Let's face it: England was part of William's sphere of influence...

Yet it proves that yours was a straw man argument based on a misinterpreted bit of what I wrote. — neomac

On the contrary, it is you who misinterpreted my position. You need (1) to show that you correctly understand others before blaming them for misunderstanding your incomprehensible statements and (2) make sure that your statements are comprehensible.

From what I see, you seem to be some kind of Nazi who thinks people should shut up unless they think and speak exactly like you.

The fact is that when I said "as far as I am concerned", I meant that it makes no difference to me personally, as it doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever. The conflict might put up my energy bills, but other than that, it makes no difference to me. Hence I have no personal interest in "spreading pro-Russian propaganda" as you falsely claimed.

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

If you were prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, North Cyprus back to the Cypriots, Kurdistan back to the Kurds, Germany back to the Germans, etc., then you might have some credibility. But as it is, you haven’t.

IMO if you've got a rule or law, you must apply it consistently, not arbitrarily, otherwise it's just a joke. Unfortunately, there is no consistency whatsoever in the NATO position

The fact is that NATO was created by America and its British puppet as an anti-German and anti-Russian organization with the express aim of keeping “Russia out of Europe and the Germans down” as admitted by NATO's own website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay – NATO

NATO’s basic position vis-à-vis Russia seems to be that the Russians have no rights whatsoever and they shouldn’t even exist except as an English-speaking colony or vassal-state of the EU-US-NATO Empire.

Ismay, of course, was a representative of the British Establishment. But, aside from being rooted in British imperialism, the Western position on Ukraine is based on ignorance, misinformation, and propaganda.

The historical truth is that Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine have always been one country, originally called “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę) or short “Rus”.
Russia means “Land of the Russians”, Belarus (Belaya Rus) means “White Russia” (or “Western Russia”), and Ukraine (Okraina) means “Borderland”, probably referring to that part of Russia that bordered on Poland and Romania:

The name Ukraine (Ukrainian: Україна, romanized: Ukrayina [ʊkrɐˈjinɐ] (, Вкраїна Vkrayina [u̯krɐˈjinɐ]) was first used in reference to a part of the territory of Kievan Rus' in the 12th century. The name has been used in a variety of ways since the 12th century, referring to numerous lands on the border between Poland and Kievan Rus' or its successor states.

Name of Ukraine – Wikipedia

From the 9th century AD, all three were one country, though parts of Ukraine were occupied by Poland, Lithuania, or the Mongols. Following the defeat of the Mongols, they became the core of the Russian Empire.

The “Ukraine issue” only emerged with the collapse of the Russian Empire in the wake of the 1917 revolution, when the war situation created a conflict between the western and eastern parts of Ukraine, with the western, German-controlled, part forming the breakaway Ukrainian People’s Republic with the capital Kiev, and the eastern part forming the Moscow-controlled Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with the capital Kharkiv:

The watershed period in the development of modern Ukrainian national consciousness was the struggle for independence during the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic from 1917 to 1921 - Wikipedia

However, Ukraine remained an inalienable part of the Russian State until 1991. When Ukraine became independent, Crimea was under Ukrainian control but was first shared with Russia together with the Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine’s plans to join the EU and NATO obviously resulted in problems regarding (1) Crimea, (2) access to the Black Sea, and (3) the Black Sea Fleet. As these problems were not resolved, Russia occupied and annexed Crimea in 2014.

This should have been the end of the matter. But the problem continued to fester with the West arming and training the Ukrainian forces and threatening to take back Crimea and the ethnic-Russian areas of Luhansk and Donetsk.

So, it seems to me that the US, Britain, Poland, and a few others that had been training and arming the Ukrainians since 2014, planned this conflict at least from that date if not earlier.

This seems to be supported by the fact that a few weeks ago the West was talking about avoiding WW3 whereas now it is ready for all-out jihad on Russia.

Even the Pope believes that NATO has something to do with the conflict:

Pope Francis' concern is that Putin, for the time being, will not stop. He also tries to reason about the roots of this behavior, about the motivations that push him to such a brutal war. Perhaps "NATO's barking at Russia's door" has caused the head of the Kremlin to react badly and trigger the conflict. "An anger that I cannot say if it was provoked," he wonders, "but perhaps facilitated."

Interview with Pope Francis – Corriere della Sera

Of course, NATO jihadis will claim that the Pope is a "Putinist" or that Corriere della Sera is "owned by the KGB" or something. Which rather shows that there is no point talking to NATO fanatics. :grin:

Yes, and it happened under the USSR and in Nazi Germany too. It's happening now in Ukraine. Torture. Rape. Murder. — Olivier5

Sure. But my point was that we shouldn’t ignore what is happening in NATO. To give you some idea of the human-rights situation in NATO country Turkey, according to Wikipedia, Amnesty International, and other sources:

Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary killings (2,308 persons from 1991-2008)

Enforced disappearances and killings by “unknown perpetrators”

Widespread and systematic use of torture:

Suspects are blindfolded and handcuffed immediately after detention. Even common criminal suspects are stripped naked during interrogation and left like that, often after being hosed with ice-cold water or left on the concrete floors of cells in harsh conditions of winter. The HRA and the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT) determined 37 torture techniques, such as electric shock, squeezing the testicles, hanging by the arms or legs, blindfolding, stripping the suspect naked, spraying with high-pressure water, etc. These techniques are used by the special team members and other interrogation teams - Wikipedia

(See more on torture below)

State censorship (government control over media, heavy pro-government propaganda by news agencies, newspapers, TV channels, Internet portals, seizure of independent media companies, direct pressure on media outlets)

Banning of political parties

Imprisonment and killings of journalists (according to Reporters Without Borders, “Turkey is world leader in imprisoning journalists”, Amnesty International has referred to Turkey as “the world’s largest prison for journalists”, by some accounts Turkey currently accounts for one-third of all journalists imprisoned around the world, 165 journalists arrested, 88 convicted, 167 wanted, dozens killed as of May 2020)

Massacres against Kurds and other groups

Severe repression of ethnic minorities (Turkish law prohibits creation of minorities or alleging existence of minorities)

Racism (long history of pogroms against various ethnic groups, genocide against Armenians, 71% of adults hold anti-Semitic views, etc.)

Women (President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that equality between men and women is “against nature”, Turkey is a major market for foreign women who are coaxed and forcibly brought to the country by international mafia to work as sex slaves, etc.)

Censorship in Turkey - Wikipedia

List of arrested journalists in Turkey – Wikipedia

Racism and discrimination in Turkey - Wikipedia

Torture in Turkey – Wikipedia

Massacres committed by Turkey – Wikipedia

Torture:
In 2016, the Turkish government arrested 94,975 people and locked them up in various torture centers in Ankara. Erhan Doğan, a history teacher who was among those arrested and tortured, relates:

We were kept and beaten at the study center until early in the morning … Then they took me to the Ankara Police Department gym, a large indoor sports facility. They made everyone wear orange shirts in the gym. Rows of people with their hands cuffed from behind, facing the wall. There were traces of blood on the walls as high up as a human being …
Grabbing me by my hair, they hit my head against the wall. They removed my clothes down to my underwear, then they doused me with water and beat me with truncheon. But the team we were really afraid of was the one working the night shift. There was a team that came at around 11 or 12 at night and left at around 4 in the morning. Their torture was unbearable. They hung me up for two-and-a-half hours in strappado. When they lowered me to the ground, I thought all my bones were broken. I couldn’t walk …
During the interrogation, they suddenly battered you violently while you were talking to the police without any apparent reason or provocation, targeting particularly your calves and groin. Once I was answering a question, and I got a severe blow to my kneecap. My whole body was convulsed with pain. I heard a crack. I learned that my cruciate ligament was ruptured when I went to a doctor after I was released from there. I lost three teeth as well as my glasses during the torture …
We lost all sense of time, but it must have been on July 28 at around 11 at night when my name was called. I was taken to the partition. The front screens were left open. When the police started battering me, I saw three young women in headscarves being led in front of the partition I was in. They were 20 to 25 years old. They were taken to an adjacent partition … They started torturing them. I realized from their subsequent reactions and wailing that they had been raped …
When they took me to the doctor [who had witnessed the torture], she asked me if I had any complaints. I was soaked in blood, it was obvious that I had been tortured. I involuntarily said, ‘Don’t you see?’ The police took me away, telling the doctor they would bring me back. I was beaten once again. ‘You will not speak, we will,’ they said. Back to the doctor, who asked me again if I had anything to say. The police officer next to me replied, ‘As fit as a fiddle.’ I could not tell the judge about the torture I underwent lest they torture me again …

I heard screams of women being raped at a Turkish detention center, says torture victim - Stockholm Center for Freedom

Garibe Gezer, a female Kurdish political prisoner who was in solitary confinement in Turkey, recently died in prison after months of torture and rape. Political prisoners in Turkey are systematically mistreated and even tortured for having the "wrong" political thoughts or for being labelled by the government as "enemies" or "terrorists"

Torture in Turkish Prisons: Systematic and Widespread – Gatestone Institute

Hamdiye Aslan's alleged perpetrators were five police officers. According to a report from Amnesty International in 2003, she had been detained in Mardin Prison, south-east Turkey, for almost three months in which she was reportedly blindfolded, anally raped with a truncheon, threatened and mocked by officers …
Şükran Esen stated that on the three occasions that she was detained she was: raped vaginally by the gendarmes and their officer; given electric shocks; put inside a vehicle tyre and rolled over; subjected to high pressure jet sprays of cold water; and threatened with death. On one occasion, as a result of the sadistic sexual violence, she was finally taken to hospital whilst haemorrhaging …
A medical report from the International Berlin Torture and Rehabilitation Centre, where Esen had undergone treatment, certified that her injuries were the result of torture.

Turkey: a history of sexual violence - The Guardian

I think NATO would do well to clean up its own pigsty before pointing the finger at Russia.

BTW, speaking of Ukraine, it is important not to deny crimes committed by the Ukrainian side:

Testimonies collected by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the U.N. show that the Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, and pro-Ukrainian forces have trampled over the Geneva Conventions, abducting suspects and torturing them in secret prisons.
In a key test of Ukraine's justice system, a Kiev court in April imprisoned former members of the disbanded, pro-Ukrainian "Tornado battalion" for torturing and sexually assaulting civilians in the eastern Luhansk region in early 2015.
Generally, though, chances of prosecution are slim, and survivors complain of sluggish, ineffective police investigations. U.N. documents show that, by the end of 2016, Ukraine's Chief Military Prosecutor's Office had launched only three criminal proceedings that involved allegations of conflict-related sexual violence.

Rape and the Ukrainian War: How Sexual Violence Fuels Both Sides of the Brutal Conflict - Newsweek

Men and women in Ukraine have been beaten, electrocuted by their genitals and raped in cases of sexual violence committed during the conflict which may amount to war crimes, the United Nations’ human rights office said on Thursday.
All sides in the unrest used beatings, forced nudity and other abuses as interrogation techniques to extract confessions from victims or force them to hand over property, the U.N. human rights office said in a report.

Rape, sexual assault in Ukraine conflict may amount to war crimes: U.N. – Reuters

Some NATO members like the US are known for sending prisoners to other countries to be interrogated under torture.

Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition - Open Society Justice Initiative

Yes, in Britain though the architects of the hierarchy were these invaders. — Punshhh

In other words, Britain became increasingly dominated by foreigners starting with the Romans and Anglo-Saxons followed by Normans and ending with Americans.

In addition to Churchill’s father who was married to a rich American, his first cousin Sunny Marlborough (the 9th Duke of Marlborough) was married to another rich American, Consuelo, the daughter of railroad magnate William K. Vanderbilt.

So, Blenheim Palace (Churchill’s house) was built in the early 1700’s, by the 1800’s its owners were in severe financial difficulties (and surviving by selling off bits and pieces of property), and it ended up having to be saved by American money.

Note that the main Churchill politicians at the time were Churchill and his father, not their titled relatives. Churchill himself, despite his aristocratic relatives, was an adventurer, i.e., the type of people that played a key role in building the empire.

Churchill’s ancestor John Churchill (the 1st Duke of Marlborough) himself was a middle-class soldier and a bit of an adventurer himself. His family came into fame when his sister Arabella became the mistress of the married Duke of York (later King James II) and arranged for John to be hired as page at the Duke’s court.

John Churchill was made a captain and later general by James, but he played a key role in a military conspiracy that led to James being overthrown and replaced by William III who rewarded him by making him Earl of Marlborough. He was later made Duke of Marlborough by Queen Anne.

As the Wikipedia puts it:

Marlborough's apologists, including his biographer and most notable descendant Winston Churchill, have been at pains to attribute patriotic, religious, and moral motives to his action; but in the words of David G. Chandler, it is difficult to absolve Marlborough of ruthlessness, ingratitude, intrigue and treachery against a man to whom he owed virtually everything in his life and career to date

In any case, I think Churchill’s case tends to illustrate how the British aristocracy, whose members often had a dodgy pedigree, was gradually supplanted by new, middle-class money and increasingly, by American money interests.

If we go back to William I and William III, we will possibly find that they got some financial backing from the wealthy merchant and ecclesiastical classes (which largely overlapped). After all, wars are expensive. By the time of WW1 Britain’s efforts to keep the Germans down had become too costly to sustain without American loans. The war enabled indebted America to become a creditor country and take a dominant position in the world.

Isn't it interesting that the West produced illiberal systems like Communism and Nazism? This raises the question as to whether “liberal democracy” itself is not really a cover for something more illiberal and undemocratic than people suspect.

This may help explain why we end up with leaders who seem to be more concerned with winning elections than with genuinely representing the electorate ….

Cromwell only did half the job, he gave us the House of Commons, but in short order that house became packed with the aristocracy and the common folk had no vote, or representation. — Punshhh

Yes, well. Revolutions are messy affairs, to state the glaringly obvious. And the prior order of things finds all sorts of ways to kick back and perdure, as shown well in Lampedusa's Gattopardo.

these ideas might not be actually truthful, but surely they do guide the people believing in them. — ssu

Right. So where does that leave your arguments exculpating America?

So far you've admitted that America does indeed have a significant influence over NATO policy, you've admitted that NATO sometimes acts non-defensively, you've admitted that what Putin believes is important in determining how he acts, and you've admitted that it was foreseeable that Putin might believe NATO would act against his interests.

Leaves your argument that America was not a significant provocation a little thin.

Let's not try to stop that. — jorndoe

"Let's". Short for 'let us' right? Are you Russian? because I'm not. So pointing to Putin's failures in respect of negotiation efforts has absolutely nothing to do with us. We are responsible for our efforts, not Putin's. If we haven't done all we can then we need to do more. It's no good pointing to the bad man over there and saying 'well we're not as bad as him'. Since when has that been a respectable moral argument?

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. He made the decision to start this war. — ssu

Yeah. Here's how it goes:

Putin wants to take over Ukraine - he said so
- But how can you tell, he also said he only wants to de-nazify it?
You can tell by his actions, he's tried to take Kyiv
- But how do you know he was trying to take Kyiv and not just occupy Ukraine's forces to better have a chance of occupying Donbas?
Because he wants to take over the whole of Ukraine
- How can you tell that?
Putin wants to take over Ukraine - he said so...

(Return to 'Start')

But my point was that we shouldn’t ignore what is happening in NATO. To give you some idea of the human-rights situation in NATO country Turkey, — Apollodorus

I agree but it's far worse in Ukraine right now than in Turkey right now. Magnitude matters.

Guillaume Seignac - Belgium, France, and England Before the German Invasion

Putin wants to take over Ukraine - he said so
- But how can you tell, he also said he only wants to de-nazify it? — Isaac

Are you really serious?

How about that he annexed Crimea. How about the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk Republics? Or the many times he has referred Ukraine to be an artificial country? And that Ukraine should be with Russia because Rus was the cradle of Russia. If your objective would be only regime change (denazification) or preventing NATO membership, you don't do all above. And that's my point which you seem not to understand.

If a leader of another country refers to your country as artificial, alarm bells should go off. Someone saying of another sovereign state that it's artificial is extremely aggressive. If he then annexes parts of this country, it really should be obvious what his intensions are.

This feels like debating the German invasion of Poland by people arguing that Hitler would have been satisfied and the war prevented if only Poland would have accepted it's terms and hence the war was fault of Western allies, because they declared war on Germany. And that if one would refer to what Hitler had written in his "Mein Kampf" about Lebensraum, that would be totally meaningless. Or just something picked up to proves one's point, not a real reflection on what Mr Hitler's objectives are.

I think Seignac may have (inadvertently, no doubt) forgotten the millions of slaves, coolies, and servants - whom England, France, and Belgium didn't want to share with the Germans ... :smile:

I agree but it's far worse in Ukraine right now than in Turkey right now. Magnitude matters. — Olivier5

Of course our forum troll leaves out that when Erdogan made his putsch, it was Turkish officers working in NATO positions that were the first to be kicked out. I remember some applying for political asylum.

And obviously what isn't mentioned is how Putin has tried to befriend Erdogan, sold him the S-400 missile system and not even making a big issue about Turkey shooting down one of it's fighter bombers some time ago.

Of course the real forum troll leaves out (1) that this is not about "kicking people out" but about thousands of people arrested, tortured, and murdered by the Turkish government, the vast majority of whom are ordinary people, and (2) that NATO makes no effort to punish Turkey for its crimes, not even for invading and occupying parts of Cyprus and Kurdish territories. Says it all really ....

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. — Apollodorus

At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, this is great in theory, but in practice very difficult - the key word here is "rightful".

Who owns the Land?

To the topic under discussion. Even granting for the moment that Ukraine was historically part of Russia - does that mean that it is part of Russia forever? I could be wrong, but my hunch is that overwhelming majority of Ukraine people fighting the Russians would disagree.

Of course it's a theory. But practical policy usually starts with a theory. Or at least with a working hypothesis.

It may well be that most Ukrainians want Ukraine to belong to the EU-NATO Empire instead of Russia. But I believe that the Russians should have some say on it. If according to NATO, Turkey has "legitimate security concerns" in Syria and Iraq, then so has Russia in Ukraine. Unless we want to argue that only NATO members have legitimate security concerns! Even Zelensky keeps saying that he is "prepared to negotiate", possibly meaning some kind of settlement on Crimea - unless he's just bluffing to buy time.

But don't forget that America had a civil war revolving on secession issues, and similar conflicts have taken place all over the world. See the Falklands War, etc. etc. This is why, ideally, the crisis should be resolved by peaceful means and without the involvement of imperialist powers like America that have no business being in Europe.

Try peace-mongering Putin. :smile: (it's a "truth or dare") — jorndoe

Peace mongering is a play on words, which obviously escapes you.

Peace mongering is a term to describe this new inverted media landscape where people who advocate peace are doing the real violence to Ukraine.

That supporting war and weapons being pumped into Ukraine is just common sense and unquestioned support for Ukrainians, whether they be alive or dead. It's called propaganda ... or is the word "consensus". So hard to keep track of these things.

And where those promoting peace are now peace mongers and presented as literally wishing the death of Ukrainians for even thinking about ways to stop the war, those supporting war and violence, the more escalation the merrier, are now presented as basically "war hippies". The CIA itself has been "experimenting" with radical hippy transparency, just "sharing what it knows" with the world in pursuit of truth.

It's truly amazing how quickly people's brains can be rewired.

Be that as it may, I do not see what your links are attempting to show.

As has been said many, many times, if you think Ukraine is fighting a holy and just war and must and should be fought, whether they can win or not: go fight in said war you say should be fought.

And it is not a rhetorical question, many have "heard the call" and have gone.

Why do you press down on buttons of a key board, when you can be pressing buttons on a weapon system in Ukraine?

Yet you and and and others, are here prattling away as if the battle is really fought on social media.

But look around you, there is no actual fighting here, we are talking.

Which makes sense for people who believe that talking and ending the war through an exchange of words—words, also known as peace terms, that are obviously up for discussion in such a process—is preferable to more bloodshed.

However, I honestly do not get how it makes sense for those here that wish to fight the Russians ... but are not fighting the Russians right now ... despite their hero Zelensky inviting them to do so.

Why cheer on from a distance when you can partake directly of the cup of the glory of Ukraine? Taste death in all its nuance and horrid splendor?

And the Ukrainians aren't bending over. And are willing to use force to defend themselves. :shrug:
But, getting together at the negotiation table (or diplomacy) surely is desirable. Let's not try to stop that. — jorndoe

Sure, Ukrainian's can use force.

Obviously, Russians can also use force.

If Zelensky does not know how to do diplomacy in a non-farcical way, that's Ukraine's problem ... unless there is no reason to do diplomacy and farcical demands are simply to taunt the enemy. No need for diplomacy if you can get what you want by force. Totally coherent. Likewise for Russia.

If you want things to be resolved by force and not words ... why do you give us words rather than force?

What do you seek to accomplish with your words?

Clearly it's not a negotiated peace, so if force is the answer why add pathetic words to the internet rather than join your own force to that of Ukraine.

Or are you just noting that in a war of this kind one side will take some or all the territory of the other, and you're just admonishing such a process happening come what may.

We've been told Ukraine is "winning" in some way since a few days after the war started—that not losing in 72 hours was somehow "winning"—and now it's being said that sometime in June Ukraine will be able to "counter offensive" with heavy weapons (not ATGM's ... hmm, what happened to those being enough?).

If there is no reason to make peace, only demand total capitulation and continue fighting when that offer is rejected, then, sure, shrug, sigh: let them fight.

Ukraine can fight as you say, use the force it has. Totally accurate.

Russia can do likewise, use the force it has. Equally accurate. Just, a slight difference in that Russia has nukes.

So, if Ukraine did turn the tide sometime in June or later as we're being told now it will, what reason in that scenario do you propose for Russia to bend over, rather than have the "will" to fight with nukes as it has them and clearly can use them?

If your reasoning for Ukraines fighting is because they can, certainly your reasoning for Russia using nukes is because it can.

And for those who don't think it's fair to talk about nukes ... as obviously Russia could just Nuke Ukraine and win that way and obviously no one would be saying Ukraine "won" anything if they get nuked, but, because recognising that makes the idea Ukraine can "win" nonsensical and the whole propaganda machine around Ukraine "winning" completely stupid, first do some of the most basic possible youtube research:



However, also try to square the idea Putin won't use nukes with the belief Putin is a madman, incompetent, war criminal.

If using nukes is a war crime ... then certainly Putin the war criminal won't be bothered by that?

If Putin is a madman ... then certainly using nukes in Ukraine, running the very small risk NATO would nuke Russia in return would be a mad thing to do?

If there's some "reasons" Russia shouldn't use nukes to win ... shouldn't a strategic incompetent not see such reasons and therefore mistakingly use nukes anyways?

What's even the argument?

That Putin is a blood thirsty erratic, cabin feverish barbarian ... but also savvy enough to know that Western media would "really not like him, like for realz this time, like totally, still have him at maximum Hitler level but, like, actually going to scold him a lot more now" if he used nukes in Ukraine?

Now, if the counter argument is that the talk of war criminal, incompetent and madman are all for propaganda purposes, just "simple myths" that Ukrainians need to keep fighting the good fight they are too simple minded to understand if it's for mythical purposes or not ... then what's the point of the existential proxy war with Russia again?

An existential war that stays a proxy war precisely due to the fear of nukes in the first place.

In other words: NATO won't support Ukraine with any actual skin in the game, boots on the ground, won't actually "stand" with an ally as it doesn't have the "will" to do so, but instead bends over backwards to keep buying Russian resources (not just gas and oil) ... and when questioned of why NATO isn't fighting itself the good fight it says must be fought, the answer is always quite clearly: nuclear weapons, let's not lose our heads!

However, when it's pointed out that Ukraine might get nuked due to NATO propping up a puppet to engage Ukraine in total war and reject all peace terms ... what's the answer?

Has NATO said it will nuke Russia if Russia nukes Ukraine because Ukraine is a friend, ally, a good country with a righteous cause that of course is accepted in NATO right away to benefit from collective defense in a meaningful way?

No, it has not.

Russia has a free hand to nuke Ukraine as far as any NATO comments are concerned, and NATO has absolutely zero reason to retaliate against Russia for an attack against ... well, not NATO, I think that's been made abundantly clear in all this: Ukraine is not in NATO, just doing what NATO wants.

So, if you think things through, if NATO is a "real friend" but just not a real friend, then the calculation is as follows:

Calculation 1:
Ukraine cannot actually win or it will get nuked, and even a stalemate may result in nukes, so Russia must be allowed to win, just with significant losses that are easy to calibrate by regulating the weapons and intelligence sent to Ukraine ... just, of course because we're nice people, not so significant that it may cause the Russians to say "fuck it, let's drop a nuke or two in order to save lives; just as the Americans did on Japan, and now their best buds!", but still, scrumptiously significant losses we can really lick our lips over and be proud.

Calculation 2:
Ukraine cannot be allowed to accept peace terms and so all behind the scenes negotiation between the major powers must be sabotaged by just providing a play by play in the mass media of anyone who does talk to Putin, as well as just publicly state all negotiation must go through Zelensky, who has zero political experience and is easy to manipulate and a reckless lose cannon anyways. Of course, massive amounts of propaganda is needed to make people believe that romcom level of political analysis and ethical arguments are serious diplomatic positions of nation-states.

Calculation 3:
Sanctions must be enough to hurt the Russian economy ... but ... just ... not ... quite ... enough ... that there's still not plenty of money rolling in so Russia is still better off winning the war slowly as we allow them to do, than use nuclear weapons. We're still paying Russia to not drop nukes at the end of the day ... unless ... if and when we want that to change.

Calculation 4:
What's so bad about Russia dropping nukes in Ukraine? We've got all these Ukrainians killed so far, what's the difference between more Ukrainians dying just with nukes instead of conventional weapons? You know, when we really think about needing to consolidate US hegemony over those still disposed to US hegemony, the hegemonied. Could anything else really bring us together better than the warm radioactive glow of Ukraine? For, like, is it just me, or when it's time to wind this thing down, wouldn't it be best to go out with a bang? Wouldn't Russia winning with nukes be a moral victory for us? If they are going to win, maybe it's best they win with nukes, so any reproachment between the US sphere of influence and whatever's happening over there in the East is no longer conceivable by our "allies" (which, obviously doesn't include Ukraine if everyone's thinking what I'm thinking, but, you know, the other ones).

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. — Apollodorus

Since that has been the central issue under contention for every war ever, the observation lacks the clarity you were hoping for.

Or, are people upset—literally labelling anyone that disagrees with them FSB agents and "propagandists", professional ... or amateur!?—because the entire internet isn't their safe space but they feel it should be?

A safe space they are flummoxed to see somehow the moderators haven't created for them but have kept things "low quality" ... well, if so, why engage in low quality debate?

Bu bu bu bu but UkRaNian 'AgEnCy'.

Ukrainians are pawns who get to die so the US can win their geostrategic fight against Russia.

Or, in case any one has an attention span that lasts more than a couple of minutes:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/04/us-lend-lease-act-ukraine-1941-second-world-war

Or else in the New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/ukraine-is-now-americas-war-too

Are you really serious?

How about that he annexed Crimea. How about the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk Republics? — ssu

So is the UK secretly planning to take over Ireland? When Greece moves into Turkish waters in the Aegean they're planning to take over Turkey?

I'm truly shocked to hear that Japan's true motives over the Senkaku and Diaoyu Islands is to occupy China.

And to think that we'd missed the simmering world domination plans of Pakistan which they covered up by simply claiming Kashmir, when what they really want is to occupy the whole of India.

And the danger we've been overlooking all this time in Morocco's secret ambition to take over the whole continent of Africa which our diplomats and foreign policy experts had previously been duped into thinking was a mere land grab for the disputed Western Sahara...

And Israel... oh, I'd forgotten, when Israel annex territory it's an unfortunate misunderstanding between two nations with a difficult and complex history and needs an endless stream of peace envoys to carefully unpick the situation...

the many times he has referred Ukraine to be an artificial country? — ssu

Exactly. But you ignore the many time he referred to the current invasion as 'denazifying'. You've already decided what you think his motives are before listening to what he says because you already have a narrative by which you judge some of his speech as lies and some as a true measure of his intentions.

If your objective would be only regime change (denazification) or preventing NATO membership, you don't do all above. And that's my point which you seem not to understand. — ssu

I understand your point perfectly well. I even think it's a perfectly legitimate and reasonable possibility.

What I object to is risking world war three on the strength of it.

There's a difference between you interpreting what Putin says as indicating he wants to occupy Ukraine (a completely reasonable interpretation), and you saying that all other interpretations are ridiculous and we can safely bring the world to the brink of annihilation on the strength of your guesswork.

I understand your point perfectly well. I even think it's a perfectly legitimate and reasonable possibility. — Isaac

Well, I think we could leave it there and go onward.

* * *

How long the war will be and the possibility of escalation is another issue, which would be more interesting to discuss.

Several US generals have commented that basically Ukraine could do a large counterattack in six months. The Ukrainians have hinted that they could do this in the summer, perhaps next month. The simple fact is that if new equipment and new weapons systems are given, it will take months for them to be trained, shipped out and taken into service. May 9th will likely come and go. As this war is now fought on such high tempo that it's basically depleting both sides equipment very fast. But what the death toll will be later is very unfortunate. Also for the Russians to reorganize their warfighting capability will take months too.

Ukrainians are pawns who get to die so the US can win their geostrategic fight against Russia. — Streetlight

Just like my country and Sweden are now pawns for US geostrategic ambitions? Right.

I didn't say that, nor was that implied by anything I did say.

But of course they are.

Any third-rate Euro-perpipheral nothing-burger state like Sweden or Finland pretty much always is.

Why cheer on from a distance when you can partake directly of the cup of the glory of Ukraine? — boethius

Take your own advice: stop cheering the Russians and enlist on their side. Then you get to rape and torture innocent folks yourself rather than vicariously.

NATO makes no effort to punish Turkey for its crimes, not even for invading and occupying parts of Cyprus and Kurdish territories. Says it all really .... — Apollodorus

All it says is that NATO is a defensive alliance not concerned with internal politics of its members. If we French start to bomb Corsica to dust, NATO will not intervene to stop us. It's not its role.

The tens of thousands of dead people in Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, and Afganistan would disagree with this little piece of blatant untruth.

It is true that NATO's mission is not to act as some savior of all people in need. It is meant and conceived only as a defensive military alliance. Once in a while they make an exception, as in Libya, but to expect NATO to invade Turkey so to free it from Erdogan is absurd.

I don't expect NATO to do anything. Was just pointing out your falsehood.

You are not doing a very good job at it. What falsehood?

Your literacy isn't my problem. As you were.

Whatever. At least you think you made a point. That's what matters.