, citing AI's Ukraine report here makes a comparison with their Russia-report pertinent (corroborated by HRW's report by the way).

The Covid-19 pandemic continued to exacerbate the dire state of healthcare services. The rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly were routinely violated. Public assemblies organized by the political opposition were almost completely prohibited. Legislation on “foreign agents” and “undesirable organizations”, together with prosecutions on trumped-up charges and other forms of pressure, were widely used to suppress dissent. Threats and attacks against journalists, human rights defenders and other activists were perpetrated with impunity. Persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses intensified. Torture and other ill-treatment in places of detention remained endemic and prosecutions of perpetrators rare. Enforced disappearances were reported in Chechnya. The authorities failed to address domestic violence. LGBTI people continued to face discrimination. Arbitrary deportations of refugees and asylum seekers persisted. — AI: Russian Federation 2021

Joining the EU comes with some prerequisites that Ukraine would be subject to. Seeking membership is indicative of intent to improve in areas deemed to fall short, and sufficient transparency for others to evaluate. Conversely, there are indicators that Putin's Russia has been going in the opposite direction (maybe gay rights are the most visible, don't know). And they've been lashing out at (or been paranoid of) "The West" for a bit, while calling for nationalism and such. ^{(Nov 28, 2007, Feb 8, 2008, Sep 20, 2013, Feb 11, 2021, Mar 3, 2022, Mar 16, 2022, Jun 10, 2022)} It's not a contest, yet here Ukraine "wins" over Putin's Russia.

As to your specific questions, I haven't any idea why anyone would want to discuss who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are in geopolitical events. If virtue signalling your disgust at Putin's actions is your thing, then you crack on, some of us take seriously our duty to hold our governments to account for their actions, so for us what matters here is the justness of the actions of our governments, and for most of us, that isn't Russia. — Isaac

Yes indeed.

I’m surprised by how often this is getting equated with Russian apologetics. I haven’t heard one person cheering Putin on. His actions, to any rational human being, are hideous. That shouldn’t be the end of the discussion.

We can’t do much about the war in Ukraine. We can barely do much about our own states’ actions. But our attention should focus on wherever we can make most of a difference to end the war. If you live in the UK, or Germany, or the US, etc., you should analyze what part they’re playing in the war.

It just so happens that the US has played an enormous role in this conflict, as has NATO. The motives should be carefully questioned.

This is all fairly obvious. So what’s the problem?

This is all fairly obvious. So what’s the problem? — Xtrix

The problem could be that analysing the past - even if we were to agree about a diagnostic - says little about what must be done in the future. Arguing over whose fault it is, won't solve this conflict.

The west does not want to fully get involved directly yet. Maybe we should.

Maybe Poland can start demonstrating their capabilities with or without infantry.

What’s holding us back from an attack on Russian Soil at the moment is the nuclear threat…I’d say risk it for a biscuit.

In the face of such oppression without Russia relenting our hand will be forced to act.

The only thing worth considering at this point is small scale nuclear warfare worth it ? It’s certainly not within the madman’s contemplation to use those nukes with the aim of ending the war and force Ukraine to give up.

It’s then that we have to act and employ mutual destruction…who wins then ? Certainly not future generations who will live in a poisoned planet.

This is the thing with nukes…either everybody should have them or none. Ukraine of course should not got rid of them nukes and if they hadn’t we wouldn’t be in this situation.

This 70year old putin with nothing to live for would have different thoughts if he was younger so now we’re being held hostage by a senile old man and I being young will give up my life to defend the principle that war is evil. In most contexts and this being a perfect example of evil.

Maybe Poland can start demonstrating their capabilities with or without infantry. — Deus

One irony of NATO participation is that each nation is tied to a collective force and is not free to fight unilaterally. The conditions for Article 5 allow Putin to ignore the surrounding nations.

What’s holding us back from an attack on Russian Soil at the moment is the nuclear threat…I’d say risk it for a biscuit. — Deus

Mutually Assured Destruction is not a biscuit.

Not to clued on the NATO agreement. Let’s assume Poland of its own accord steps in and later attacked by Russia…at this point then does nato get involved or not ?

While NATO can help (without fighring directly) countries outside of the alliance to withstand aggression, Article 5 only applies to defense from attack on member states.

If Poland attacked Russia unilaterally, the Article does not require the other members to help.

Does not require is so vague here and that’s the great thing about it.

Dismantling Russia won’t be easy as we don’t know how rusty or even effective their weapons are.

Under the pretence of de-nazification the west should just get on with it and start invading.

Don’t know how effective or working their dead hand is at the moment I.e subs with nuclear launch facilities in unknown positions,

I’d say launch coz putin is starting to get a bit tiresome as is this war.

I prefer the present approach toward minimizing the scope of the war. Your impatience would destroy billions of lives along with the ecosystem.

No doubt Russia is using the same logic you’ve outlined to gain their advantage.

Both can play at that game.

Conceding territory for such idealistic reasons is misguided.

Oh and I love the billions souls and ecosystem here on earth. Very very much

Conceding territory for such idealistic reasons is misguided. — Deus

I don't understand. Which territory and what ideology are you referring to?

The problem could be that analysing the past — Olivier5

But notice that I didn’t mention the past. I’m talking about right now.

Arguing over whose fault it is, won't solve this conflict. — Olivier5

I’m not interested in arguing about that either. I’m interested in finding out what I can do to stop the war, however little that may be, and thus where best to put my energy.

Because I live in the US, I’m biased towards learning about its present contributions. But I would be equally biased if I lived in Mozambique regarding its policies.

It happens that I live in one of the countries with a significant hand in the war, so my criticisms will be disproportionately slanted in that direction.

Just tell Biden to go Bush on Putin. Pre-emptive. Also tell Biden not to give two craps about Europe if it becomes collateral damage in all this.

Russia does not have the capability to cause significant damage to US soil if at all.

It’s time we brought the war to Russia.

Russia does not have the capability to cause significant damage to US soil if at all. — Deus

On what basis do you make this bold claim?

You are a lunatic.

What’s holding us back from an attack on Russian Soil at the moment is the nuclear threat… — Deus

No one sane is even considering an invasion of Russia. The last time a nation thought Russia was weak enough to invade, it didn't end so well. The difference now is that back then it was a neighboring country, and today it would be the United States who is several thousand miles and an ocean away.

China would be the laughing third.


Also, does anyone on this forum truly believe the United States cares enough about Ukraine to invade Russia or risk nuclear war?

I have sad news (and I am not being facetious - I truly think this is tragic), the United States does not care about Ukraine. It cares about the political objectives it can achieve through sacrificing Ukraine in a similar vein as it did with Vietnam.

During all of the Cold War it wasn't even clear whether the United States would respond with nuclear weapons in the case of a full-scale Soviet invasion of Europe.

It would certainly send a message to China for sure. The war would be over in days. This passive approach is costing more lives than it is saving.

I mean China has similarities to Russia although more advanced and superior tech and manpower wise.

It would make them think.

In the face of it it’s better to send the message now as a show of strength than later when China considers making its move in that area.

The thing about smart mother fuckers is that sometimes, they sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers...

Some quote by some guy

The thing about smart mother fuckers is that sometimes, they sound like crazy mother fuckers to stupid mother fuckers...

Some quote by some guy — Deus

That's definitely a true idiom, I can see it as bright as light of the sun: right in front of my eyes.

But let's not digress, you were explaining how the USA should invade and conquer Russia.

How would they practically do that? How much do you think it would cost in American lives? Why would it be worth it for from an American perspective (citizen or the administration).

Most importantly, is there a political faction in the US government that you feel will lead the charge on this with the right arguments? I.e. it is even remotely politically feasible.

Would this be a good time for Moldova to "covertly" take bac...over Transnistria, with the help of unnamed external parties? :D
Or perhaps bounce Russia from Transnistria, all sort of "unofficially" of course? *sshhh*
Could have an "election" guaranteed to have Transnistria join Moldova or Ukraine?
After all, there are nuclear threats on the horizon, and they're close with Romania, right?

I’m interested in finding out what I can do to stop the war — Xtrix

Very little it seems. :/

Very easy and surgical attack on important Russian targets/military infrastructure. Loss of American lives ? Minimal …

Taking out putin would be top of the list.

The only problem is of course the age old one. The nukes. Without fully knowing the extent of your enemies capability to strike back even after such important targets are taken out then it does sound naive although my prediction would be not that great.

The Russians would surrender…maybe not embrace us but hey that’s democracy and they can then start electing leaders rather than have dictatorships run things aground

:rofl:

Let’s give in to a madman’s demands shall we?

The only problem with Russia is the nukes but should we really worry about that when it's time to kick ass? :fire:

With takes like these, who needs satire? I don't see the point in having a discussion with a person who thinks that nuclear war is fine and dandy, because Putin cannot be serious when he says he will use them.

I'm sure you'll find others here who will be happy to humor you. I won't.

Very easy and surgical attack on important Russian targets/military infrastructure. Loss of American lives ? Minimal … — Deus

With nuclear weapons or without nuclear weapons? You do realise Russia has significant military infrastructure that's hardened against even nuclear attack.

The only problem is of course the age old one. The nukes. — Deus

Ah yes, the age ol' debate about them rusty nukes that goes all the way back to Thales.

Without fully knowing the extent of your enemies capability to strike back even after such important targets are taken out then it does sound naive although my prediction would be not that great. — Deus

It definitely does sound naive.

The Russian nuclear triad is designed to survive a first strike all out nuclear attack with considerable infrastructure built up during the soviet union.

A single RS-28 Sarmat (Satan II) ICBM can deploy up to 15 nuclear warheads and also deploy multiple decoys (not that the US has demonstrated it can even shoot down hypersonic missiles in space or reentry).

Obviously if you believe that everything Russia does is incompetent you may also be naive enough to believe these missiles don't work.

However, sending rockets into space is something the Russians are simply pretty competent at, with Soyuz launches having no failures in 120 launches. There would be no reason to assume the successful tests of Russian ICBMs's (that the US tracks each time) is not another indication of competence in this domain.

Obviously the risk is very high ... as you seem to note yourself; again, what benefit to US citizens or even the current US administration to carry out a first strike?

If you're talking conventional strike, why would that be any more effective than the Ukrainian current use of Himars or the constant Russian use of missiles of all types against Ukraine? How do you think Russia would retaliate? Why would a bunch of cruise missiles bring Russia to the point surrender anyways?

The ramifications of this at geo-political level are many and for the us citizen even more so.

1. Sending China a clear message regarding its future territorial claims.

2. The re-alignment of Middle Eastern oil producing counties back into western views if not neutrality.

3. Reduced inflation for the us / Europe citizen.

As for the rest of your post I do not know enough about western military capabilities to fully address your points but I’d like to think we lead the way in the techno/military capabilities

Because I live in the US, I’m biased towards learning about its present contributions. But I would be equally biased if I lived in Mozambique regarding its policies. — Xtrix

You would be glad to learn that its present contribution to the defense of Ukraine is quite significant and effective. Specifically the HIMARs, as well as the intell they provide. The Biden administration seems to be on the ball.

1. Sending China a clear message regarding its future territorial claims. — Deus

So to send a "message" to country A requires attacking country B? with nuclear weapons?

Why not just blowup a non-nuclear armed country. Same message, no risk.

2. The re-alignment of Middle Eastern oil producing counties back into western views if not neutrality. — Deus

Ah yes, stabilise the market with nuclear war. Classic econ-101.

3. Reduced inflation for the us / Europe citizen. — Deus

How would taking a major commodities producer (not just of oil and gas but all sorts of stuff) into nuclear war ... reduce inflation?

As for the rest of your post I do not know enough about western military capabilities to fully address your points but I’d like to think we lead the way in the techno/military capabilities — Deus

If I understand you correctly, you like to just assume your ideas of invasion and glorious victory have no consequences if they were to be implemented ... due to simple innate superiority?

Can't quite put my finger on it, but ... seems I've heard that kind of thinking before; definitely rings a bell anyways.