the past almost three months, before the war, the Russian government was making it clear that there was a threat of war if the West did not compromise on what Russia regarded as its vital interest. — Anatol Lieven

Or when George Kennan, one of the architects of the Cold War policy of containment of the USSR said...

Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking — George Kennan

They should have come to you, to be schooled on what is so 'obvious'. Your Eastern Bloc foreign policy expertise is...?

The Russians should follow your advice and surrender. :grin:

I've provided examples. — Isaac

Nope. One private discussion between two Jews is not to be equated to a public speech at a rally.

Can you imagine if even a fraction of this - totally symbolic, completely useless - self-satisfied wank was applied even for a moment to American crimes or infinitely greater magnitute? — StreetlightX

Americans? They instead get impeached over blowjobs. :D

So warmongering for you too then. — Isaac

Of course, for the like of you people defending their country from an invasion is warmongering. Why don't the silly Ukrainians just surrender to Putin? (Just like @frank said)

Just to remind people what you said before the war:

Me personally, in England. Probably doesn't matter at all. Even if we committed to a ground war. I wasn't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Oil prices might go up in the short term, but they'll stabilise. This is kind of the point with these petty tribalisms, we've got no skin in the game, we can pick sides but we're in the crowd, not on the pitch.

The people who'll be affected are obviously the population of Ukraine. They'll be bombed, shot at, and evacuated, have been in the separatists regions for years already. That'll happen whether we leave Ukraine to its own defence or support it militarily. — Isaac

And this shows just your understanding of the matters. If the UK would be committed to a ground war, that would be WW3. But hey, you weren't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. So it doesn't matter at all.

The Russians should follow your advice and surrender. — frank

Where have I advised anyone to surrender?

One private discussion between two Jews is not to be equated to a public speech at a rally. — Olivier5

Both are speech acts. So evidently they can be equated. If they're dissimilar in some way significant to your argument then you'll have to state it. God knows why you feel the need to resort to arguing by Delphic aphorism.. Just state your case for Christ's sake.

Of course, for the like of you people defending their country from an invasion is warmongering. — ssu

Are you defending your country?

Where have I advised anyone to surrender? — Isaac

I'm going to have to ask you to stop war mongering and simmer down.

Does anyone live under the illusion that Russia was not going to eventually invade Ukraine regardless of NATO expansion into other nations? Are we to believe that Russia really thought a NATO protected Ukraine might one day invade Russia despite the Russian nuclear arsenal and so this defensive move became necessary now?

If the driver for the war is the reestablishment of a Russian empire of the likes of the former USSR (which i think it is), then the war had to be fought not just prior to Ukraine entering NATO, but prior to Ukraine breaking all ideological ties to Russia.

The window to seize Ukraine was closing through a potential NATO alliance, an EU entry, or just through continued liberalized democratization of Ukraine. If Russia wished to reestablish its past glory, it had to act before it lost all its potential prey to the protection of the West.

The problem is that Putin is learning is that the window was more shut that he thought it was. The fierce Ukraine resistance is based upon its belief that it is truly autonomous and not, as Putin would suggest, a group a Russians stranded in a Westernized state. Ukrainians stand with the full belief Russia is an invader and the West is a protector, indicating Russia is in a weaker position than maybe Putin appreciated.

This is just to say that whether NATO signaled it was expanding, or even if it signaled it was contacting (as Trump would have had it in his America first protectionism), Putin had to act now or forever lose Ukraine to the West.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

This is true. A democratically elected leader would try him for corruption. He can't go in that direction. Ever.

The war has been going on since at least 2014. Ukraine has been fighting its own people, (those Ukrainians the west likes to call “Russian-backed separatists”) ever since the American-backed coup, after which the country was flooded with American tax-payer dollars. The Russians have been exploiting it on their end. Both have been accused of torture, bombing civilians, and other crimes against humanity. NATO and Russia have been playing “war-games” at each other’s borders the whole time.

There are no innocent victims here. Putin’s invasion is the self-fulfilling progress of this sort of conflict.

Are you defending your country? — Isaac

My country isn't at war. But I'm a reservist, yes, with a wartime position.

Yet Ukrainians are defending their country.

My country isn't at war — ssu

Right. So what has my accusing you of warmongering got to do with people defending their country?