It's obviously relevant that one of the main reasons for fighting and not making peace with Russia, and one major galvanization of Ukrainian and Western public opinion behind Ukraine was the "right to join NATO" which Zelenskyy was already told by NATO would never happen. — boethius

Your post is very unclear. Try and write less but clearer.

Are you now talking of the present situation, or of the pre-war situation? Pre-war, Zelenskyy might legitimely have had other priorities than changing the constitution. Post-war (or during the war) the situation is very different. Now Zelenskyy has been told that NATO membership is not an option, and is under pressure from the Russians to drop the idea altogether. And he is ready to do so so what's your beef?

More generally, why the agressive stance towards Zelenskyy? He's doing well, the best he can. If one has to be a political realist and accept Putin as a player, as you have argued, what's the point of bitching endlessly about the other guy, Zelenskyy? Are you paid for badmouthing him, or what?

Your post is very unclear. Try and write less but clearer. — Olivier5

Maybe it's perfectly clear but cause for pause for thought as I mention, and thus cognitive dissonance if one does not wish to pause to think about anything.

Pre-war, Zelenskyy might legitimely have had other priorities than changing the constitution. — Olivier5

The key point is not what plans Zelenskyy may have had.

The key point is telling the Ukrainian people to fight for the right to join NATO, make belief that NATO is coming if they fight hard enough and distribute small arms to civilians making them military targets, and so on.

Had Zelenskyy simply not mentioned joining NATO as a reason to fight, and came out with now that NATO told him that Ukraine would never join, ok, maybe we can give the benefit of the doubt that Zelenskyy worked with that information in some plausibly competent way, and, more importantly, he wouldn't have been lying about joining NATO, and fighting to join NATO, and constantly making speeches and demanding to join NATO and NATO direct intervention etc. for cause to fight rather than sue for peace in the first low-intensity week of the war.

More generally, why the agressive stance towards Zelenskyy? — Olivier5

Critical scrutiny is not "aggressive". Why the "aggressive" attitude towards Putin?

He's doing well, the best he can. — Olivier5

Lying about the reasons to fight and die are not "doing the best you can".

You are, in this claim, engaged in precisely the framework of assuming Zelenskyy has just cause, that fighting to the last Ukrainian is just cause, and whatever Zelenskyy needs to say to get arms and keep Ukrainians fighting and dying is just and beyond criticism because what needs to happen is Ukrainians fighting and dying, regardless of the outcome for Ukraine.

If one has to be a political realist and accept Putin as a player, as you have argued, what's the point of bitching endlessly about the other guy, Zelenskyy? — Olivier5

Accept Putin as a player?

One must accept the war is happening.

As I've said, if there's a military solution for Ukraine, then they need not sue for peace and you need not try to understand different perspectives for the purposes of a diplomatic resolution. And I've said many times that surprises happen in warfare all the time and maybe Ukraine will have some great victory and march on Moscow and write the history of it at their leisure.

However, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Ukrainians, then understanding the opposing perspectives is required to find a peaceful resolution.

We get the Ukrainian perspective, and not simply the perspective but the repetition of all their claims as factual in the Western media, if it was the reverse and the Western media just agreed with everything Putin said, then I'd try my best to present the Ukrainian perspective for the purposes of diplomacy and peace making.

That's because you're fucking crazy.

Just looked at your avatar, now that is crazy.

(One of my favourite films)

It's funny how you just assume I don't know all these things already. You left out the consideration that a successful resolution by a people of whom 50% of their relatives are Russian might cause problems in Russia for Putin as well, which is why it was also important for him to intervene. (I see you mention it later after I started typing this). But that seems like the only other reasonable strategic goal. And that revolution wouldn't be a thing if not for the meddling of the US in Ukraine to begin with.

But let's look at the artificiality and USSR our Russian empire claims. When did he make them and who was he addressing?

When he talks about "historical justice" and denies the strategic value of Crimea, who is he talking to? How likely is it for Putin to commit war efforts that inevitably will incur sanctions for a non-strategic goal? This from the guy who climbed from basically nothing to the President of Russia. We are now to believe he turned into an idiot?

The one consistent issue repeated and recognised for 3 decades: NATO expansion.

All the demands on the table from Russia before this war started were about: NATO expansion.

This war would not have happened but for: NATO expansion.

Other motives and strategic goals were ancillary at best.

What the hell is wrong with things having multiple causes?

Why the incessant urge to denounce every other reason but NATO enlargement as the cause for this war? — ssu

Where have I denounced those other reasons? Quote me, don't just assign views to me you find convenient.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014

“It doesn’t have to be solid intelligence,” one U.S. official said. “It’s more important to get out ahead of them [the Russians], Putin specifically, before they do something."

Multiple U.S. officials acknowledged that the U.S. has used information as a weapon even when confidence in the accuracy of the information wasn’t high. Sometimes it has used low-confidence intelligence for deterrent effect, as with chemical agents, and other times, as an official put it, the U.S. is just “trying to get inside Putin’s head.”

In another disclosure, U.S. officials said one reason not to provide Ukraine with MiG fighter jets is that intelligence showed Russia would view the move as escalatory.

That was true, but it was also true of Stinger missiles, which the Biden administration did provide, two U.S. officials said, adding that the administration declassified the MiG information to bolster the argument not to provide them to Ukraine.

And most shockingly...

It was an attention-grabbing assertion that made headlines around the world: U.S. officials said they had indications suggesting Russia might be preparing to use chemical agents in Ukraine.

President Joe Biden later said it publicly. But three U.S. officials told NBC News this week there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine. They said the U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions.

...But sure, we can completely trust the information western media sources report. It's not at all a load of propagandist bullshit.

Maybe it's perfectly clear — boethius

To you, certainly it is. But not to me.

Lying about the reasons to fight and die are not "doing the best you can". — boethius

What lie are you talking about, oh confused one?

Had Zelenskyy simply not mentioned joining NATO as a reason to fight, — boethius

That's a lie. Ukraine is fighting to defend herself, not for the right to enter NATO.

Why the "aggressive" attitude towards Putin? — boethius

Mr Putin decided to start a pretty atrocious war and threatened the world with nuclear Armageddon, if you remember.

However, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Ukrainians, then understanding the opposing perspectives is required to find a peaceful resolution. — boethius

Likewise, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Russians, then understanding the Ukrainian perspective is required to find a peaceful resolution. Tell that to your masters.

To you, certainly it is. But not to me. — Olivier5

Yeah... key word maybe. As in "Maybe it's perfectly clear".

What lie are you talking about, oh confused one? — Olivier5

Zelenskyy pretending to not have been told NATO would never let Ukraine in, but advocating to join NATO and making social media stunts for the purposes of joining NATO etc. is one of those "the big lie" as a rational to fight the Russians.

That's a lie. Ukraine is fighting to defend herself, not for the right to enter NATO. — Olivier5

One of the big reasons for the first week, and evening continuing after, was "the right to join NATO". Repeated by Zelenskyy and the whole reason to make Ukrainian civilians legitimate military targets was that it would be further reason to join NATO. You may have a short memory, but "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" was not only a reason to fight, but also a reason to refuse Russia's peace terms ... but if it turns out Zelenskyy already was told by NATO that Ukraine would never join NATO than it's simply lying to motivate Ukrainians to fight and also motivate Ukrainians and other politicians (which do exist in Ukraine) to accept refusing Russia's peace terms, and it was echoed all over Western and social media, so was a big meme of the time.

Mr Putin decided to start a pretty atrocious war and threatened the world with nuclear Armageddon, if you remember. — Olivier5

So did Zelenskyy. And, keep in mind, the war that could start WWIII has been simmering since 2014 after Ukraine refused to give Crimea and Dombas regions the right to self determination and right to not join NATO, in the name of their right to self determination to join NATO. A war continued by Zelenskyy.

Likewise, if a peace deal is the only resolution of the war available to Russians, then understanding the Ukrainian perspective is required to find a peaceful resolution. Tell that to your masters. — Olivier5

I'm pretty they can get the Ukrainian perspective anytime of the day or night by turning on CNN.

Zelenskyy pretending to not have been told NATO would never let Ukraine in, but advocating to join NATO and making social media stunts for the purposes of joining NATO etc. is one of those "the big lie" as a rational to fight the Russians. — boethius

What evidence is there that Zelenskyy was told about that before the war? At what occasion did NATO tell him?

You may have a short memory, but "Ukraine has a right to join NATO" was not only a reason to fight, but also a reason to refuse Russia's peace terms
— boethius

Refresh my memory and present evidence of that, oh noble liar for the Great Bare-chested One.

they can get the Ukrainian perspective anytime of the day or night by turning on CNN. — boethius

CNN is just hogwash and clickbait, most of times. At best they are facile. You can do better than that in understanding the Ukrainian perspective.

So did Zelenskyy. — boethius

That's a lie again. Mr Zelenskyy started no war.

What evidence is there that Zelenskyy was told about that before the war? At what occasion did NATO tell him? — Olivier5

He literally said this on live television in a CNN interview, after making final desperate arguments to join NATO.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that if his country had been admitted into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance earlier, then Russia would not have invaded the country.

“If we were a NATO member, a war wouldn't have started. I'd like to receive security guarantees for my country, for my people,” Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on “GPS,” adding that he was grateful for the aid NATO has provided since the invasion began. “If NATO members are ready to see us in the alliance, then do it immediately because people are dying on a daily basis.”

He continued, “But if you are not ready to preserve the lives of our people, if you just want to see us straddle two worlds, if you want to see us in this dubious position where we don't understand whether you can accept us or not — you cannot place us in this situation, you cannot force us to be in this limbo.”
"I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five, just say it directly and clearly, or just say no," Zelensky said. "And the response was very clear, you're not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open," he said. — CNN

Yet on February 14's, Zelenskyy made a speech still arguing and requesting to join NATO.

Refresh my memory and present evidence of that, oh noble liar for the great One. — Olivier5

I do not believe in the just cause justifying lying about the reasons for the just cause in the first place.

I suppose some lying is required to do covert actions, and undercover police work, and I suppose there's other morally arguable situations for lying, but I do not support lying about the reasons for war in the first place or the reasons to reject peace in order to manipulate one's citizens and other politicians into supporting more war.

That's a lie again. Mr Zelenskyy started no war. — Olivier5

I said he continued the war that Ukraine started by refusing to accept Crimea and Dombas right to self determination. Sure, you can say Ukraine attacked the Dombas because they have no right to self determination, and it was "legal", but that's still starting a war about the issue, a war that would simmer and lead to this larger war and increased risk of WWIII, not just due to escalation of this war but permanent higher risk due to the new cold war.



Is an interesting documentary about the war in the Dombas region made in 2016.

I watched it yesterday ... but it seems I'm not allowed to watch it today. (At least for me it has a button "I understand and wish to proceed" but then nothing happens if I click said button. https://youtu.be/RUP6B_GYMmA link plays.)

I said he continued the war that Ukraine started by refusing to accept Crimea and Dombas right to self determination. — boethius

If you think about it hard enough Russia is the real victim here! Do you ever stop and listen to yourself?

If you think about it hard enough Russia is the real victim here! — RogueAI

Dombas isn't Russia and currently not even Russian.

You can say you started a war for legal, even moral, reasons, such as to crush a breakaway region for the glory of Ukraine.

It's still starting a war.

Just looked at your avatar, now that is crazy. — Punshhh

Yes. Gotta keep that under wraps and pass for normal.

Total agreement once again.

:up:

He literally said this on live television in a CNN interview ....
— boethius

"I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five, just say it directly and clearly, or just say no," Zelensky said. "And the response was very clear, you're not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open," he said. — CNN

But that quote is dated a week after the start of the war. Before the war, he was never told that.

I said he continued the war that Ukraine started by refusing to accept Crimea and Dombas right to self determination. — boethius

Okay so you lied implying that Zelenskyy had started an atrocious war and threatened the world with nuclear Armageddon. Just like Putin did.

And Zelenskyy is the one asking for a transparent popular vote in Crimea and Dombas (?). Don't assume all the people in these places want to live in a mini-putinistan. Maybe they prefer to live in a democracy, who knows?

But that quote is dated a week after the start of the war. Before the war, he was never told that. — Olivier5

My interpretation was that he was told before the war, and apart of his reasons for becoming more cold on NATO for a while.

Considering Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Zelenskyy before the war to try to convince him to give up NATO aspirations and take a deal backed by Putin and Biden, it seems to me exceedingly likely that he was informed then and also before that he would not be joining NATO.

Which if NATO told him, it's not so duplicitous (not leading him on as it appeared originally), and just basic diplomacy. NATO coming out and publicly shutting the door would be humiliating, so they're saying the big boy words in private, that Zelenskyy needs to deal with.

On the contrary, he is the one asking for a transparent popular vote in Crimea. — Olivier5

If you have a right to self determination, don't you have a right to carry out votes as you please?

Why would it matter what Zelenskyy thinks of how Crimea votes.

Point in all that is that legalistic reasoning to justify war cuts both ways, and will never resolve the war.

If Ukraine can use it's right to self determination to justify attacking the Dombas region, the Dombas region can use it's right to self determination to reject Ukraine's right to self determination and to ask Russia to intervene on it's behalf, just as Ukraine has the right to ask NATO to intervene on its behalf.

I am not arguing that "Russia is right". I'm arguing that these kinds of arguments will never resolve.

Legal arguments get resolved because a judge makes it so and a state enforces the judges opinion. Left to themselves, lawyers would never reach some sort of consensus about pretty much any acrimonious dispute but would keep arguing about it until the end of time.

If there is no judge and no state that will "provide justice" then the only alternative is trial by combat (aka. war) or then to talk it out. That is the purpose of such arguments.

The other purpose is to point out that diplomacy and statecraft is required to avoid unnecessary suffering even if immense suffering is unavoidable with our current nation state system.

I do not like the state and I do not view it as a natural organ of human organisation and is so dangerous, but insofar as states exist, precisely because it is so dangerous, I much the state be in competent hands who at least understand statecraft, just as I don't like nuclear weapons but, insofar as they are around, I much prefer them to be in the hands of competent officers who understand their craft of command and control and practice it honorably and care for them, precisely because they are so horrifyingly dangerous.

In short, in my view we are as much morally obliged to be repulsed and horrified by the state as we are morally obliged to care for it.

Okay so you don't exactly know when he was told but it was after or soon before the start of the war.

So my case is strengthened: it was not a priority for him to change the constitution before the war. He had no good reason to do so.

But your personal bias against the democratically elected leader of a nation invaded by a criminal and militaristic autocracy is sadly noted.

Well, of course economies are interdependent. But I don’t think derivatives are that negligible at all:

The full interest rate derivatives market in the euro area is very large in terms of both volume and the number of instruments it contains. As of June 2019 the total outstanding notional amount in interest rate derivatives was around €200 trillion, which accounted for two-thirds of the total euro area derivatives market.

Derivatives transactions data and their use in central bank analysis – European Central Bank

Plus, I only gave that as an example. On top of that comes investment, credit, other financial services, etc.

In 2020:
US investments in Europe amounted to about 3.66 trillion USD.
EU service imports from US: 246.7bn EUR
EU service exports to US: 171.4bn EUR (EU Balance: -75.3bn EUR)

The US dominates the global stock market
The US dominates capital markets and financial services
The US dominates international financial institutions like the World Bank

The top ten investment banks globally are: 5 US, 2 UK, 2 France, 1 Switzerland

The US dollar is the dominant global currency

The international gold price is set by the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) which is dominated by US and UK banks like Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Standard Chartered, HSBC, etc.

The Global Financial Centers Index (GFCI) 2022 has the following ranking:

1. New York
2. London
11. Paris
16. Frankfurt
19. Amsterdam
27. Luxembourg
36. Brussels
43. Dublin
49. Helsinki

GFCI 31 Rank - Long Finance

On the whole, I for one don’t see the EU as the dominant partner. But others are free to see it differently if they so choose ….

The EU is a project. It's not finished yet.

If you have a right to self determination, don't you have a right to carry out votes as you please? — boethius

In theory, that's precisely what it implies and requires: a vote. How do you know what people self-determine without a referendum?

In theory, that's precisely what it implies and requires: a vote. — Olivier5

So ... in theory, if I call for better more transparent voting the US, Ukraine or anywhere, that removes the right to self determination?

Why can't Crimea decide how it will vote and "self determine" what a vote? If you say it's not valid due to Russian influence, why can't Crimea decide to be influenced by Russia?

There is no world government that decides what is and is not a legitimate democratic vote ... and the right to self determination can include swearing an oath to a king.

It's a pretty vague concept without any clear meaning to begin with. It sounds good "self determination" but there is no agreed global governing framework to implement it ... and indeed "self determination" is intrinsically in conflict with the very idea of a global government to give it legally precise meaning of exactly who get's to self determine themselves anything and how.

Ukraine invoked it in it's argument to join NATO ... Crimea and Dombas can invoke it in their argument to join Russia.

It's another legal concept that sounds good to say, everyone likes to say it so usually is fine with other people saying it ... until the moment your right to self determination conflicts with mine then your right isn't a "real right" for some random reason, is how this "right" plays out in the real world. Pretty much every nation invokes it's right to self determination while denying the very same right to any of its components.

Okay so you dot exactly know when he was told but it was after or soon before the start of the war. — Olivier5

The way he expresses that he asked NATO if they could join in 2 years of 5 years, or then just say no, makes no sense in the context of an ongoing war, which, a few sentences before he makes clear his desire to join NATO tomorrow. It makes zero sense the idea that just a week before he asked NATO if Ukraine could join in 2 years or 5 years while the war was ongoing.

We know he was offered a peace deal, that both Russia, US and the EU would back.

A peace deal he rejected. You agree his hands weren't tied. It's clear Ukraine isn't joining NATO ... so the result after the war will be exactly the peace deal offered before the war (but with more concessions and death) which is Ukraine not in NATO.

It's also clear that his only strategy was to get NATO involved in the war, he spends considerable effort on joining NATO, even after the war starts, using every social media stunt possible including handing out small arms to civilians, and then spends considerable amount of time on requesting a no-fly zone.

He is responsible for his decisions and the outcome.

So my case is strengthened: it was not a priority for him to change the constitution before the war. He had no good reason to do so. — Olivier5

Case strengthened how?

It's also just common sense that Ukraine won't be joining NATO, so he'd be responsible to understand that anyways (even if NATO was leading him on, which we now know wasn't the case, if he wants to be president of a country he should know anyways these common sense things).

Likewise, if the constitution wasn't his priority because peace wasn't his priority and he prefers a war with Russia and that was his priority. Mission accomplished.

But you personal bias against the democratically elected leader of a nation invaded by a militaristic autocracy is noted. — Olivier5

Correction: democratically elected and self determined militaristic autocracy.

Why can't Crimea decide how it will vote and "self determine" what a vote? If you say it's not valid due to Russian influence, why can't Crimea decide to be influenced by Russia? — boethius

How would you figure out what they want without asking them?

But your personal bias against the democratically elected leader of a nation invaded by a criminal and militaristic autocracy is sadly noted. — Olivier5

But what if the "democratically elected leader" is a clown and a crook? His approval ratings were down to 30% before the invasion. So, something wasn't right somewhere. Now he has seized control of the media, has banned opposition parties, and has placed the country under martial law.

Plus, some may argue that the US government was autocratic and militaristic. Would you advocate for the land to be returned to the natives?

Mr Zelenskyy might be a clown but he is a good one. Servant of the People is really funny. THAT -- and not CNN as suggested by @boethius, the mage who came from the cold -- is what Mr Putin should watch if he wants to understand better the mindset of his opponent. And I doubt he is a crook yet. Not as much as the other guy.

How would you figure out what they want without asking them? — Olivier5

That's the whole idea of self-determination: none of my business to figure out anything. I have no "right" about it.

I am not part of their "self" and therefore have no right to determine anything in contradiction to their right to self determination.

And if Ukrainian state has a right that's more important than Crimea or Dombas right to self determination because they were part of the Ukrainian state before ... then it follows Russia can assert the same "more important right" over the whole of Ukraine because Ukraine was part of Russia before.

The legal arguments don't go anywhere as rights are too vague and too many people have them to determine anything, without a judge and a state to decide who's rights, of all the competing claims and rights in contradiction, will prevail in a given circumstance.

If you create some doctrine that a state has a right to recover a breakaway region, obviously that doctrine will be tailored to your predetermined objectives of what breakaway regions you think a given state should recover and which breakaway regions ... we don't talk about that here: a la Ukrainians can fight for their land, by American natives have no right to fight for their land, or any other native population, or the British to recover the breakaway region of the United States and so on. "Rights" of these kinds don't matter in determining international relations: but, rather, who's won what wars and who can win what war.

That's the whole idea of self-determination: none of my business to figure out anything. I have no "right" about it. — boethius

Self-determination means nothing to you then? You have no criteria for it, no way to ascertain it?

Isn't Zelensky the reason this is still going on?

If he would have left the country, Ukraine would be part of Russia now, right?