co-Zelenskyites on here because virtually every single expert on the matter has concluded that Ukraine are either quite unlikely or very unlikely to win back the territory they are aiming to regain. — Isaac

Hardly surprising that that you are living in an alternative reality. As Ukrainians already have regained territory. They didn't have to rely on an insurgency to fight the Russians, which some experts thought they would have to rely.

But as a leftist tankist I assume you have a totally different view on 'experts on the matter' are.

Putin lost this war on the first day. Ukraine didn't collapse as the Afghan government did.

Over 8 months ago I posted several reports by Western media (made before the war) investigating the Nazi's in Ukraine. — boethius

I remember someone eagerly quoting articles from 2014, when the right-sector had fought on the streets of Kyiv yet had not lost in the elections (which seems to be a minor detail). And of course that fringe party isn't in government. And then of course the favorite unit of Ukraine, which seemed to represent the Ukrainian armed forces well over half a million strong.

And needles to say, no mention of the true right-wing extremism in Russia. Who cares about that!

Of course, what you lack to understand is that Putin justified the war with the denazification of Ukraine argument, which accused of the present administration to be neonazis. This administration has no ties to neonazis. Trump has more to do with neonazis and nobody accused that populist administration to be neonazis (or perhaps some did, actually).

There's the old saying in Finland: the dog that barks is the one that the sticks hits.

It's a good saying. :smile:

Seems pretty collectivist to me… — Olivier5

But seems like not to some. :wink:

The Nazi thing was and is a ruse. — jorndoe

Yes it was.

But notice how eagerly it was employed even on this thread by some very active participants.

The sophistic art of the historicist... — Isaac

The illiterate....

. If we are only considering Zelensky lying to us; I think what matters is the intention. Zelensky's intention is clearly to escalate tensions between nuclear powers in a way that he certainly has in mind may go all the way to nuclear war; either as a desirable thing or then just a risk he's willing to take. — boethius

Nonsense.

If his country is attacked, it is totally logical for him to try to get as much assistance. That's the urge for a no-fly-zone earlier in the war. And because of the nuclear deterrent, that possibility was totally out of the question. Now later a gaffe that he has backtracked seems have you and Isaac all over for many pages describing the wickedness of the Ukrainians.

It would be typical of Russian propaganda to say Zelensky has "in mind to go all the way to nuclear war". As if he was the instigator of this war.

So the criminal degenerate is back on Twitter. He's pretty old news at this point, so...does it even matter? — Mikie

At least he's not the US President, so you likely won't have every media outlet repeating what outrageous tweet he made last night.

Republicans should understand that for Dems Trump is like Hillary was to them, but on steroids.

So you would agree that Russia could employ nuclear weapons in Ukraine "out-of-the-blue" with zero fear of any US response. — boethius

Of course not!

I'm implying that if there is an unfortunate accident, let's say Russian aircraft shoots down a NATO aircraft of vice versa, things won't automatically escalate.

This isn't 1914 or 1939. Nobody is looking for a general war.

Of course, what you are saying is what Medvedev said earlier: that the US / NATO wouldn't do anything if Russia used nukes in Ukraine. Naturally to that kind of public statement, US and NATO had to reply in some way.

And of course, backchannels are open and used now.

(France 24, 14th of November 2022) A White House National Security Council official said the CIA chief met Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia's SVR foreign intelligence service to discuss "the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, and the risks of escalation to strategic stability".

If there's one positive thing in this Poland missile debate, it's the demonstration that NATO is perfectly capable of avoiding escalation into WW3, even when Mr Zelensky is having a bad day. Poland reacted with measure, and so did the US. — Olivier5

The idea of one incident then leading to another and then leading to WW3 is the typical unreasonable scaremongering of some. But it's quite natural that saying the obvious, that things do tend to go like this, is basically politically incorrect at least to the nuclear armageddon fearing crowd. Yet nuclear deterrence works: it's pretty hard to go up the escalatory stairs. Sides show obvious restraint.

The fact is that all the potential global clashing points are like this: North Korea vs US and South Korea, Iran vs US, China vs Taiwan and of course, Russia vs US/NATO, all show the obvious restraint when things do escalate.

Let's take an example,

The below pictures are of artillery engagement between North and South Korea. In it several artillery units from both sides engaged in an artillery duel lasting for about an hour which resulted in South Korea having two soldiers killed and 19 wounded, two civilians killed and three wounded and perhaps some North Korean soldiers killed and wounded (South Korea estimates 30-40 North Korean casualties).





And this happened in 2010.

So does anybody remember the great panic in the Korean Peninsula twelve years ago?

No. Even at the time there was no media panic. The out-of-the-blue engagement just raised eyebrowse.

There wasn't any continuation, neither side escalated the fighting. The event wasn't in anybodies interest to escalate. The Bombardment of Yeonpyeong is a forgotten detail in the Korean crisis.

Another example is when during the Trump administration Iran retaliated the assassination of a high level military leader with artillery missile attack on US bases in Iraq. The US didn't respond.

Hence if in this war there would be an escalation: a missile on a logistical base or something, the likely response would be a limited similar response designed specifically to be basically a tit for tat. If by some reason Russian and NATO jets would engage each other, it would be limit to the aircraft at hand, likely in the air at that time.

How the above potential events would lead to all-out nuclear war is beyond me. And beyond any credible reasoning from the nuclear scare mongers, but their motivation is just to alarm people.

From the looks of it, either their losses are higher than what they report, or they have further war plans of sorts. — jorndoe

I think it's pretty obvious that their casualties and overall losses have been substantial. If the US military is estimating about 100 000 casualties (meaning killed and wounded), that is a huge amount. The verified equipment losses are very large. Hence the mobilization has been a stop gap measure.

As Russia doesn't have a large organized system for mobilization and training (because at peace time the training is done in the units now deployed to Ukraine), they likely have to limit the taking in of reservists. The mobilization had simply to be stopped to do the conscription. After the conscripts are possible to be put forward to the units, then the mobilization can continue. I think Putin has understood that something obviously ending up in a mess (as there isn't the organization and the manpower to do it properly), it's better not to make a huge deal about it.

as if Ukraine is part of some collective. — boethius

As if?

The UN? OSCE? WTO?

Or is it that artificial countries run by neonazis aren't part of a collective? :smirk:

So, at this point in time, I'm going with "Ukraine accidentaly hit Poland while defending against a Russian barrage" as the most rational position. — Benkei

This seems to be the most likely scenario. And that Zelensky had a stupid gaffe that he is now backtracking.

And one should note, this wasn't the first time thanks to the war flying objects came out of Ukrainian airspace. It was the first time that somebody unfortunately got killed. Had the missile landed just few hundred meters somewhere else, it might not even had broke the global news media threshold.

Impossible. They aren't the Dutch.

(Btw, thanks for the Leopard 2 tanks and the MLRS systems you sold us.)

I really don't give a fuck what matters to Ukrainians, why would I? — Isaac

We surely have seen that.

And hence as you cannot comprehend them, your views aren't much worth of discussion. Just gaze at your own navel.

Agency entirely dependent on the weapons of others, isn't agency. And pointing out the influence the US has over this conflict is hardly anti-American, it's realistic. — Benkei

I disagree. Your attitude is Western hubris in short (assuming that Ukrainians wouldn't fight if it wasn't for the West). I think the Ukrainians would fight even if they didn't have the backing of the West. Or in such numbers.

First of all, Ukraine didn't collapse, it fought back. For Putin to succeed, he would have needed the Ukrainians to be as passive as the Czechs were in 1968. They were not. Hence the less than 240 000 or so invading force of Russia simply couldn't take out all of Ukraine and hold it. Likely the fighting would be going around Kiev, perhaps also Kharkov would have fallen and Ukraine wouldn't have made the gains as it did now. Ukrainians wouldn't be holding the initiative as now, that's for sure.

Weapons don't mean anything if there isn't the will to use them. And Ukraine still had a lot of weapons for an European country.

No. No one is forced to make agreements.

Even if a party can't possibly win, even then sometimes a party will not surrender and the other party does what they want by force without any agreement at any point about it. — boethius

So you think the Soviet Union would have gone fine on with unlimited weapons armament during the Cold War. One fifth going to defense spending wouldn't be enough? No. And on the other hand the West, which just was putting 5% into defense spending, it wouldn't have been detrimental to brush off any kind of talk of arms reductions and spending on other issues? Usually leadership of a country is rational, at least about it's popularity and survival.

In no way true. There is always the option to keep fighting, even in a hopeless military situation (see: Nazi's sending children to fight) and just having all your positions overrun and your high command captured and / or run away. — boethius

Not only you had a leadership that wanted Gotterdämmerung for Germany and Germans, but also because the Nazi government had no option. Remember Yalta. There was (luckily) the ability for separate peace for Finland, but that option wasn't open for Germany. Something that is a very good choice: if the allies would have stopped at the borders of Germany, it's likely that the Nazi regime would have survived and Germans wouldn't be such pacifists as they are now.

Certainly parties enter agreements because they think it's a good idea, but no one's ever forced to. — boethius

I think that we are just arguing about just when a country needs to do a decision and when not to. I would just emphasize that a country that has started a war has gone to the extreme and doesn't back out of it's decisions for minor inconveniences.

So, even without any trust, both sides were able to "trust enough" that the other party saw it was in their own interest to abide by various nuclear control and proliferation treatise. — boethius

Basically both sides are simply forced to make agreements. And this is with this war in Ukraine too.

Negotiations will be successful if both sides, Putin and the Ukrainians, have no option to continue the war or continuing would be a very bad decision. Hence very likely the war will continue.

Yes, this will be a litmus test for when the US plans to hang Ukraine out to dry like they did with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan once they've milked the situation for all they think they can get out of it. — Isaac

Again the typical anti-American view: Ukraine and the Ukrainians have no agency in this fight. After all, according to Isaac, why should Ukrainians even defend their country? Here's what I'm talking about. @Isaac's thinking is clearly showed in this quote from him months ago:

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac

Hence to Isaac, it doesn't matter at all to Ukraine and the Ukrainians if they are in control of their own country or under Putin's de-nazification program. All the killings, the forced evictions, the fake referendums and the Russification measures in the occupied territories are totally meaningless for Isaac. Because all that doesn't matter to Isaac. Perhaps it doesn't matter because it's not done by the Americans (and then it would matter a lot to Isaac). Yet it does matter to Ukrainians and hence Isaac's comments should be left to their own level.

Now this explosion in Poland. Right before winter.

Cool heads must prevail. — Manuel

And cooler heads seem to have prevailed.

What "senses" would that be? They have basically one thought: minimize government (i.e., for the people). Cut taxes (for the wealthy), deregulate industry so that businesses are unfettered by rules, de-fund public goods (schools, public lands, etc). Getting back to that is an even worse message. — Mikie

:smile:

Yeah. And the center-left has also a quite familiar agenda too. We have the left and the right in politics, you see.

Trump at least railed against the donor class and their puppets like Jeb Bush. — Mikie

Really? Lol.

How much did he truly "drain the swamp" with those billionaires in his cabinet? From 2016:

Donald Trump has built a cabinet in his own image. The first billionaire U.S. president has appointed two billionaires and at least a dozen millionaires, with a combined net worth of about $6.1 billion, to run government departments.

Well, at least one third of his cabinet had no prior government experience, so if you think government is bad, that must be good then.

I would say people pinned hopes on Obama with all that talk of change and so on. On Trump they pinned fantasies.

How does this relate to my suggestion of removing party politics altogether? — universeness

It relates in the way that even if you have parties, it's actually difficult to know just what a candidate stands for even if there belong to parties.

How would you know what kind of asshole in the end you are voting? Political candidates will likely talk only about issues that everybody is against and likely just say that they will solve the problem. They will likely shut up about really problematic issues. And how will they pass legislation? With whom? It takes a majority to pass legislation. That's team work, not individuals doing their own thing.

Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process. — Tzeentch

?

Russia, or Putin and the five men or so who decided to escalate this to an all out war, didn't get what they wanted. That was basically shown in the first 24 hours of the attack: Ukrainians fought back, Zelensky didn't evacuate himself like the Afghan President.

Russia had to withdraw from the Kiev region, from Kharkivregion, from Kherson (which it reached basically in the first days of this campaign). When the Ukrainians hit the weakest point in the northeast of the front, Russian forces there were routed. This is not some propaganda, which you think it is. Russia is really facing huge problems.

Yet you think of the Russian Army as some kind of unstoppable Juggernaut that has simply so much arsenal and men to mobilize that only when "it gets it act together", the Ukrainians will be destroyed. Russia isn't the Soviet Union. Or then perhaps you assume Putin could just use nuclear weapons ...as if that would be the solution. Or then you assume everything is just Western propaganda. It isn't. Follow then the Russian side as they aren't either happy how the war is going.

The only thing Russia has a lot is it's famous artillery. Hence Russians can lob ordinary shells for a long time at the Ukrainians.

Ukraine has only 16 HIMARS -systems (in comparison: during the Gulf War US and UK had over 250 MLRS-systems, which packed a bigger punch than the HIMARS) for destroying the thousands of artillery pieces. Hence that isn't going to happen quickly.

New groups could be formed after each election, and it would probably be wise to limit the number of times any individual could be elected to become a member of the first chamber. — universeness

Term limits is smart, but it's another issue.

But if new group are formed after each election, that could be detrimental also: you simply wouldn't know what de facto your candidate will choose. It's the basic "problem" with coalition governments: you might pick a President in direct elections, but you never know who will be the prime minister as usually it's the one who finally gets the administration together, which might not be the leader of the largest party.

Now you wouldn't know which faction you would be voting for. If your an American, perhaps this idea is strange because you have just two parties, but in reality specific candidates would be hard to notice just what they represent.

I assume that you also have these "election surveys" where you can answer a question set from a broad variety of political issues and then get the candidates that are closest to you (and the most against your ideas). Usually in multiparty system you'll easily get the parties that are most against you, but many candidates that have answered the questions most according to you are from different parties. Some that you would never vote.

I'm hoping the cause of this is seen clearly as the unelectability of Trump candidates so that the Trump era can once and for all come to an end. — Hanover

You saying that makes me feel optimistic about the political right in the US.

Insanity has to come to end sometime.

Democrats holding the Senate is a huge win for them and a loss for Republicans.

I think finally the GOP can come back to it's senses. Trump is a losing card.

In fact, the Democrats can hope that the GOP takes Trump to be their candidate in the Presidential elections: nothing else would mobilize the Dems better and alienate many that otherwise would vote for a Republican candidate.

We need a global movement to end party politics, as it is a bad system.
Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. — universeness

That doesn't even logically work when voting in any parliamentary system is based on a majority. It is totally rational to make coalitions. In order to get what is important for you to be pushed through, you have to make then packs with other who have their agenda. Hence the party system basically will emerge, even if they aren't called political parties.

Secondly, even on the local level the political divide is there among the people: some want to use tax money to be spent of issues while others don't and just want lower taxes. Some want more collective decision making and others individual freedoms. It doesn't go away on the local level, you know.

I think the US would need more political parties and coalition governments and then root out it's corruption. But if people aren't aware of the domination of the whole system by the two parties, then there isn't going to be change.

"The odd" is that you don't give up ground for free when at war. Period. — Tzeentch

The Russians surely didn't give ground for free. They avoided a possible encirclement of their forces. There's nothing odd at that. Remember that the fighting at Kherson has gone since the summer in earnest. So holding the defensive line for months isn't "giving up ground for free".

Those forces are simply crucial for it because the Russian ground forces, which never were so large to begin with, and Russia has taken serious losses. Ukraine has more men now on the field than Russia basically. Russia had tried to create a small professional army and wasn't thinking mobilizing a far larger force, hence all the confusion in Putin's mobilization, which had to be ended because there simply weren't the resources.
Ukraine on the other hand had used the last eight years to fight this kind of war.

Russians need that artillery firepower, which itself needs a huge logistical tail. If those supply lines are cut, there's no firepower once the rounds you have next to the gun or rocket launcher have been fired.

Besides, notice how cautiously Ukrainian forces closed into Kherson, you didn't see columns of Ukrainian tanks rumbling into the city. Those would be a lucrative target for Russian artillery.

:up: :100:

By my own judgement. The way the Russians left Kherson is odd, so I sought a reasonable explanation. — Tzeentch

What is odd?

The reasonable explanation is that Russia cannot simply supply a force of tens of thousands of troops over the precarious few bridges (that Ukraine can hit) over the Dniepr on the western side of the river in Kherson. Russia lacks the logistical ability to move far away from the railway lines was well known even before the war started. They lack simply the logistics. Hence Ukraine has targeted supply dumps with the accurate HIMARS rockets and basically fought a similar conventional war that NATO planned to fight the Soviet war machine.



When you look at the rail lines in Ukraine, one immediately notices the only way is through Crimea by the now infamous bridge that was attacked.

The next possible Ukrainian offensive would be to circumvent the Dniepr altogether and launch an attack from the Donetsk region to the sea and cut the land bridge to Crimea and take Mariupol or Melitopol. In manpower Ukraine has the advantage, yet in artillery and arms Russia enjoys still the advantage. However that it articles it might have sustained losses of nearly 100 000 are breathtaking and show the urgent need to send the newly mobilized forces immediately (and prematurely) to the front). Of course such an attack would need huge combined arms maneuvering, which might be too much for the Ukrainians to do.

Nothing stopped the Russians from reducing the force occupying Kherson, allowing it to be supplied while also imposing a cost on Ukraine for taking it. They chose not to, and that is not typical for two nations at war. — Tzeentch

Everything written or documented is against this.

There's only few bridges over the Dniepr and they are quite in reach of HIMARS rockets. You are simply wrong assuming Russian didn't have huge difficulties. In WW2 or even as late as in the Vietnam War a bridge as a target was very tricky. It isn't now with modern precision guided weapons.

And Ukraine has also by Russian sources used these precision guided weapons to destroy bridges:

(Daily Telegraph, 22nd August) Ukrainian forces have used Himars rocket systems to halt Russian repairs to a key supply bridge in occupied Kherson as they continue to press on the southern frontline.

Online footage shows a fiery explosion on Antonovsky bridge after at least 15 people were injured as a result of the broad daylight shelling on Monday, Russian news agency TASS said.

"At around 1pm on August 22, in order to disrupt the work to restore the roadway, Ukrainian troops attacked from the American Himars rocket systems at the site of repair work on the Antonovsky Bridge," a local official was quoted as saying.

The bridge has come under fire at least eight times since July 19.

It is the only road crossing that connects the city of Kherson with the wider region on the eastern side of the Dnieper river.

The argument that "Putin can't be trusted" as a basis to reject an otherwise good peace deal is simply an invalid argument. The trust in an international counter-party has little to do with reasons to enter an agreement or not. US and the Soviets never trusted each other, but entered into all sorts of agreements.

Indeed, the basic assumption of international relations is that countries don't just go ahead and trust each other, but the situation is more complicated than that. — boethius

The Soviet Union couldn't continue the arms race and actually did collapse partly because of it (even if Americans tend to overemphasize this). Soviet Union was spending twice the percentage of GDP than the US was and it was failing to keep up in the technological race. You are correct in that the two Superpowers never trusted each other, but agreements could be found simply when there wasn't any other sustainable option.

As I said:

Likely the deal has already been struck.

The United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago.

Then Russia gives up Kherson as a form of 'guarantee' that no offensives for Odessa or Transnistria will take place. — Tzeentch

Where do you get this idea? By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"?

The Ukrainians had made it impossible for Russia to supply over the Dniepr a huge force as it's dependence on rail lines made this totally obvious. Russia wasn't willing to sacrifice it's best troops. And of course Putin was no where to be found in the TV theatre where the commander in Ukraine and Shoigu discussed the withdrawal (which is typical Putin: he never gives the bad news).

It's interesting how many seem to be desperately hoping that Putin has many aces on his sleeves, that the Russian army isn't marching on to a defeat. As if the situation isn't so bleak to the Russian army. Yes, likely the West can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not supplying Ukraine and demanding a possibility for Putin to "save face".

Ironic that the Russian army has bloodthirsty neo-Nazis in their employ. Nothing new though I guess. — jorndoe

Nothing new, but dramatic changes can happen.

Alexandra Polinova from the now banned Memorial said the obvious: it is actually Russia that needs to decolonize.

There should be another narrative than the imperialist one when it comes to what Russia is. This narrative creates the reality were Russia sees necessary to intervene and dominate it's near abroad. First and foremost, the collapse of the Soviet Union, is seen as a mistake. An unfortunate accident. Russia is seen to be an multi-ethnic Empire and therefore it should obviously control what has been part of the Empire. And this makes everybody so nervous about Russia. It's not acting as a normal country. Yet the imperialist narrative dominates official Russia. It is fomented with the huge conspiracy that the West is against Russia, hence to defend itself, it has to attack.

Is change possible?

Russia does have the groundwork of a legal system, if truly used, to make it to be a justice state. But there should be a dramatic change, something equivalent of a revolution. Otherwise views that are in the West confined to the political fringe will stay dominant in Russia. Putin just bowing out won't change the political landscape, if someone then just inherits the security system.

Anyway, they seem noticeably keen on keeping Crimea Russian. Also a land corridor via Donbas in addition to Kerch. Not a lease on otherwise neutral ground or whatever, but secured Russian land, which any strong military would have gotten in the way of (and still might). — jorndoe

This is what is basically left now for Putin. No overthrow of the Ukrainian government and replacement with a pro-Russian regime, no larger Novorossiya.

Crimea may be the real question.

Not nuclear weapons as a first response. What I heard was that the US would sends troops along with other NATO member countries to fight inside Ukraine, if Russia proceeds with the expected escalation coming winter. If this happens (US troops go inside Ukraine), then we are really playing with lava, not fire.

Of course, anyone using the first nuke, must know what the consequences will be, not only for their country, but for the world. — Manuel

First and foremost, this is a sabre rattling response to Russia's sabre rattling, the potential use of nuclear weapons with conventional forces. And this response hasn't been official. It has been given to the media by other retired people, who have said that this kind of response has given to Russian counterparts behind closed doors, not openly.

This means that Joe Biden and the West haven't drawn a public red line like Obama did in Syria (and failed).

If Russian would use nukes, the claimed Western response would be to target Russian forces in occupied Ukraine and the Black Sea fleet. The response would be done by the Air Forces and cruise missiles. For ground forces to go into Ukraine is a huge, slow operation.

But let's think just how credible the Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons is. What do they really gain? Would China really support this? Besides, that Russia withdraws from Kherson shows that cool heads prevail and they can make rational battlefield decisions and aren't confined to what it politically looks like. After all, the military leadership announcing that they will withdraw from Kherson is a humiliating defeat for Putin.

With all the talk of negotiation (on both sides and other parties(like the US and telling Ukraine to say they're open to negotiation and mentioning "Ukraine fatigue") it seems a strong signal that both sides are hurting pretty bad, but I still fail to see any evidence Russian forces, government, economy is about to simply collapse and the front seems stable going into winter apart from Kherson. — boethius

At least the discussion of talks shows that there might be a deadlock in the battlefield.

I agree. The war can still continue.

Also crossing the Dniepr is a big difficult operation for Ukraine. And let's not forget that this is one of the poorest nations in Europe that has it's economy severely wrecked. But when the threat is existential, that there's no electricity or people have to go hungry to sleep isn't going to change the will of the Ukrainian people. It's more a question of Western resolve to aid Ukraine. The Russians can take a beating also, and still continue the war.

[

The nuclear ransom is exactly what's preventing NATO planes and troops in Ukraine. — boethius

Deterrence and ransom is different.

Putin implying that Ukraine cannot be assisted or otherwise he will use nukes is more of ransom/sabre rattling. The nuclear sabre rattling is an attempt to decrease the military aid to Ukraine.

Russia defending itself or it's aircraft from attack by in the end having nuclear weapons is deterrence.

Supposedly someone inside the Biden administration, not Blinken, had discussions with a high-ranking government official, discussing "red lines", allegedly Russia was told that a mass retaliation would incur a reply by NATO. — Manuel

I think it is reliable, but for the US and NATO to say they will respond to use of nuclear weapons is more an answer to deputy-chairman of the security council and former Russian president Medvedev saying that NATO wouldn't do anything if Russia used nukes in Ukraine.

"I have to remind you again - for those deaf ears who hear only themselves. Russia has the right to use nuclear weapons if necessary," Medvedev said, adding that it would do so "in predetermined cases" and in strict compliance with state policy.

When describing a possible strike on Ukraine, a Slavic neighbour which Putin describes as an artificial historical construct, Medvedev said NATO would not get involved in such a situation.

"I believe that NATO would not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario," Medvedev said. "The demagogues across the ocean and in Europe are not going to die in a nuclear apocalypse."

Which actually may be so, but to that kind of statement NATO/US has to rattle it's own sabres. And anyway, the first thing would be to make a simply underground nuclear test in Novaja Zemlya.

First of all, don't get angry.

Perhaps the title of the thread was a bit confusing.

Notice the site guidelines and follow them and Baden shouldn't be angry:

General Guidelines:

1) Language matters:

This is an English language forum on an academic topic. Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout. This goes for both native and non-native speakers (although we're likely to be more sympathetic when judging the writing of the latter).

2) Tone matters:

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

3) Context matters:

The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in casual and political discussions, for example, than in philosophical discussions.

Starting new discussions:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.

c) Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active (and not a copypasta from elsewhere on the internet. Plagiarists will be banned).

For more help: see How to Write an OP.

Addenda:

1) No bumps allowed. If you want to attract replies, think of a better way.
2) While there are no specific limits to the number of discussions you can start, if we feel you are unfairly monopolising space on the front page, we reserve the right to delete your discussions regardless of content.

Now what? What would you have us do? Pretend that Putin can't hold us to ransom just because we don't like that fact? — Isaac

As pointed out, there isn't actually credible nuclear ransom. The US or NATO isn't fighting Russia. Russia isn't attacking the supply lines in Poland. Nuclear deterrence between NATO and the Russia does holds there's no NATO aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine, even if Ukraine desperately wanted there to be that. Places like Yugoslavia and Libya that did happen. In Ukraine it didn't: NATO isn't going to escalate as Russian deterrence works. And vice versa.

You can always hope that the conflict would stop and of course, that it doesn't escalate. That's a bit different to insist on stopping the war on any terms whatsoever.

Since Cherson may have served as a springboard for future Russian offensives, it seems to me Cherson may have been conceded to Ukraine as a form of 'guarantee' that Russia will not make a bid for Odessa / Transnistria. — Tzeentch

The simple fact is what was already known for a long time: Russia has problem to supply the troops in Kherson region because of the chokepoints of the bridges across the Dniepr. The commanding Russian general Suvorikin acknowledged this: that it simply wasn't possible to supply the troops. Russia wouldn't sacrifice it's best troops, the paratroopers of the VDV for nothing. Yes, now the threat of Russia taking Odessa and contacting the forces in Transnistria has indeed subsided.

Exactly! They are correct within their confined/discrete context, of which their are larger ones that encompass them and deliver us a better description of the interrelationships between contradictions and truths. In essence, the process of learning.
I'm definitely in agreement with/following your logic here. — Benj96

I think the real problem arrives when there obviously should be the same premises, like in natural sciences. Some chemical reaction (etc.) happens or it doesn't, and it's not a matter of either point of view or that the topic is different. Even if you have different schools in sciences, they are still talking about the same objective reality. It's not a subjective matter like what food tastes good or what art is beautiful. Hence it cannot be that I have my chemistry and physics and you have yours: we don't live in alternative realities.

I'm not sure what was the problem with that???

Why indeed was it removed?

Before this is removed, I just like to comment:

So if you want to remove more contradictions, one must consider a greater magnitude of premises and associate them with one another. The bigger the picture one sees, the more sense individual peoples opinions and beliefs have in that context, and thus the more one can empathise with any of them (as empathy is based on understanding not ignoring). — Benj96

Yes, basically when we have a new way of looking at issues (or questions/problems), that is the easiest way for us to change the premises. It doesn't have to mean that the earlier thinking was wrong, it just that we didn't think about the issue from the new perspective.

It's expert, after expert, after expert, all denying your imbecilic claim that we don't need to worry about nuclear escalation. — Isaac

Again a strawman.

It's not that we shouldn't worry about escalation. I've pointed way earlier the potential danger of the "Escalate to De-escalate" -doctrine and the fact that Russia far before this war in it's large military exercises ended them usually with using the nuclear option that would end (or freeze) the conflict.

And is Putin's regime threatened? Nope. He still sits in the Kremlin. Nobody is invading Russia.

It's just your peace at all cost immediately sends the wrong information: if you are losing, your way out is to use nuclear blackmail. Isaac approved.

Going just to ad hominems shows that you don't know much if anything.

But I guess when your line has been to attack the Ukrainians as being neonazis and repeat Putin's line including the West being the culprit and aggressor in the conflict, even to ridicule the whole reasoning for Ukrainians to defend themselves from an aggressor (because we are all people and national borders don't matter), it's quite understandable that you then promote the idea that West should abandon Ukraine because Putin makes nuclear threats. Especially when Russia was forced out of the only regional capital it had taken (but still occupies about 15% of Ukrainian territory), peace at any cost.

Just shows that it's actors both the far left and the far right that support Putin in the West.

The primary problem in my view in the US is the two-party system. I think that Trump was symptom of this as is the "perpetual leftist candidacy" of Bernie Sanders. The real success of the two party system is that they have created "primaries" to act as if being part of the actual elections and the way for democracy to work (and the way to influence political change through these to fixed parties) is through them. Of course there are also other institutional obstacles made for third parties thank to the power of the duopoly, yet the biggest obstacle is in the hearts and minds of Americans.

For example "primaries" in Finland are basically a convention of a party, that then usually is one news story of the day when a presidential candidate is selected or the new chairperson of the party is chosen, who then is the potential prime minister candidate. Nobody gives a damn how various contenders inside the party have regional support in the party organization.

The stranglehold that the Democratic-Republican duopoly is shown in these elections too. Third parties only desperately seek attention by having Presidential candidates. There absence in the House and Senate is telling.

And my country doesn't have a real right wing party. All countries have a specific history that has molded the political landscape to be what it is, hence there doesn't exist something like a perfect spread of political parties across the spectrum anywhere. The two parties simply have gained a stranglehold of US politics, which Americans accept as given.

It is your notion that considering the need to avoid escalation is "absurd" that the citations are aimed against. — Isaac

You should understand how nuclear deterrence works.

And just how lousy the weapon is, actually.