Moi? I have been accused of war cheerleading here more often than I care to count. The words roll off the tongue of your buddies day and night. And when for the first time I return them the compliment, I'm the one to blame?

That's called a double standard. — Olivier5

If you support the Ukrainian war effort ... but aren't in Ukraine fighting the war, nor even proposing troops from your own country go and fight with Ukrainians to at least vicariously live through your own soldiers' bravery ... then you are simply cheerleading other people fight a war that you're not willing to fight personally nor you're own government.

If you're in Ukraine fighting, then maybe that serves a military or political objective, maybe not, we shall certainly find out.

If you're arguing with people who's position is to put pressure on their own governments (who's policy they can most affect and are most morally responsible for affecting) and super-political-block, the EU, to use their soft power to work on diplomatic solutions rather than pour in arms ... precisely because we aren't about to send any troops and sending arms instead is a cowards cop out, that is the opposite of cheerleading a war.

None of us are cheerleading Russia to level Ukrainian cities to the ground, we are appalled it is happening and there are certainly diplomatic solutions given the immense leverage NATO and the EU has in the situation.

The US didn't just send arms to Britain to fight the NAZI's and call that "fighting a righteous cause" ... yet somehow social media posts are a moral substitute to taking any actual risk for one's pet cause.

This is literally the first time in history where selling and gifting arms is a pure act of altruism and the bravest thing freedom lovers could possibly do, or ever have done, amen.

Putin has not made promises that can't be kept: like "democratize" Ukraine at the end of a rifle. — boethius

Oh. So you think the "denazification" of Ukraine will be so easy at the end of a rifle?

Putin has already achieved the land bridge to Crimea and if the Dombas front collapses and territory pushes out regions border, Putin can just sit on this territory and shell to oblivion anything that approaches while continuing to strike command and control and logistics infrastructure. — boethius

Whopee! That sounds like fun. All this for a land bridge!!! :roll:

What the Kremlin has learned from previous episodes, is that Western "Unity" is only ever short lived and only ever exists on social media and not in any tangible form. — boethius

Of course. Those tens of thousands of anti-tank weapons being pushed in Ukraine won't mean a thing. Perhaps those 20 000 or so volunteers will come back after they have had an exiting weekend too.

Winning the social media culture war ... doesn't win a real war, is the main lesson to be drawn from Syria. — boethius

Well, Syria actually didn't get much if any support. The US was fearful of giving arms to possibly Islamist extremists. Hence this outcome, which just reeks to extensive corruption and pocketing of taxpayers money:

The Syrian Train and Equip Program is a United States-led military operation launched in 2014 that identified and trained selected Syrian opposition forces inside Syria as well as in Turkey and other US-allied states who would then return to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The program reportedly cost the US $500 million. It is a covert program, run by U.S. special operations forces, separate from Timber Sycamore, the parallel covert program run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). As of July 2015, only a group of 54 trained and equipped fighters (Division 30) had been reported to have been deployed, which was quickly routed by al-Nusra, and a further 75 were reported in September 2015.

All that for half a billion! Let's now compare this to what is the aid for Ukraine. Before the war started, the situation was the following:

Overall, the U.S. has provided $650 million in defense equipment and services to Ukraine in the past year — the most it has ever given that country, according to the State Department.

Then afterwards:

The White House also said Washington is “helping the Ukrainians acquire additional, longer-range” air-defence systems, but did not provide further details.

The most recent package brings the total US security aid to Ukraine announced since the Russian invasion began to $1bn. The Biden administration previously approved another $1bn in aid before the invasion began.

And the war has been on for less than a month.

As far as I can tell, the only reason Zelensky didn't accept Russia's terms in the first phase of the war, when it was easy to do:

1. Neo-Nazi's made it clear they would kill him if he did.

2. He genuinely believed in the power of acting to conjure up a NATO no-fly zone a la Churchillian Dumbledore.

3. He got so many views ... no one in show business can walk away from — boethius

:roll: :yikes:

Have you been drinking or what?

I guess the issue with being critical of the West and the US, like you or Benkei, @Isaac are, is the thing that Russia is fighting a brutal war without caring much about civilian lives. — ssu

Yes, and the US and Europe are complicit in it. You've yet to provide any kind of explanation of what exactly the problem is. What bad thing is going to result from our discussion of US and European complicity?

Isaac has stated it quite clearly: he doesn't want to give any credit the the US here as being a "knight in white armour". Fine. Yet talking about the failures and the imperialism of the West doesn't change the war in Ukraine. — ssu

No less than talking about how bad Putin is, yet that doesn't seem to hold you back, nor do you concern yourself with those that do. So this seems an incoherent argument.

For instance, I just asked you to refrain from using sexual terminology to describe this war, and you deflected to something else that's reproachable. Instead of responding on the issue of the use of sexual language.

For instance, by pretending to take seriously Putin's excuse to invade Ukraine, ie the lives of them poor russophone Ukrainian brothers who he is bombing so mercilessly. This paradox was pointed to you many times and never answered.

For instance, you pretend again and again that there is some gag on you guys, while you are free to share your lies at length. That's an obvious contradiction which is never addressed.

if someone talks about the attrocities of the Russians, then it's a bit odd to attack those of "believing in Western propaganda" or being "warmongers" or the type. — ssu

Yeah, that would be really odd.

Fortunately, as you well know, that's never happened, otherwise you'd be able to fucking quote someone doing it instead of pulling some made up fantasy version of the discussion out of your arse.

If you support the Ukrainian war effort ... but aren't in Ukraine fighting the war, nor even proposing troops from your own country go and fight with Ukrainians to at least vicariously live through your own soldiers' bravery ... then you are simply cheerleading other people fight a war that you're not willing to fight personally nor you're own government. — boethius

My government has for the first time in it's history sent weapons to another country.

So let's just understand Putin.

He needed that sphere-of-influence.

NATO is bad. It made him do it,what else could he have done, so shame on NATO!

Moi? I have been accused of war cheerleading here more often than I care to count. The words roll off the tongue of your buddies day and night. And when for the first time I return them the compliment, I'm the one to blame? — Olivier5

How dare you... how dare we have say anything supportive of Ukraine or focus on some minor issue like Russia invaded Ukraine. No, this thread is to bash NATO, bash the West and eagerly report anything bad they do, like "supporting bioweapon labs in Ukraine"!!! That's the only sensible thing to do in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

I can't decide if it's just rhetoric or if you genuinely are so grossly narcissistic that you can't even contemplate the idea that it might be you who are actually wrong. — Isaac

I'm talking facts. You guys talk rubbish. There's a provable difference.

No, this thread is to bash NATO, bash the West and eagerly report anything bad they do, like "supporting bioweapon labs in Ukraine"!!! — ssu

And it's also a place to jerk, and be horny... For some.

I'm talking facts. You guys talk rubbish. There's a provable difference. — Olivier5

Oh great, it really is the latter option.

Go on then. Let's have one of these 'provable' facts to set against some of my rubbish - together with the actual proof, of course.

As an enlightened centrist who is conflict averse and very much into big tent politics, I think it is perfectly possible to heap liquid shit upon Nato, the West, and Putin all at the same time. I'm all about joining hands across the aisle.

I find cheerleading a war to continue and for arms to be poured in [...] disgusting — boethius

Just to be clear, do you find Western sympathies for the Ukrainian side, their occasional cheerleading and their arm support more disgusting than the Russian aggression and indiscriminate bombing of Ukraine, or less disgusting?

Only if you promise that you will try to understand.

Oh. So you think the "denazification" of Ukraine will be so easy at the end of a rifle? — ssu

The Kremlin does not care much about neo-Nazi's in themselves, they care about institutions that can threaten them ... and if those are explicitly or mixed up with neo-Nazi's it just so happens to be easy to explain to a Russian the reason to destroy those institutions.

That Westerners ignore the issue, or even cheer on the Azov brigade to "hold out" in Mariupol and never surrender, doesn't matter to nearly every Russian that is alive today.

Whopee! That sounds like fun. All this for a land bridge!!! :roll: — ssu

If Russians generally support the war, which they seem to do, and the objectives of the war are attained, then it's easy to declare victory. Russians were genuinely concerned about Crimea being caught off from it's water source and were genuinely concerned about over 10 000 Russian citizens (all the separatists got Russian citizenship) dying in Ukrainian shelling since 2014.

Of course. Those tens of thousands of anti-tank weapons being pushed in Ukraine won't mean a thing. Perhaps those 20 000 or so volunteers will come back after they have had an exiting weekend too. — ssu

In an occupation of the whole country, it would be disastrous, but if Russia simply pushes out the Dombas front (and so the territory is occupied by Dombas separatists and not insurgents) and just removes everyone from their land bridge, then, as we've discussed, ATGM's are so useful in assaulting a buildup front.

20 000 foreign fighters aren't a game changer, and will obviously mostly leave, if they don't die, once there's no military objectives that can possibly be achieved.

You also skip over the moral of these foreign fighters once in Ukraine as well as the moral of the Ukrainian forces. "Not letting men leave" from 18 to 60, was spun in Western media as "look at those heroes go valiantly back to the front! Such bravery" ... but I'm pretty sure those men wanting to leave don't feel the same way.

All that for half a billion! Let's now compare this to what is the aid for Ukraine. Before the war started, the situation was the following:

"Overall, the U.S. has provided $650 million in defense equipment and services to Ukraine in the past year — the most it has ever given that country, according to the State Department."

Then afterwards:

"The White House also said Washington is “helping the Ukrainians acquire additional, longer-range” air-defence systems, but did not provide further details.

"The most recent package brings the total US security aid to Ukraine announced since the Russian invasion began to $1bn. The Biden administration previously approved another $1bn in aid before the invasion began."

And the war has been on for less than a month. — ssu

If it's a question of money ... Russia has more than a billion to spend.

Have you been drinking or what? — ssu

As I've said many times, maybe there's some brilliant surprise counter offensive that routs the Russian army and the run back tail between their legs. I just don't see what it would be (but that's what a surprise means).

As it stands, Russia has militarily nearly achieved the key objectives it set out to achieve: destroy Ukrainian military capacity (1 billion doesn't magically repair all those bases and depots, nor bring back professional soldiers back from the dead), secure the Dombas, and secure a land bridge.

Although the Dombas front hasn't moved much (where the Ukrainians have been digging in for 8 years), it's logistical supply chain has been targeted by bombing and cruise missiles, and the front itself has been heavily bombarded since the start of the war. Simply because that line hasn't moved much yet, doesn't mean it's in the same condition as a month ago.

It's farthest from Western resupply and closest to Russian artillery and bombs, so I just can't see, from military strategy point of view, that it's possible to hold.

In addition, the Dombas line needs to deal with Dombas separatists who have extreme motivation to fight (get the war over with rather than continue the 8 years of shelling and accumulated deaths ... as well as finally the entire Russian army behind their movement); these aren't hapless Russian conscripts lost in the Ukrainian country side.

Now, if Ukraine pulls a win somehow, ok, Zelensky had speeches and the military strategy to back it up.

If not, and Zelensky accepts terms Putin offered at the start of the conflict, my prediction is that he will fall from grace in the eyes of Ukrainians and the world.

People like winners. Zelensky is winning on social media, which is usually enough for every other kind of dialogue, so people like him because they see he's winning.

I think it is perfectly possible to heap liquid shit upon Nato, the West, and Putin all at the same time. — StreetlightX

Nooo! We'll run out of internet if we do that, we can't possibly condemn two sides at once. Why, I'm running out of space even to finish wrtng ths pst!

Only if you promise that you will try to understand. — Olivier5

How could I refuse?

You have to promise. Positively so.

Fortunately, as you well know, that's never happened, otherwise you'd be able to fucking quote someone doing it instead of pulling some made up fantasy version of the discussion out of your arse. — Isaac

From Ukraine:


From Syria:


In Afghanistan in a war far shorter than the US war about one to two million Afghans. In the longer US invasion the death toll is 50 000 to 200 000.

In the first Chechen war even the Russian Statistical office estimates 30 000 to 40 000 Chechen civilians died while Human rights groups estimate that 80 000 civilians is closer to the truth and about 10 000 Chechen fighter died or went missing. In the Second Chechen war, that was the war Putin instigated, Chechen military and civilian losses estimates range from 50 000 to 100 000.

Add them up and you have what, perhaps from hundred thousand to two hundred thousand killed from a far more smaller population of a few million.

That's something close to butchery of the Polish in WW2. And I've explained just why the Russian style of war results in this. Targeting hospitals, shelling of cities randomnly is a warcrime.

So you just shut the fuck up!

Just to be clear, do you find Western sympathies for the Ukrainian side, their occasional cheerleading and their arm support more disgusting than the Russian aggression and indiscriminate bombing of Ukraine, or less disgusting? — Olivier5

Russians aren't cheerleading a war, they are fighting a war.

They are fighting a war their political representatives have told everyone they would fight in these circumstances for several decades.

They are at least not hypocrites.

With my limited understanding I can only judge contradictions ... to be contradictions, and thus wrong according to the self proposed standards.

Absolute truth and absolute right and wrong, I honestly can't really judge.

For example, I've pointed out that the moral and political question of "how many neo-Nazi's with power is too many neo-Nazi's with too much power and too much power". We would need to actually answer this question to start judging the Russian's justifications for the war.

Furthermore, the West doesn't take nuclear tensions and nuclear bating seriously (otherwise we wouldn't have pushed missile bases closer to Russia in order to "defend" ourselves in the middle-east) but maybe the Kremlin does and they see not-acting now as increasing the likelihood of a real nuclear exchange in the future.

The West basically assumes that the Kremlin is some sort of circus blundering around, knocking back shots of vodka and determining policy by throwing darts at a word-wall from a unicycle.

What if they are more serious thinkers than that? See themselves as being in control of nuclear weapons that could end the world and take that responsibility seriously and see NATO as an immature school boy skipping merrily into nuclear oblivion, that needs to be taught a lesson.

... Which ... as far as I can tell, NATO has learned that lesson and finally become a "NATO man".

History is made by people who don't hesitate to sacrifice a million souls to save 2 million. We praise those that won our wars and condemn those that lost against us.

This war is the lessor of two evils when it comes to Nuclear war. A classic MAD standoff is, in some respects, more stable than NATO just baiting Russia into nuclear tensions and war ... because it's fun?

Moral condemnation requires analyzing all these things to be sure the condemnation is justified.

Why do I say so? Because I would wish for myself a thorough analysis before I am condemned.

What does not take much analysis is to conclude that ending the war through talking, in some workable solution for everyone, is better than continued warfare.

If Zelensky wins, ok, another intrepid and committed war leader willing to sacrifice any number of his own citizens for glorious victory.

If Zelensky eventually accepts terms that were on offer before and at the start of the war, then it's difficult to justify the lives lost.

And it's also a place to jerk, and be horny... For some. — Olivier5

When someone hasn't anything to counter your argumentation, then start the nasty ad hominems.

After all, for some, they have to win debate. Not to learn something new or think issues from another point of view.

Russians aren't cheerleading a war, they are fighting a war. — boethius

So what is the MOST disgusting of the two behaviors: to aggress your neighbour in such a war, or to cheerlead and help the victims trying to defend themselves? And which behavior is the LESS disgusting of the two?

It's not about learning but about preventing it.

So what is the MOST disgusting of the two: to aggress your neighbour in such a war, or to cheerlead the victims trying to defend themselves? — Olivier5

Cheerleading others to fight for your own virtue-signalling on social media is far more disgusting.

Actually fighting a war, at least there's skin in the game."Courage of your convictions" as they say in French.

We say all our wars are just wars that were needed for our current institutions and "nations" to exist, and, just-so-happens, no war that ever inconvenienced us was justified. Is this really statistically credible?

And, who's the aggressor? Ukraine has been shelling Russian citizens for 8 years.

As the videos I posted (spanning several years since 2014) describe it: a "war".

A war, neo-Nazi's are on video crediting themselves as starting and also explicitly stating their objective for a war with Russia and who are most active in both fighting and promoting the war with Russians since 2014.

And, who's the aggressor? Ukraine has been shelling Russian citizens for 8 years. — boethius

Are you Russian?

Are you Russian? — Olivier5

I am not Russian, I have in fact trained to fight Russians and would do so.

It's precisely because I have actually trained to fight against the kind of warfare Russia brings to the table, that I do not see how Ukraine can achieve any military victory in the field ... which we all agree it can't.

It needed NATO to supply its best and most sophisticated handheld weapons and for NATO and the EU to sanction Russia to put pressure at home.

At the same time the war is used as "proof" other NATO nations haven't been spending enough on their "own defense" ... yet no one holds Ukraine to the same standard, they get a free stuff.

A free pass from NATO, a doctrine NATO constantly rebukes, and they aren't even in NATO.

Zelensky literally threatened Russia with World War III yesterday ... is that a "Ukraine threat" or a "NATO threat"?

Guaranteed, if Ukraine didn't think it had free access to NATO resources and intelligence to fight the Russians, and would continue to have free access up to and including a NATO no-fly-zone, if not boots on the ground, then Ukraine would have had a different policy with Russia.

But when NATO reaches out it's hand to come along as a friend ... maybe is a false sense of security if NATO doesn't show up to the party to fight "the bully" you've been talking up a storm about finally teaching a lesson.

As a Finn watching Ukraine fight now Russia, I understand how Swedes felt during the winter of 1939-1940.

(Swedish posters of the time)

But when NATO reaches out it's hand to come along as a friend ... maybe is a false sense of security if NATO doesn't show up to the party. — boethius

The small Baltic countries surely hope they aren't expendable.

The small Baltic countries surely hope they aren't expendable. — ssu

Exactly.

People compare Russia to Hitler ... but Hitler didn't have Nuclear weapons, there was no threat of world obliteration if we went and fought Hitler.

Putin could be far, far, far more evil than he is now, and far more evil than Hitler ... and there's nothing much we can do about it through warfare ... why no Western country has sent any troops to Ukraine no matter the level of moral condemnation of Russia and praise of Ukraine as a bastion of freedom.

We can try to build a more peaceful world. That is our only practical choice.

Ukraine is completely expendable to NATO.

Finland was Gondor to Sweden's shire, but had the geography to hold out.

So, no quote then?

Targeting hospitals, shelling of cities randomnly is a warcrime. — ssu

Gut wrenching.

But you know Isaac has shown his true colors. Sad.

You have to promise. Positively so. — Olivier5

Scout's honour.

Targeting hospitals, shelling of cities randomnly is a warcrime. — ssu

There are certainly war crimes, likely Azov battalion not letting people leave Mariupol, which may or may not come out as undisputed fact after the war, is also a war crime.

Extrajudicial killing of alleged "saboteurs" would also be a war crime if they weren't actually sabotaging anything.

But, if the world is suddenly so interested in war crimes, we should probably go in chronological order and start with indiscriminate bombing of Cambodians and use of agent orange (a chemical weapon that causes neurological damages), and targeting Iraqi civilian infrastructure ... and torturing people; certainly all those documented things can be wrapped up in a day.

Oh, sorry, my bad, US doesn't recognize the "war crimes court," as it's totally irrelevant and means nothing, and I'm sure US officials making use of that institution now when it suits their purposes is just "a mistake".

However, as @Benkei has pointed out, you need an actual trial to convict someone of a war crime ... a trial where they present their own defense and evidence.

Russia has plenty of video too, and one thing Russia doesn't like to do is reveal it's operational capacity and intelligence methods during an operation and one thing it does like to do is hold onto evidence and prove things wrong later. The more people repeat a claim and for longer, the more credibility is lost when the claim is disproved.

Of course, Western media will simply ignore that, but it means something to other countries being proven to be an unambiguous shit talker and liar.

... And if you hand out weapons to hundreds of thousands of civilians, to walk around feeling "safer" clutching their riffle, you also make hundreds of thousands of legitimate military targets.