The NY Times says they've lost seven generals now and somewhere between 7 and 15 thousand military deaths.

Apparently the Russian offensive is being managed from Moscow, so they keep making mistakes just due to the lack of a coordinating commander on the ground.

The NY Times says they've lost seven generals now and somewhere between 7 and 15 thousand military deaths.

Apparently the Russian offensive is being managed from Moscow, so they keep making mistakes just due to the lack of a coordinating commander on the ground. — frank

Depends on how many casualties they planned for.

On 5 February 2022, two anonymous US officials reported Russia had assembled 83 battalion tactical groups, estimated to be 70-percent of combat capabilities for a full-scale invasion on Ukraine. It was also predicted that a hypothetical invasion would result in 8,000 to 35,000 military casualties and 25,000 to 50,000 civilian casualties. It was anticipated by the officials that the possible launch window could start on 15 February and persist until the end of March, when extremely cold weather would freeze roads and assist in the movement of mechanized units.[181] — Wikipedia

Here is the Ukranian summary version, which, if accurate, does provide some background.

Since the Soviet Union’s collapse, the pace of change has varied from one Post-soviet country to another. Some, such as Belarus, have slowed down and tried to hold on to their Soviet heritage; others leapt as far forward and as quickly as possible. The Baltic states and the former Warsaw Pact countries shrugged off their Soviet past and took steps to integrate with NATO and the EU in the early 1990s, completing the process by 2004 – just before Russian imperialism began to reemerge. Unfortunately, Ukraine and Georgia had not yet completed that path by then. Both were left outside the Euroatlantic community, and both later became targets of military aggression by Russia, at the cost of lives and territory.

Another case of news-shaping here, this time from Britannica and Wikipedia. If the rot has got to the encylcolaedias and our history books, we are in 1984 already. You thought Russia was bad, they only have to disbelieve all good news from the government news sources. Here, it is confusion that reigns, and it is difficult to tell fact from fiction, which is after all the aim.

In September Yushchenko’s health began to fail, and medical tests later revealed he had suffered dioxin poisoning (allegedly carried out by the Ukrainian State Security Service), which left his face disfigured. — Britannica

During the tumultuous months of the revolution, candidate Yushchenko suddenly became gravely ill, and was soon found by multiple independent physician groups to have been poisoned by TCDD dioxin.[141][142] Yushchenko strongly suspected Russian involvement in his poisoning.[143] — Wikipedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Independence

Eh. I think he knew of certain risks involved in invading Ukraine, but I have doubts he would have done so had he known the extent of these sanctions, which are extreme.

He might have waged a much shorter war, perhaps confiscate the two "separatist" regions, but this is way too difficult to come back from.

I understand that Germany, Finland and many others are now increasing military or wanting to join NATO and the like, all things Russia would not have wanted. But, Putin won't live forever, so these short term strategies are not evidently good for Europe as a whole.

It isn't a good idea to isolate Russia from the world for too long, despite its criminal acts. It's a mistake, which can backfire big time.

I believe he knew the risks, sanctions were already in place, and more were threatened.

The question is, if he did nothing about security threats to Russia (and all countries have security threats) would there be any risks associated with that, if so we have found a risk-free option for Vladimir Putin which he should have taken.

What do you mean? He expected sanctions as he said in his speech, but I suspect he had in mind sanctions for oligarchs, not being expelled from the international banking system. These sanctions came in waves after the invasion, not before.

What risk free option though? Ukraine in NATO would not be tolerated by any Russian leader, not only Putin, the question is, is it worth invading the country to this extent and causing so much damage? I think most of us would say "no".

But I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say risk free options.

I think he would have thought of the possibility of every response including NATO involvement, nuclear war, but I think NATO has not done the most it could, and some risks have not materialized. For example, NATO is not sending cruise missiles of the type Ukraine already tested. Only some banks have been removed from the SWIFT system, and maybe President Putin counted in it, in order to push alternatives to the dollar. I don't think anyone can doubt he is a risk-taker.

What risk free option though? Ukraine in NATO would not be tolerated by any Russian leader, not only Putin, the question is, is it worth invading the country to this extent and causing so much damage? I think most of us would say "no". — Manuel

I am glad you think "Ukraine in NATO would not be tolerated by any Russian leader", so my point is that if doing nothing has its own risks, then it is about evaluating the risks. It is possible that President Putin miscalculated the risks, but this itself is unlikely. There have been missed opportunities in the past, such as agreeing to UN peacekeepers in the disputed regions, which Russia could have agreed to, maybe now it is too late.

So if there were no 'risk free options' for Russia, what were the options, and what were the risks, if doing nothing was unacceptable? This sort of information would have saved countless lives.

As for NATO, they may have made their own mistakes and taken risks:

Russia's Ukraine invasion may have been preventable
The U.S. refused to reconsider Ukraine's NATO status as Putin threatened war. Experts say that was a huge mistake. — MSNBC

A New York Times article recently suggests that Putin, being surrounded by "yes" men, had no idea the war would go this way. He thought Russian forces would (by and large) be welcomed with open arms. Do you all believe this? — Xtrix

I don't have a crystal ball so no clue really and I don't trust the news in normal times and actively distrust it in war times. If it's written by a US newspaper my working presumption is that it's a lie until I can find the same story in the Chinese owned state media.

:up: This would be my approach too.

So the Russian legitimate security concerns triggered by the West that led to this war ultimately consisted in whose flag is decorating the Ukrainian parliament building. Is this consistent with your claim that a legitimate security interest is an “interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric)”? It doesn’t seem to me so because a decorative component of a Parliament building has literally nothing to do with national security — neomac

Did you miss the parenthesised part or do you need me to explain it?

> You'd just agreed that fighting over national identity was immoral

Did I? Can you fully quote where I agreed with that? — neomac

IT was the bit where you said...

I 100% agree with you — neomac

...just after I'd been talking about fighting over nothing but national identity. Is it that you misunderstood what I was saying, or have you changed your mind?

if all diplomats lie then there might be concrete situations in which one party believes to be more trustworthy than the other during a negotiation. For example, the Ukrainians can reasonably suspect that a call for negotiation from the Russians is to allow Russians to re-supply their war machine and continue the war. And the Russians can reasonably suspect the same of the Ukrainians. And one of them may be right. So my question is, in this hypothetical situation, are there any alternative moral principles that could tell us how the hypothetical party in “good faith” should proceed, when the other doesn’t seem to be? — neomac

My point is that it must be perfectly possible to negotiate even in situations where your counter party is going to lie because diplomats lie all the time and yet negotiation works. All that's necessary is for each side to think they have the better deal by ending hostilities than by continuing them. That can be achieved through lies, bribery, honesty, threats, concessions...it doesn't matter. That's what statecraft is.

As far as I can recall, you didn’t tell me which experts you chose, even less why you found their arguments more persuasive. — neomac

I assumed you were following the thread. I haven't time to have the same conversation separately with every interlocutor I'm afraid. If you also haven't time to keep up with the whole thread then then we're stuck. Why don't we compromise and you tell me which experts are saying that the US is blameless and why you find their arguments persuasive. That's something you've not yet done so you wouldn't be repeating yourself.

but you didn't formulate any alternative strategy to me to prove that it doesn't apply to you, — neomac

Still I’m explicitly asking you to specify these legitimate security concerns — neomac

It's odd how, when I raise a specific issue about negotiation (Ukraine have lied too, so can't fairly expect Russia to be an honest negotiation partner), you switch to "hypothetical" mode to make your arguments, but when I make hypothetical arguments you won't accept them without specifics...

Still. The alternative strategy to arming Ukraine and fighting to the last man is negotiations. Ones involving not only Ukraine and Russia, but America (or NATO) and Europe (EU, or representatives) since the situation involves them too. Russia's existing demands are de facto the case anyway, so they would be a perfectly good starting concession for negotiations.

The 'legitimate security concerns' I believe I've already mentioned. Closer alliances with NATO could allow US or EU military installations in Ukraine. Such installations give Ukraine an advantage in any future negotiations (their meaningful threat level is higher), they act as levers to push Ukraine into further economic union with the EU (harming Russian efforts), and they make Ukraine the stronger opposition in any territorial dispute (such as Crimea) which may hamper further military strength in other areas (as it's a crucial port), finally, actors within Ukraine (such as anti-Russian paramilitaries) are given more strength by being able to shelter under the wing of the stronger Ukraine. It's not rocket science, it's exactly the same concerns NATO have.

China has territorial claims over Taiwan. — neomac

I thought we'd just done talking about the insignificance of flags? China want influence in Taiwan. Their method might be to put their flag over the parliament. The US want influence in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen... Their method is to fight a war to install a US-friendly government under such crippling loan terms that they've little choice to accept US influence. The methods are immaterial here. Both cause massive destruction and loss of innocent life. Both lead their instigators to positions of power.

Taiwan is a partner of the US so if the US wants to protect Taiwan then the US should get prepared to counter Chinese aggression — neomac

Likewise, Russia could claim that about Syria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia or the Donbas regions.

for me the West is like the mob that is helping the victim (Ukraine) against the bully (Russia), it’s not the mob who is encouraging the bully (Russia) to abuse the victim. Isn’t the same for you? If not why not? What else should the West do to help Ukraine against the Russian bully. — neomac

I see I've confused you by using a 'bully' in my example. I'll try again. Imagine five people are shaking a table and the vase on it breaks. All five are collectively responsible. If later, one person shakes the same table and the same vase breaks, does that mean that four of the five people in the previous example are now exonerated, we've just shown that the vase would have broken anyway with only one person's shaking. So which of the five should we exculpate? It's obviously nonsense. If five people collectively cause something they are all collectively responsible. It doesn't change that responsibility to argue that their effect could have been achieved with fewer people.

If there are, say, ten reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, all ten are collectively responsible. It doesn't change that to say "he would have attacked anyway with only five".

Then how come that Ukraine didn’t threaten Russian national security and yet Russia is invading Ukraine? — neomac

I've already explained this. The security reason (neither the sole, nor the most important reason) for the invasion would be to secure a more independent Ukraine to prevent the issues of an allied Ukraine I mentioned above.

So no intention of answering the question then? I didn't ask "What other reasons were there for the decline of the USSR?" I asked what mechanism prevented the enormous efforts of America to crush Communism from working.

Did they all fail by chance (but by sheer luck their exact objectives happen to have been achieved anyway - phew!). Were all the US presidents secretly Russian spies, instigating scheme after scheme to crush the USSR (all of which they knew wouldn't work)?

The US and Europe spent billions on undermining communism, fought proxy wars, instigated covert regime changes, created the largest spying rings ever seen... Your argument is that none of that had any effect whatsoever. It all just failed for some reason. But completely co-incidentally, the one objective of all those schemes just happened to have come about anyway by chance.

Do you seriously not see how absurd that is?

Concerning for sure, but not as concerning as Russia having amassed up close to half the world's nuclear ☢ weaponry all by themselves (and threatened to use them), making Russia the top ☢-dog in the world. Plus violating other nations' airspaces + whatever. — jorndoe

That's true. I'm not (never have been ) arguing against claims of scale (Russia are worse in this or that case). I'm arguing against claims of kind ("Russia are provoking - US are defending", or "Russia are aggressive - US defensive" - that sort of thing). Those kind of arguments are clearly false. Both parties are aggressive, both seek influence outside of their borders, both kill and immiserate thousands of innocent people in the pursuit of that influence.

New York Times article recently suggests that Putin, being surrounded by "yes" men, had no idea the war would go this way. He thought Russian forces would (by and large) be welcomed with open arms. Do you all believe this? — Xtrix

It is an established fact that the Russians thought it would be a ride in the park.

There are testimonies of arrested or kidnapped Ukrainians who report that their Russian captors argued with them about pretty much the same things argued on this thread: " But but but why are you resisting? We are only fighting NATO. Why do you hate us so much?"

And similarly, many Russian POW and intercepted calls say the same thing: they were very surprised by the Ukrainian resistance.

As @Benkei said...

I don't trust the news in normal times and actively distrust it in war times. — Benkei

...or did you go to Ukraine yourself, talk to the soldiers there, gather that intelligence directly... You must get up very early in the morning to get all that done.

I think he knew of certain risks involved in invading Ukraine, but I have doubts he would have done so had he known the extent of these sanctions, which are extreme. — Manuel

Putin doesn't care so much about sanctions. The risk was that the Ukrainians would put up a fight and that has materialized. If Putin would have assumed that the Ukrainians will fight, he would have started cautiously and more methodically and likely have had an extensive air campaign first.

I understand that Germany, Finland and many others are now increasing military or wanting to join NATO and the like, all things Russia would not have wanted. — Manuel

And this just shows how illogical and wrong it is to believe the fig-leaf of NATO expansion being the reason for this invasion. The Russo-Georgian war already stopped the NATO expansion from the US, but still left it open for the West to try to restart the relationship. If stopping NATO expansion was all that Russia wanted, that already did the trick. Attacking Ukraine just transformed NATO back to it's original form and increased the military spending and made both Sweden and Finland to start the process of joining NATO. Russian aggression is the sole reason why they are changing their security stance.

And what those that insist on the NATO expansion being the reason for the invasion totally disregard are the actions that Russia took to outmaneuver the US in Central Asia. There the US had airbases, did extensively train the local armies and had military cooperation with the states. And Russia maneuvered the US out of it's bases that it now desperately would want to have after losing Afghanistan. That is the way to truly contain US expansionism. Invading neighbors will have the totally opposite response. And naturally invading neighbors will make them prepare for aggression.

Seems that Ukraine didn't spend the last 8 years without doing anything.

did you go to Ukraine yourself, talk to the soldiers there, gather that intelligence directly. — Isaac

This is a familiar line of argument for anyone who ever debated a holocaust or climate change denier: "You weren't there during the great glaciations or WW2, so why do you trust historians or climate scientists?"

Why do people trust other people? Perhaps because life would be next to impossible if one trusted no one. E.g. if we trusted no one, we could not debate with anyone about anything. And I note that @Benkei trusts the press enough when it criticizes the French democracy.

Who do you trust, and why?

And this just shows how illogical and wrong it is to believe the fig-leaf of NATO expansion being the reason for this invasion. — ssu

If anyone were arguing that NATO expansion were the reason for the war then you could reasonably point to the inefficiency of the technique as a counterargument.

But since the only arguments being put forward are that it is a reason, the inefficiency of the method is not relevant. The method may have been chosen for one of the many other reasons.

Attacking Ukraine just transformed NATO back to it's original form and increased the military spending and made both Sweden and Finland to start the process of joining NATO. Russian aggression is the sole reason why they are changing their security stance. — ssu

But you'd argued previously that Russia are not going to succeed at their territorial aims either. So if failure to succeed is being used as an indicator for what an aim might have been, then Russia (according to you) had no aims at all, because it's going to fail at everything. The fact that this approach failed to secure a weaker NATO doesn't prove that it was never intended to achieve a weaker NATO.

This is a familiar line of argument for anyone who ever debated a holocaust or climate change denier: — Olivier5

This is a familiar line of argument for anyone who wants to dismiss and argument without having to actually address it.

Why do people trust other people? Perhaps because life would be next to impossible if one trusted no one. — Olivier5

Who said anything about trusting no one?

Who said anything about trusting no one? — Isaac

I said it was next to impossible. So whom do you trust, if you don't trust 'the media'?

Learn history.

If you think that everything revolves around the US and it's actions and everything happens because of the US, you are not only ignorant, but also delusional.

The US and Europe spent billions on undermining communism, fought proxy wars, instigated covert regime changes, created the largest spying rings ever seen... — Isaac

And so did the Soviet Union with quite a success.

Your argument is that none of that had any effect whatsoever. I — Isaac

Wrong. What I say is that these were only minor issues that had minor effects. The reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed as it did are different.

The arms race with the US and the war in Afghanistan were in the end simply minor issues compared to the reality that a) the Soviet economy wasn't working and that b) the Union and it's citizens of diverse mix of ethnicities, cultures, and religions of an Empire long past it's prime, hence separatism prevailed. Even with those reasons, the Soviet Union could have endured longer...if Russia itself would have tried to sustain the Union as Serbia tried with Yugoslavia. But that didn't happen. On the contrary.
[/img]

Perestroika and Glasnost undermined the Soviet Empire as Gorbachev simply didn't understand that the Soviet Union was built on the Russian Empire, which would have no internal cohesion to keep intact. The British were far more successful with their Commonwealth than Russia with it's CIS.

Really, learn your history first.

Really, learn your history first. — ssu

Don't patronise me. Read what I've written. Did I at any point say that the US were either a sole or major factor in the downfall of the US? Did I make any claim whatsoever about the scale of the effect?

You, however, claimed...

I'd call that genuine Western hubris, if Americans or others think that the Soviet Union collapsed because of them. The Soviet Union collapsed on itself. — ssu

Really, learn your history first. The US played a role too.

If anyone were arguing that NATO expansion were the reason for the war then you could reasonably point to the inefficiency of the technique as a counterargument. — Isaac

You just read what the Forum's official Putin troll has said here:

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, after years of EU and NATO expansion and constant Western interference in Russia and neighboring countries like Ukraine. — Apollodorus

In any case, Russia cannot logically be expected to accept the Black Sea being turned into a NATO lake (controlled by NATO states Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and possibly Georgia). — Apollodorus

And there would be a multitude of other references. Case closed.

I'm not accusing you of holding the Putinist line here, Isaac.

I said it was next to impossible. — Olivier5

Yes, I read that. I was wondering why (since no one had argued the contrary and it's blinding obvious) you felt the need to say such a thing.

So whom do you trust, if you don't trust 'the media'? — Olivier5

There's a variety box media sources I trust. Generally, I check that they have some accepted qualification in the field they're talking on, check they have no glaringly obvious conflict of interest, then I see if their overall narrative is similar to mine and trust them, or not, on that basis.

But trust isn't relevant here. You said...

It is an established fact — Olivier5

...not "this is who I trust", or "this is what X reports". Your claim was that it is an actual established fact.

You just read what the Forum's official Putin troll has said here: — ssu

If @Apollodorus is such a troll (not necessarily disagreeing) then their arguments can be safely ignored, no? If we're having a grown up discussion, one does not occasionally interject to say "of course, Santa Claus doesn't really exist".

If we're having a grown up discussion, one does not occasionally interject to say "of course, Santa Claus doesn't really exist". — Isaac

Lol.

Well, in the case of this thread (and with subjects that are targets of active information warfare) it might be useful to occasionally say this. Just for clarity... :wink:

the case of this thread (and with subjects that are targets of active information warfare) it might be useful to occasionally say this. Just for clarity.. — ssu

True. Does that apply to occasionally reminding everyone what imperialist warmongering bastards America are too!

Just for clarity...

If it's written by a US newspaper my working presumption is that it's a lie until I can find the same story in the Chinese owned state media. — Benkei

Not just lie, but propaganda. As for the same story being told in state-owned media: the story on RT no less "Ukraine attacked oil depot inside Russia – governor" is most probably true. Other news sites have probably verified this event to the point it cannot be played down or dismissed. So they have to report it. Motives are important.

However many pseudo-headlines exist to intimidate dissenters from the government line, these usually end in a question mark or a suggestion. The BBC's has been built up as the authoritative source for all news, to the point where anyone questioning its objectivity is summarily dismissed. Suppressing dissenting voices.

Red Cross aid convoy struggles to reach Mariupol

Gruesome evidence points to war crimes on road to Kyiv

Russian forces regrouping for attack - Nato — BBC Headlines

Translation: Russia is doing bad things, so it is your moral duty to support all measures against Russia.

I had no idea that spreading lies and deceit was not permissible, I see it all the time.

To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.

We are impartial, seeking to reflect the views and experiences of our audiences – so that our output as a whole includes a breadth and diversity of opinion and no significant strand of thought is under-represented or omitted. — BBC Editorial Values

Meanwhile RT is banned, maybe their opinions and views are redundant? Or simply not permitted.

London described the two outlets as “Russian propagandists and state media who spread lies and deceit about Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine,” although no examples of falsehoods or deceitful statements from RT or Sputnik were given. — RT

You tell me. Is the BBC living upto its guidelines?

I said it was next to impossible. So whom do you trust, if you don't trust 'the media'? — Olivier5

It is so easy these days because the media never bothers to cover its crimes, they are too powerful to need to do that. Anyone can see bias and filtering. If they all agree you can trust the news item

True. Does that apply to occasionally reminding everyone what imperialist warmongering bastards America are too! — Isaac

I have no trouble in mentioning those times when they have acted as such.

When it comes to information warfare or classic "propaganda", I think both sides here (the West, Russia) stick to the truth when the truth is beneficial to them. Then it's about noticing what is left out. Hence years ago Russia Today could do a great job in objectively covering the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations, because why not?

Another issue is the obvious information campaign when the side is committed to a war. Once the US (or NATO) is really at war, then you see the obvious restrictions and propaganda, once the machine truly starts to work out. It's actually quite evident. Before it's just the normal bias. In wartime it's different. The US won't do the mistake it did a leave the reporters free to report what they see as in Vietnam. Or leave him to interview the soldier on the ground who can tell exactly what he thinks of the war.

Putin's Russia understands this even better. Hence you car read about how much humanitarian aid Russia has sent to the Donbass and Mariupol. After all, it's just a special military operation.