he’s committing such alienating missteps in an already unfavorable European political and economic environment that his leadership is unfortunately easy to question. — neomac

I don't know what leadership you are talking about. The relationship between France and Germany -- the traditional political engine of the EU -- is currently tense. Until Macron and Scholtz (or their successors) reforge a strong franco-german bound, the EU will be strategically leaderless.

Nobody in Europe considers Macron as a natural European leader. Why should they? Was he elected the president of Europe? Has there ever been a national political figure who was universally accepted as a natural leader of Europe?

IOW, you may be assessing Macron against unreasonable expectations. Pushing your argument one step further, Macron's leadership of planet Earth is also easy to question.... but that may be because he was never meant to be the leader of planet Earth.

I don't know what leadership you are talking about — Olivier5

I'm referring to what is more extensively discussed here:
https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/emmanuel-macron-mario-draghi-olaf-scholz-qui-prendra-le-leadership-de-la-zone-euro-apres-angela-merkel-1421587
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2022/07/02/la-france-et-l-ue-presidence-reussie-mais-leadership-fragile_6133075_3232.html
https://mouvement-europeen.eu/avec-macron-la-france-peut-elle-prendre-le-leadership-de-leurope/
https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/emmanuel-macron-president/politique-etrangere-un-leadership-europeen-retrouve-une-strategie-mondiale-infructueuse-1394289

you may be assessing Macron against unreasonable expectations. — Olivier5

I'm assessing Macron's recent call for "discussions about security guarantees for Russia" as a misstep toward attaining his ambitious goals for Europe.

May I ask if you live in the EU, or follow EU politics closely?

Irrespective of what the Parisian journalists you quote may opine, there's no way any single nation will lead Europe. Even Merkel with the weight of the German economy behind her and her amazing personal qualities and exceptional length in service, was never an unchallenged leader of the EU.

May I ask if you live in the EU, or follow EU politics closely? — Olivier5

I do.

Irrespective of what the Parisian journalists you quote may opine, there's no way any single nation will lead Europe. Even Merkel with the weight of the German economy behind her and her amazing personal qualities and exceptional length in service, was never an unchallenged leader of the EU. — Olivier5

Indeed none of the articles I quoted (nor even Macron himself) is likely adopting some hyperbolic notion of "leadership" given the European political context. As suggested in the first article I referenced, the comparison that understandably comes to mind is approximately with Angela Merkel as a role-model, Draghi as a strong competitor. Considering France's strong economy plus greater military capacity and geopolitical projection (e.g. Africa, Middle East, Asia) than Germany or Italy, Macron's pro-active attitude and ambitious plans for the EU, he clearly had good cards in his hands to be more influential than he's turning out to be. My impression is that's not just fault of bad luck.

Considering France's strong economy plus greater military capacity and geopolitical projection (e.g. Africa, Middle East, Asia) than Germany or Italy, Macron's pro-active attitude and ambitious plans for the EU, he clearly had good cards in his hands to be more influential than he's turning out to be. My impression is that's not just fault of bad luck. — neomac

That's fair, I think.

PS: You mentioned France's projection to Africa, Syria, or the Indo-Pacific as assets but in a EU environment, this might not work to France's advantage, because other member states have no interests in those places and in fact are often rather suspicious towards what they see as French neo colonial ambitions. These French military operation oversees are not necessarily seen as positive by other EU nations, more as distractive of the EU predilection for soft-power projection. Europeans like to hide in their NATO-sponsored fortress and send other people in Africa or Asia some money, and diplomats.

It's unlikely he will meet his strategic goals for Europe if he doesn't address Eastern Europeans' security concerns in a persuasive way (especially if predictable national interests lurk behind his behavior). — neomac

Agreed. Beyond the question of Macron's agenda, France and Poland have much to repair in their relations. At the very least, recognizing and compensating for the heavy lifting on the refugee front by the Eastern nations would itself be addressing a security concern.

EDITORIAL: The high cost of peace at any price
^{— Toronto Sun · Dec 9, 2022}

The editorial doesn't really make a whole lot of points, just the usual (which is not a dismissal of them).
Allowing the invaders to get away with it is too close to being complicit.
They'll learn from success, others (autocrats, despots, tyrants, dictators, whatever) will take note, and thus we may end up putting it off to our children (or their children).
It's not new and not that hard to understand; we ought to learn from history.
^{(Plato Tacitus Burke Mill Niemöller Wiesel)}
But, in this case, it's for the Ukrainians to decide, their homes (whatever is left of them), their self-governance, are on the line.

Inside Bakhmut: The strange and senseless death trap draining Ukraine's tired army
^{— Justin Yau, Ben Farmer · The Telegraph · Dec 9, 2022}

More or less Prigozhin's and Kadyrov's free playground ...

wave of assaults carried out by Russian mercenaries and poorly-equipped reservists

Grotesque.

I'd suggest footage be broadcast all over Russia, well all over really, without propagandist editing that is.

Impressive

Photographers Kostyantyn Liberov and Vlada Liberova published a photo of the "graveyard" of shells that Russia fired at Kharkiv this year.
^{— Reserve Petty Officer · Dec 4, 2022}

Nukes have their military use, which is to wipe out all mankind and give the earth a well-deserved break from us critters. — Olivier5

This is not correct.

MAD theory does not apply to Ukraine as Ukraine does not have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, or any nuclear weapons.

And this whole idea that nuclear weapons would not be useful militarily ... but of course could destroy the entire planet, is just dumb.

Take this argument for example:

That is where nuclear weapons work: deterrence. If this would be a non-nuclear armed country attacking Ukraine, it is likely that a no-fly zone would have been enforced. — ssu

Why would nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent to a no-fly zone if nuclear weapons are not effective?

Why would implementing a no-fly zone be the obvious and easy response to the use of nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are right now deterring a no-fly zone ... but if nuclear weapons would actually be used then the deterrence would evaporate and of course there would be a no-fly zone?

The argument seems to be nuclear weapons are not useful militarily, but serve as a deterrence (because they're not useful?), and of course so powerful that they can destroy the planet, but cannot be made less powerful to be useful outside the context of destroying the planet?

Makes no sense.

Obviously, there are many political reasons not to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but the idea they would not be useful is just absurd. Now, they may not be some magical weapon that produces instant victory.

But to take the bridge example, the situation could be that conventional missiles failed to destroy the bridge, or there's effective missile defence defending the bridge (that a nuclear hypersonic missile could penetrate), or simply too many conventional missiles would be needed and it would be nice to conserve them, and the bridge is essential for an offensive operation, and a tactical nuclear weapon can destroy the bridge, completely and totally with zero chance of repair.

It is very, very easy to see a scenario where a small nuclear weapon would be useful in military planning. Would destroying said bridge, or bunker, or bridge head, or air field, or fortified arms depot, etc. win the war in itself? No, but there are reasons these are targets of military strikes even when the target can easily be repaired (like an air field), as it would be convenient to get rid of them; so, if nuclear weapons can do that (which they can), then they are clearly useful.

And the fact is US has no reason to nuke Russia for Nuking Ukraine and any conventional retaliation would be lower than out-right victory in Ukraine. Move-fast-and-break-things, "cost of doing business", is just a page out of our corporate play book.

Hence, drip-feed theory is alive and well, of supplying Ukraine only with enough weapons to lose, and so keep the political reasons to not use nuclear weapons a sufficient deterrent, and since Ukraine is once again losing, we now hear talk of supplying cluster munitions, and people trying to restart the discussion about jets.

But I wasn’t talking about the American invasion of Iraq, I was talking about Russian invasion of Ukraine. To repeat it once more:

I listed facts that support that claim, like the fact that Russia didn’t halt its invasion even after a UN resolution against it as widely voted by West/NATO/US, with ensuing sanctions and continued military support to Ukraine by the West. If that’s not an act of defiance by Russia against West/NATO/US, then I don’t understand your usage of the word “defiance”: if X is warned, condemned and sanctioned by Y for a certain choice, and X knowingly pursues its choice despite of that, that’s for me enough to call X’s behavior defiant toward Y. EVEN MORE SO, if X were to question Y’s authority with “tu quoque” arguments (as you suggest with “but also the US has little respect for international law”)!!!
Your criticism doesn’t address my claim and plays with words (“maverick”, “justification”) in interpreting my original claims which weren’t using such terms. Your conceptually confused or caricatural way of rendering my claims is good to mislead or brainwash you, not me. Anyways yes the Western reaction against Russia is justified on geopolitical and legal grounds. — neomac

This is just a word salad and has nothing to do with your original argument.

Your original argument tied "defiant" to justification of Western policies ... you've just moved the goal posts to Russia is doing things the West doesn't like. Yeah, no shit.

Now, does not liking what someone is doing justify any particular course of action?

No.

People do things I don't like all the time, I wouldn't call it "defying me" but you're free to say that, but, what matters here, is that whatever you call it, that does not in itself justify arming their competitors, or any particular course of action.

Russia and the West are at odds over Ukraine, no one disputes that. If Russian "defiance" against the West justifies Western policies, then the Ukrainian "defiance" of Russia justifies Russian policies.

And you've already laid your cards on the table, in that you simply want the West to win this confrontation, so you support Western policies regardless of justification or trying to reconcile with what they West itself does and rights it claims (pre-emptive war, shock and awe, etc.), and regardless of whether they are a benefit to Ukraine.

You state clearly several times the only objective that needs to be achieved is harming the Russian military (not Ukrainian victory, not any benefits at all for Ukraine, even the total destruction of Ukraine is acceptable if Russia is also harmed).

So, argue this position, rather than throw out pseudo-intellectual bullshit that is quite clearly just trying to prop up the propaganda (in this case the US's claim of holding up the "rules based international system" as reason to arm Ukraine, is clearly where you sourced your "defiance" justifies Western policies, but you can support that because it's a bullshit argument, so you move the goal posts to simply someone is defying something in this situation, which is clear: Ukraine is defying Russia, therefore, according to your argument, Russia is completely justified in destroying entirely Ukraine to put a stop to that defiance).

You may think of yourself as an astute intellectual, but you are not.

Astute intellectuals make a clear and meaningful point.

Propagandists throw shit against the wall, see what sticks, throw more shit at whatever spot they think has landed, which is what you do.

What is the point of your posts?

You're just microblogging and news aggregating.

Again, there are places you can do that without betraying your fanatical devotion to propaganda by simply reposting material without scrutiny, criticism, nor even any link to the discussion.

I posted 6 videos of Western journalists investigating Nazi's in Ukraine and all concluding that there definitely seems to be Nazi's in Ukraine.
— boethius

Sure, Nazis, and they're a problem, wherever, anywhere (even in Russia). — jorndoe

The videos I posted show Western journalists investigating Nazi institutions and Nazi groups receiving arms from Ukrainian military (that came in turn from NATO members ... including members who needed to pass laws to make clear that was illegal to arm Nazi groups, but Ukraine does it anyways). These are not fringe organisations.

Western journalists who point out this arming of Nazi's and the clear Nazi sympathies, links and lying by the Ukrainian ministry of defence in arming the Nazi's even if NATO was claiming they shouldn't and weren't.

But, I am happy you agree that Nazi's are indeed a problem and should be liquidated, and whether the Russian war is justified or not, if they've killed some Nazi's along the way, in Azov Battalion and Right Sector and Ukrainian Intelligence and in the ranks and elsewhere, then that's at least happy happenstance we can all celebrate.

To update my analysis of the military situation:

The new NATO Wunderwaffe is the German Flakpanzer Gepard, latest entry into the weapons drip-feed to keep Ukraine just well enough to keep fighting.

The Gepard can fire bullets at drones and cruise missiles, and supposed to deal with the attacks on the electricity system, but that idea is just dumb as an electricity grid is simply too vast with too many targets to protect with a system like Gepard.

Zelensky is now basically just complaining that Russia uses too much artillery and they can't deal with it. News has certainly arrived from the front that the weather makes war fighting no longe or very fun (a warrior "lifestyle" as a Nazi in one of the videos I posted phrased it).

Drone attacks on Russia air bases do not seem significant or sustained in anyway to matter militarily; just a dose of propaganda.

The devastation of Ukraine is severe.

Yes, air campaigns don't win wars (except when they do), but sides to military conflicts still lose.

The dynamic NATO has created is sending out Ukraine's best troops with "just enough" weapons to lose, starting with the Javelin and Stinger type systems, then when they can't win (and a lot of them die), provide the next military system to not-lose, rinse and repeat.

However, it's not clear to me how long this strategy can go on for. Continuously attritting your best troops in battles they can't win, then compensating the loss with more sophisticated equipment to make the next tier as effective (but not more effective), has clear limitations in man power.

I see zero indication NATO is coming to help their "friend".

Makes no sense. — boethius

Again you don't understand.

They are perfect for deterrence, but not so great in actual warfare because of the obvious drawbacks and the obvious escalation. Why would Russia use them, if that could get NATO involved. How are things better for the war for Russia if they really will fight also NATO?

THAT doesn't make any sense.

Just in comparison: The Third Reich had a huge amount of chemical weapons (basically WMD's too) in it's arsenal and it never used them. And then when it was all over and the fighting was inside Germany, there simply wasn't effective measures to use them on some level that could change anything.

They are perfect for deterrence, but not so great in actual warfare because of the obvious drawbacks and the obvious escalation. — ssu

... how would something that doesn't work deter an opponent?

And again, Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons so MAD does not apply.

Prof. John Mearsheimer recently gave a lecture in Hungary, During the Q&A session (timestamp: 1:13:40) the question about MAD comes up.

Mearsheimer concludes that it is not obvious that the MAD principle applies for various reasons. The most important one being that, as pointed out, Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons, and it is unclear whether the Americans would be prepared to enter a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Most likely not.

When a nuclear strike would be launched against American soldiers in Ukraine (if the US would involve itself further to the points of "boots on the ground") it's a more dangerous situation, since the Americans would likely retaliate in some way, thus there'd be a serious risk of nuclear escalation.

This is just a word salad and has nothing to do with your original argument.

Your original argument tied "defiant" to justification of Western policies ... you've just moved the goal posts to Russia is doing things the West doesn't like. Yeah, no shit.

Now, does not liking what someone is doing justify any particular course of action? No. — boethius

There is no post goal shift. The UN resolution expresses the majoritarian will of its voters (the West/US among them) as much as a democratic election expresses the majoritarian will of the voters: if one political candidate would violently rebel against the results of such democratic elections despite their legality or without legally appealing against them, this political candidate would be defiant of what has been ruled as expression of people’s majoritarian will. So concerning the Russian “special military operation”, there is a UN resolution which has a normative legal force and such resolution widely expresses the will of the West/US. And yes the international law resolution against the Russian “special military operation” LEGALLY JUSTIFIES the western policies of the West against Russia.
At the same time due to the fact that Russia is pursuing its war AGAINST that resolution supported by the West/US AND THEREFORE the will of the West/US, Russia is playing the role of the defiant minor power against the West/US major power. Add to that all other facts I mentioned about Russian hostility in acts and deeds toward the Western-led World order.
So, if that’s not enough for you to apply the notion of "defiant" to Russia then I do not understand what else could possibly count as “defiant” to you in the case of great power conflicts.

If Russian "defiance" against the West justifies Western policies, then the Ukrainian "defiance" of Russia justifies Russian policies. — boethius

Again “justifies” in what sense? From the international law point of view, no. Russia wasn’t legally justified since there was no UN resolution in support of Russian “special military operation” in Ukraine. While the West/NATO were legally justified in applying sanctions to Russia and military supporting Ukraine.
However one can argue that, despite of what international law ruled, Russia was/is engaged in a geopolitical competitive game where players’ moves are made at the expense of adversaries so it was/is strategically justified in invading Ukraine because it felt/feels threatened by the Ukrainian defiance and/or NATO enlargement. Even in this case, if one wants to assess the rationality of this strategy one shouldn’t consider only objectives and perceived threats of a single party, but also means and ways of using them to effectively succeed against competitors which in their turn have objectives, perceived threats and available means to pursue their goals. In that sense, I’m not sure whether the “military special operation” was unquestionably the best strategy for Russia to preserve/expand its allegedly threatened hegemony, because NATO was already losing relevance at least to main EU members, economic ties with EU were pretty solid, Germany and France were against Ukraine joining NATO (predictably to appease Russian security concerns), the alliance between Russia, China and other Asian countries was building up, the Russian military projection and relevance in Middle East and Africa was growing, and the annexation of Crimea was already a de facto smooth achievement ensuring control over the Black sea, the US was troubled by more pressing issues (the domestic politics crisis and the strategic challenge represented by China). So Russia didn’t seem strategically impelled to take such a risky move as intelligence failures, military poor performance on the battlefield, and hostile reaction/resilience of the West/US made clear. Precisely because Russia didn't seem strategically impelled to make such a risky move many geopolitical analysts didn't believe Russia would probably start a war until Russia actually started it.
While the West/US were more impelled to react against an aggressively expansionist Russia. This was definitely a non-negligible wake-up call for the Europeans, and for the US as long as the US wants the European countries within its sphere of influence.

And you've already laid your cards on the table, in that you simply want the West to win this confrontation, so you support Western policies regardless of justification or trying to reconcile with what they West itself does and rights it claims (pre-emptive war, shock and awe, etc.) — boethius

You keep talking about “justification” without clarifying what you mean by it. To me the term “justification” is pretty general and it expresses the idea that some relevant shareable rational requirement is satisfied. In any case its application varies depending on what set of rational standards one wants to take into consideration: strategic, moral, legal, military, economic, diplomatic you name it. That’s why generically talking about “justification” is ambiguous and potentially misleading.

and regardless of whether they are a benefit to Ukraine.
You state clearly several times the only objective that needs to be achieved is harming the Russian military (not Ukrainian victory, not any benefits at all for Ukraine, even the total destruction of Ukraine is acceptable if Russia is also harmed). — boethius

If I clearly stated several times what you attribute to me, you can easily quote myself, but I don’t see any such quotation. Besides your understanding of my claims is under question, your serial misinterpretation of my claims is intellectually creepy, so using the word “clearly” is no assurance of your understanding at all.
To clarify my views here once more: both Ukraine and the West/US converge enough in fighting Russia until Russia ceases to be a threat to both, whence their allegiance. The West/US have strategic, legal and moral reasons to support such convergence. Notice also that Ukraine expressed its interest in entering Western/US sphere of influence by joining NATO and/or EU so the convergence may not be occasional but systemic.
However the competitive game these players are engaging in is full of uncertainties and occasions for non-negligible divergence which players must deal with. Nobody can offer a recipe for victory or a full account of what’s best in the long term. One may think that “justification” must be based on such recipes or accounts, but I find this approach conceptually flawed. As an avg dude, I would rely more on geopolitical speculation and historical analogies for guidance.

So, argue this position, rather than throw out pseudo-intellectual bullshit that is quite clearly just trying to prop up the propaganda (in this case the US's claim of holding up the "rules based international system" as reason to arm Ukraine, is clearly where you sourced your "defiance" justifies Western policies, but you can support that because it's a bullshit argument, so you move the goal posts to simply someone is defying something in this situation, which is clear: Ukraine is defying Russia, therefore, according to your argument, Russia is completely justified in destroying entirely Ukraine to put a stop to that defiance).

You may think of yourself as an astute intellectual, but you are not.
Astute intellectuals make a clear and meaningful point.
Propagandists throw shit against the wall, see what sticks, throw more shit at whatever spot they think has landed, which is what you do. — boethius

If you want to play the ad hominem game, then I can as easily accuse you of rehashing pro-Russian propaganda. In any case, I don’t care what side you pick. What counts to me is the quality of your arguments and counterarguments. Rephrasing and caricaturing my claims after dismissing the logic of my arguments (e.g. when I’m pointing at facts and motives by which Russia is intentionally defying the West/US, its stability and its hegemony), associating extrapolated ideas the way it suits you (e.g. “defying” & “international law”), introducing ambiguous terms I didn’t use without clarifying them (like “justification”), or muddling the meaning of those terms which are already clear enough (like “defiant”), and then brainwash yourself over your straw mans against me despite my reiterated clarifications are all rhetoric tricks of the most intellectually dishonest propaganda.

Ukraine does not possess nuclear weapons, and it is unclear whether the Americans would be prepared to enter a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Most likely not. — Tzeentch

What the NATO countries have said is that if Russia hits Ukraine with nukes, the previous efforts to stay out of the conflict will come to an end. The source of firing platforms and air bases would likely become targets of conventional weapons. If Russian escalates to using nukes on western targets in response, that is when MAD would kick in. Maybe that is what Putin was thinking about in his recent musing over the dynamics of striking first in order to suppress the retaliation.

It's unlikely NATO would enter into the conflict after Russia has used nuclear weapons, simply because of the risk involved.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia on NATO troops is also not off the table. Mearsheimer makes the argument that during the Cold War NATO planned for limited nuclear weapons use in case of a Russian invasion of Europe, so clearly they believed MAD would not go into effect immediately.

, if you think something's off then hit the report button/link. It's a small flag at the bottom of posts (hover → •••).

It's about the Ukraine crisis, not just your own take, though that's cool too, despite the occasional curious tunnel vision.
Some reports might suggest getting the diplomats scrambling immediately, others suggest some un/predictability factor of the Kremlin, other reports still may suggest whatever other things. Without data, there isn't anything to chat (or reason) about.
You keep ignoring that Putin, Pavlov, Solovyov, Patrushev, Medvedev, Chernyshov, with Peskov, Matviyenko, and others in tow, speak of liberating Ukraine from a Nazi regime (previous posts, all over actually) — a ruse, an excuse — fail. For that matter, it's pretty clear that Kremlin has no particular concern for the Ukrainians (also prior posts).
Anyway, I suppose we could designate it all propaganda, though government officials and public TV characters are influential enough, more so with the oppression in place and enforced.

I am happy you agree that Nazi's are indeed a problem — boethius

I'm glad too. Have you seen (indications of) Nazism here...? Fascism racism ... for that matter? Anyone belonging in Tzeentch's fiery pit?

We could also keep one line of the chit-chat purely on the military tactics, which would exclude speculation about ulterior motives and such.

Medvedev of the Russian Security Council:

Pseudo-Ukrainian rabid mongrels with Russian surnames, choking on their toxic saliva, declare that their enemy is located within the borders of Russia, from the West to Vladivostok. Rabies has no cure.
It is much more difficult for us - our enemy has dug in not only in the Kyiv province of our native Little Russia. It's in Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and a whole host of other contemporary Nazi-sworn places.
Therefore, we are increasing the production of the most powerful means of destruction. Including those based on new principles. — Dmitry Medvedev · Dec 11, 2022

The red line has been drawn. Only crossing it will show the answer. Mearsheimer's point about reluctance to escalate because of MAD applies to Russia too.

True, but it is Russia and not the United States or NATO that are saying they face an existential threat.

I agree, though. We simply don't know. When experts say that the chance for nuclear weapons use is non-trivial, that's saying something.

↪boethius, if you think something's off then hit the report button/link. It's a small flag at the bottom of posts. — jorndoe

Sure, if you see no reason explain what your point is, then yes, hopefully the moderators will remove this sort of content. If you are not supporting a point, nor offering any analysis of what you're sources say and and why you think they are trustworthy, then it's just propaganda.

It's about the Ukraine crisis, not just your own take, though that's cool too, despite the occasional curious tunnel vision. — jorndoe

What other "take" have I suggested be removed from the discussion? The problem with your propaganda is that it's not a take, just spamming links. There's generally nothing to respond to, just a few unverified anecdotes that don't even relate to any topic of discussion.

You keep ignoring that Putin, Pavlov, Solovyov, Patrushev, Chernyshov, with Peskov, Matviyenko, and others in tow, speak of liberating Ukraine from a Nazi regime (previous posts, all over actually), a ruse, an excuse, false. For that matter, it's pretty clear that Kremlin has no particular concern for the Ukrainians (also prior posts). — jorndoe

If you actually followed the discussion, instead of just spamming, you would have read a long exchange on this exact topic that obviously Russia produces propaganda as well. Of course, as @ssu has pointed out numerous times, the best propaganda is based on truth. So that the Kremlin says something, and that we know they will also produce propaganda same as you, doesn't make it untrue (the problem I have with your propaganda is that it generally has nothing to do with what's being discussed, lending zero additional weight to any position, but clearly designed to just impress the gullible).

I also make clear that people are free to argue there are not enough Nazi's to justify invasion.

If you were actually engaged in the discussion and not just toiling away at spamming propaganda, you would have actually argued why there is not enough Nazi's with enough power in Ukraine to justify invasion, which starts with setting a bar of what "too many" Nazi's would be, that would justify invasion, and then demonstrating Ukraine is under this threshold. That there are Nazi's elsewhere does not serve such a purpose, as the distribution of Nazi's is obviously not uniform.

Clearly the actual number of Nazi's and how much power they have is essential to the West's, generally speaking, argument that appeasing the Nazi's was a mistake (i.e. they should have gone to war sooner). For example, Hitler, in himself, was no reason to attack Germany. If Hitler was literally the only Nazi in Germany at the time, and it was only himself and his book and no one listened to him and he had no power or influence, there would have been zero reason to attack Germany to fight Naziism. The appeasement argument rests on there being more Nazis than just Hitler, and at some point too many Nazis and war is preferable to appeasement.

One could also argue that, yes, there's too many Nazi's in Ukraine and there has been for a while, and the West should not have appeased these Nazi's by sending them weapons, but, nevertheless, the Kremlin is simply cynically exploiting the otherwise completely justified invasion to kill said Nazi's in order to accomplish unjustified objectives such as steal resources.

Whether something is used as propaganda is independent of whether it is true. Not everything Zelensky says is false, for example. Likewise, even a true justification for war may also be propaganda, if the war does not actually serve that purpose. For example, maybe it was justified to attack Saddam and the Taliban simply because they are bad and there was the means available to do something about it (a key element that maybe lacking vis-a-vis Russia, or China, or North Korea or any number of authoritarian / totalitarian governments that maybe as bad or worse than Saddam / Taliban); however, if the war is then prosecuted in a way that does not actually help Iraqis or Afghanis, but simply transfers wealth the arms industry, creates some forward operating bases to threaten Iran and so on, then the justification is not actually for the actions, but similar actions that did not actually happen and was not the actual goal.

Which is a synthesis of my criticism of the West's intervention in Ukraine. If Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya were now vibrant democracies, benefits of the Wests reconstruction and tutelage of these places far exceeding the cost of the war to bring it about, then by all means go help Ukraine become a happier place. However, the West simply has no track record of actually fulfilling our promises, but rather abandoning our allies.

Maybe it was entirely justified, in itself, to remove the Taliban from power and support democratic forces in Afghanistan. The problem with this scenario is that we under-supported, enabled and engaged in corruption at all levels of governance, and then abandoned our so-called allies in Afghanistan the moment they no longer served entirely different purposes to "democracy" and "welfare", which was control of resources and transferring funds to the arms industry.

We will abandon Ukraine the moment they are inconvenient to the actual objectives as well.

Even if the current intervention was somehow justified (which I highly doubt), it does not matter as we will abandon Ukraine to the cold and dark, and our claims to bringing the light will be something that we just keep telling ourselves. Indeed, I would argue we already have.

Has there ever been a national political figure who was universally accepted as a natural leader of Europe? — Olivier5

To Europe's great credit, there has not; neither Hitler not Jesus managed it. It has always found other ways to reach an approximate consensus - war, usually.

To Europe's great credit, there has not; — unenlightened

Why do you see this as a good thing?

When experts say that the chance for nuclear weapons use is non-trivial, that's saying something. — Tzeentch

Seems unlikely at this point.

Why do you see this as a good thing? — frank

Why do you ask?

Why do you ask? — unenlightened

Because I thought you were concerned about the environment. Centralized government is likely the only road to effective action.

Centralized governments? You mean like China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc.?

Centralized governments? You mean like China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc.? — Tzeentch

A global government would be necessary to thwart the effects of economic competition.