You can call Putin a banana for all I care if you can explain to me how this war can be ended without conceding to at least some of the Russian demands.

I don't expect Putin to use nuclear weapons but I do expect him to make us think he will if that's what it takes.

Any fool knows that 1 nuclear strike is enough to black mark that nation for ever. — FreeEmotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

He is still a human being. — Olivier5

How is that a good thing?

He could easily set up a false flag chemical weapons attack on his troops and use that as an excuse>Pride solved. As for decency, don't make me fucking laugh.

Every party has limitations but who do you think will take more pain before folding? Putin or the West? Who do you think is the tougher and more instransigent party when push comes to shove, Russians or Western Europeans? Who do you think is more likely to effectively tell their politicians "Too much! Make it stop!" when their pocketbook gets hurt more and more by spiralling inflation? Western Europeans or Russians? Who do you think is more scared of military escalation? The Western European public may support continued war now when there appears to be little or no cost to them. Just wait until that changes as the economic and security stakes rocket. I don't believe we're built for a confrontation with Putin and I don't believe he doesn't know that.

Yes, I think the danger is our media leading us to believe it's all going terribly for Putin and he's out of options blah blah blah. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to get pummelled, 90% of Russia's forces there are intact and regathering for a new offensive, and Putin has plenty more threats he can use to scare the shit out of us.

@SophistiCat @ssu

(Just on the practical side here, might come back to the more philosophical point about violence later.)

My understanding from what I've read is that Putin won't agree to a ceasefire until he's negotiating from a position of strength, which he hasn't yet achieved. One metric for achieving that would be to cut the Ukranian forces off from the sea. Another, would be to take some of the major cities. If that is true and the Ukranians are provided with more weapons and encouraged not to back down to Russian demands where does that leave us?

It seems to me the worst case scenario for Ukraine is a continued war of attrition that they're not losing quickly but can't win either and lose slowly until Putin achieves his military position of strength. And so they continue fighting while their cities are reduced to rubble; their citizens lose access to food, water and electricity; civilian casualties mount; and the cost of reconstruction both in terms of time and money skyrockets. And seeing as NATO has explicitly ruled out intervening militarily, which of the following do you think is the more likely outcome?

A) Ukraine eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight was most likely not in their interests.

B) Putin eventually decides the cost is too much and gives in?

If this is the case, continuing to fight may have been in their interests if they can achieve a better long-term negotiated solution than they would have if they had not continued to fight.

Considering the Kremlin's stated aim (as per a recent TV interview) is to "destroy the anti-Russia the West has created on its borders" how likely is it that the continued destruction of Ukraine over the next few months would be more of a problem for Putin than Ukraine itself to the extent that Putin would risk appearing weak and backing down to stop it happening? And considering Putin has Germany by the balls re oil and gas, how likely do you think threats of further economic sanctions are going to sway him?

My first instinct is to want to support Ukraine in every possible way against Russia, but, ultimately, the only effective support would be direct military NATO involvement, which I'm against due to the risk of a wider war. So, my cold assessment is that the Ukranians are in an impossible situation and at some point will be forced to acquiesce to all or most of Russian demands.

To @SophistiCat @ssu Is the difference between us here anything other than differing assessments of likely outcomes? I presume you would not support the continuation of a pointless war of attrition, the only appreciable result of which is greatly increased levels of suffering among the most vulnerable in Ukraine?

Lastly, it bothers me that NATO countries are likely aware of the above calculus and as intimated early may be delibarately extending the war just to send Russia some kind of message. So, call me a surrender monkey if you will, but the prospect of NATO fighting Russia by proxy to the last drop of Ukranian blood is something that I will never get on board with and will never feel guilty about not getting on board with.

:ok:

Biden must have an intelligence far superior to all of us Apollodorus.... — Apollodorus

There ya go.

"shapeshifting aliens called Reptilians Republicans control the Earth." — Baden

:chin:

Or are we out of date on that?

Cool. Can you do this bit next?

"shapeshifting aliens called Reptilians control the Earth."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) Shhh....)

There is no doubt that that derogatory terms are often used with reference to Slavic people. Take English "Polack" — Apollodorus

There is no doubt that that derogatory terms are often used with reference to Hispanic people. Take English "Spick".

None of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread. Stay on topic.

Unfortunately, the facts are disputed and denied by the ignorant (or disingenuous) who scream "conspiracy theory" the minute you suggest that at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West. — Apollodorus

You were accused of conspiracy theorizing by me for actual conspiracy theorizing not for suggesting that "at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West". Most of the posters on this thread, including me, would agree with that. It was one of the first points I made here. But damn, it's a pain keeping up with your self-victimization fantasies.

Tell us more about the West's racist "Jihad" against Poland, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria and Croatia. — Baden

I suppose one needs to be a member of a Slavic nation to experience this and to noitice it. — baker

The British have traditionally been racist towards the Irish too, e.g. the phrase 'That's a bit Irish' means 'That's stupid'. That doesn't amount to a Western Jihad against the Irish. And a NATO jihad against NATO members, such as Poles, would be a bit self-defeating wouldn't it?

:up:

But you don't want to talk to anyone who describes it as such? It's not a judgement but an observation btw.

Anyway, it's cool. We both said our piece.

I think this tells me all I needed to glean from your perspective. Thanks for the discussion. — frank

If you don't think Russia and the US can be described as 'traditional adversaries', you may very well be alone in this discussion. It's not a controversial statement by any means.

Once again, sorry if I misunderstood you. — Olivier5

No worries. :up:

The problem is: this presupposes conflict instead of explaining it. — frank

It's not a problem to recognize the obvious that the relationship between allies like the US and the UK is not the same as between non-allies and traditional adversaries such as the US and Russia. That doesn't mean you can't also explain it, just like you can acknowledge that India and Pakistan are a threat to each other in a way that India and the UK aren't, but that it would be facile to argue that India and Pakistan weren't a mutual threat or that that fact was in some doubt on the basis that the entire history of their relationship had to be explained first. It would be even more facile if you were Indian and considered Pakistani missiles on your border a threat to wonder why Pakistanis found Indian missiles on their border equally a threat or to demand data to prove it, etc. Basic reasoning can deal with this up to a point.

The missle placement is clearly a direct threat to Russian power. You can add layers to that if you like, but there is no fundamental reason for Russians to be happier about having American missiles piled up along their borders than Americans would be having Russian missiles piled up along their borders. Again, there are lots of other layers and nuances you can add, but I don't know why that basic fact is hard to grasp or agree on.

So your point is that Russians in general feel threatened by the US? — frank

No, my point was to ask you the same question. I suppose if you would feel threatened they might. I don't know of any studies that specific. We can apply common sense here. Or look to the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis where America risked nuclear war rather than allowing such an eventuality. I presume y'all felt a bit threatened.

The reason is to increase its military dominance, obviously. And if you can abnegate completely a country's nuclear deterrence e.g. through placing techincally advanced anti-missile systems near their territory then you really can dominate them and threaten their interests. Putin would not so easily have been able to invade Ukraine if he didn't still have a nuclear option. So, the threat doesn't have to be directly military. It's just the guy with the biggest gun calls the shots on the global stage. Putin wants to maintain his big gun.

So your point is that Russians in general have felt threatened by American missile placement? Or is it just the Russian govt? — frank

Would you feel threatened if Russia became friendly enough with Mexico to allow it to place missiles there? I suppose most, if not all, Americans would. And your government certainly would and would act correspondingly.

Why would the US prepare to attack Russia? What missing facts would allow that to make sense? — frank

And this from a Russian angle could read as:

"Why would Russia prepare to attack the U.S.? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?"

So, why did NATO expand, why plant missiles in Eastern Europe?

Simply invert your perspective and you answer your own questions.

I guess I'm more interested in the ways NATO actually threatened Russia. If NATO threatened some Russian's dreams of empire, that doesn't constitute a threat to Russia. — frank

I'm not making normative judgements about whether Russia should feel threatened or not. I'm simply trying to help lay out an explanatory framework for their actions/reactions. That's all that's important to me. If you want to get into should Russia feel threatened or not, then you're required to look deep into the heart of NATO and see if there really is a cuddly care-bear sitting there ready to give Putin a big sloppy kiss. That's rather pointless in my view.

Nothing I've said should suggest I'm not aware that Putin has the morals of a snake, that the invasion was morally unjustified, and that he is committing horrible crimes in Ukraine, just as he did in Syria, Chechnya and so on.

No, I was responding to the odd accusation of political nihilism. If I want to say anything about any of the posters mentioned, I'll say it.

You ask me how NATO antagonised Russia and then you don't want to know how Russia perceives itself to be antagonized by NATO. What?

As for this:

"In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems", despite Russian protests. In
— Baden

Wasn't this because of Iran?

Eh, this was a mistake. You're just pissing me off. I need the information without any spin. I'll find it. — frank

So funny accusing me of spin while spinning the Iran angle.

I'll try Wiki but I guess you don't want answers just your own biases confirmed.

"Putin said that in trying to persuade Russia to accept US withdrawal from the treaty, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had tried, without evidence, to convince him of an emerging nuclear threat from Iran."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#United_States_withdrawal

You may blindly accept the word of your ex-presidents but Putin can be forgiven for being a bit more sceptical.

Now what exactly about:

"In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems"

is spin?

Jesus H. Christ, I'm a mod and I'm arguing against the pro-NATO narrative right now, you dill.

That Western Europe was a nicer place to live than the USSR I'm not debating and is not even remotely the issue here. :roll:

This makes no sense as a response to my post. It's the opposite of politicial nihilism to look beyond propaganda to actual real people and how they are affected by real things like bombs and suchlike and make their welfare the priority rather than some nationalistic ideal that is antithetical to their interests.

I don't think the US govt sees Putin as an evil madman. I think they see him as the dictator of a regional power. — frank

Yes, I was being hyperbolic.

I was asking specifically about NATO's antagonism of Russia, the basis of it and the form it has taken. — frank

Oh, OK. Well, you can go right back to the end of the cold war and work your way up from there. I find this a good overview for the 90's up to 2009 for a start.

https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-etrangere-2009-5-page-107.htm

"Moscow still looked at Eastern Europe, which was now relabeled as Central Europe, as a security buffer between Russia and the West. Moscow did not want and had no means to dominate this strategically important region. But it also did not want the region to be controlled by a more powerful military alliance, which had been Moscow’s enemy in Europe for so many years. NATO never seriously considered Russia as a possible member, and its joint military organization now had huge superiority over Russian military forces.

Russia’s efforts to maintain the status quo failed.

1) "in 1997. NATO invited Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to join. At the same time, it signed another declaration with Russia – the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, which established the procedure for consultations, but no Russian veto rights over NATO’s decision-making. NATO promised no “permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” and “no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members.”

2) "In 1999 NATO started ‘a war of choice’ against Serbia, which was trying to suppress by brutal force the secessionists’ insurgency in Kosovo. The NATO bombing during the Kosovo war was widely perceived in Russia as proving the naivety of post-Cold War expectations that the West was willing to treat Russia as an equal partner

3) "In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems, despite Russian protests. In 2002, Moscow was presented with a fait accompli when NATO implemented a new round of expansion. This time it was a ‘big bang’ – NATO admitted seven new members, including three former Soviet republics: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. NATO fully absorbed what used to be the ‘security belt’ of the USSR."

4) "In 2003 the US invaded Iraq. This war was opposed by Russia."

5) "Moscow interpreted the ‘orange’ and ‘rose’ revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, respectively, in 2004 as new evidence of the Western strategy to marginalize Russia and make it militarily impotent before the US and NATO"

6) "Russia was even more alarmed about the third US ballistic missile defense (BMD) site, which the Bush administration decided to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic. The third site had an open-ended architecture, and was perceived as demonstrating that the US intended to eventually deny Russia’s nuclear deterrence. " (that's a biggie).

And the following calculus doesn't really make sense: Putin's an evil madman + Putin has half the world's nuclear weapons = No need to care about Russia.

The US, on the other hand only cares about Russia because they interfered in American elections, and they're sketchy to deal with on Middle Eastern security issues. — frank

There are a much wider and more important range of economic and security reasons the US cares about Russia. The most pertinent being:

"The nation possesses approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads as of 2022—the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Nearly half of the world's 12,700 nuclear weapons are owned by Russia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Read it, it was as expected, naïve if well intended. — Olivier5

It should be easy for you then to demonstrate where I've been naive. Go ahead.

Yes.

If by "saner points" you mean parroting the mandatory pro-NATO line, then this should be stated in the OP. Anyway, I've got better things to do, so don't let me interrupt your "discussion" .... — Apollodorus

I said

your saner points — Baden

'Your' as in 'you', not the pro-NATO side.

I'm not saying they make that explicit in their documents. It's my wording. As I see it, NATO represents an expanded pre-cold-war block and Russia a diminished pre-cold-war block of countries that were on friendly terms for about five minutes before reverting to pursuing separate and often conflicting interests. Putin has been more open about talking about this than the Western side who are a little more coy. I could probably dig up some quotes from him.