It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have. — Manuel

This is simply nonsense.

1) Nuclear armed countries have lost many wars. Afghans have now gotten victory over to two nuclear armed Superpowers. Nuclear weapons aren't some miracle weapon system, just like chemical warfare.

2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument.

3) Russia has it's limits. Sending the now mobilized troops immediately to the front tells how bad the situation is for Russia. The idea that "Russia cannot lose" is quite naive. This can very well be one of those wars that end up as a huge embarrasment for Russia. It's totally possible.

Reminds me that the Untergang des Abendlandes (The Decline of the West) was written by Oswald Spengler in 1918. And I presume it was not the first of it's kind.

Of course Western culture has been hopelessly stupid for a long time... we just pick the best part later to define what our culture stands for. Those people who we later put up to a pedestal (to define what Western culture is) were actually a minority in their time.

That is why military humiliation on the battlefield (including the killing of generals) combined with Putin’s disposition to put all the blame on and replace military leaders for military failures, is the right recipe for military defection or conspiracy from the military subordinates and high ranks. — neomac

Let's remember that Russia has a long history of liberalization of the system after disastrous lost wars.

The Crimean war - > Afterwards the end of serfdom in Russia.

The Russo-Japanese war - > Afterwards political reforms, the Duma is created.

The war in Afghanistan - > Perestroika and Glasnost

So a really humiliating defeat in the war can be very beneficial to Russia. If it humiliates all those jingoist imperialists that now promote this recapture of the Empire, that would be beneficial. They should be a laughing stock that sane people avoid. The British do understand their Empire isn't coming back. The Austrians understand that their Empire isn't coming back. And so do the Spanish. The Russians should really understand that it's over, really over. Now there's not even the possibility for Russia to hang on to their Empire / colonial territories like the French do, subtly and out of sight accepting the limits of the present.

Americans use superlatives often.

And as the key part of US foreign policy is to talk about (and create) these threats, because Americans don't understand that a lot of their prosperity and position comes from their stance in the Global arena, then the term something being "an existential threat" to US is used frequently. Hence US Foreign Policy is marketed mainly by threats and dangers.

The US is such a large country with so many cities, that in fact a Russian nuclear attack might not be so existential (as likely the targets are military bases and any attacker will leave a nuclear weapons reserve). Assuming we really stick to the definition of existential.

Actually now Putin is a burden for Russia. Like Slobodan Milosevic was for Serbia.

Starting a conventional all-out war with Ukraine, which basically needed all of the Russian Army (and even that wasn't enough) has been a disaster for Russia. Defeat on the battlefield is a real possible option (even if it's not guaranteed). And just what would be the gains? Crimea wasn't some resource rich oilfield like Kuwait was for Iraq. Russia is now a pariah state, it has lost it's valuable trading partners. It has lost it's status compared to China. He has gone back on his promises that there wouldn't be no mobilization and he cannot hide the coffins as he could earlier.

The question is how much truly does the Russian accept the inconveniences of the war for the imperial gain of Novorossiya? How much do they support the war? The Crimean annexation did genuinely excite Russians. It was bloodless and there was support for it in the Crimean population (if not a majority, but anyway). The annexation of these new territories was a Stalinist theatre, especially when Putin is losing ground in them.

The fact is, that if there would be general excitement about the war, the Western media couldn't hide it. There would have been too many Russians on the streets celebrating and chanting "Russia, Russia!". There would be ex-pats coming to Russia to join the fight. There would be Russians stopping Western media crews and telling how justified the cause they are fighting is. Above all, this would be seen in the social media. What we basically have seen from the populace is support for the troops. Supporting yours troops in war is something people do, but that doesn't mean they are enthusiastic for the war (as War on Terror showed with Americans).

Putin first created stability after the Yeltsin years and punched way above his weight class for a long time in the World arena, but now that has been exposed in his latest gamble and he is losing badly. Now he is a real problem for Russia.

Here's the difference.. If Ukraine didn't ally NATO and NATO in turn brutally attacked Ukraine, that would be wrong. But they didn't. Russia did. — schopenhauer1

Well, Putin basically started the civil war that in Yugoslavia happened immediately (thanks to Super-Serb Slobodan Milosevic) now happens decades later from the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the real tragedy here: Perhaps Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't manage many things well when the Soviet Union collapsed, but they managed to do it peacefully with only few skirmishes and little wars erupting (Georgia, Moldova and Nagorno-Karabakh). Those who have been born after this collapse are already adults and the Soviet Empire is really for many only in the history books. But Putin wants to reconquer at least part of that greatness and this is the end result. Yet in the end Putin will be like Milosevic for Serbia, an absolute disaster.

And now we have a huge conventional war in Europe, a war that is in it's eight year. Hopefully this will end in Russians rethinking just how smart holding to those imperial aspirations is.

Ok. Here's my position: I want the war to end, and I want to find out how best to help that happen. — Xtrix

I think now most important is for the war not to get bigger. So I hope that Belarus can stay out of this: it is a balancing act, but I think that their own dictator can do this balancing act.

Conventional wars like this end with one side losing or being incapable of continuing. Or then simply both sides being understanding that they cannot win and the war is costly for both. If you look at for example the short wars Israel fought, the victory on the battlefield was very clear in the end. Or the Armenian-Azeri war of 2020. Once a conventional war starts, it doesn't stop because of diplomats, diplomats arrange peace-talks only if the situation on the battlefield calls for it.

Both sides here are willing to fight. For Ukraine taking Kherson might be a possibility, but what then is likely to be difficult is to cross the Dniepr. The troops now mobilized by Russia will simply take months to organize. The fact is that the West can keep up the level of military aid it has given to Ukraine, while Russia is losing that material as modern Russia is no Soviet Union.

For Russia to continue this war will likely mean that when the fighting is finally over, I think you will see political turmoil in the country if not earlier. But the outcome isn't obvious. My personal belief is Putin simply has to go. He has started now too many wars, starting from the Second Chechen war onwards. But as this is Russia, that may also happen when he dies of old age many years from now.

From a military perspective, Crimea went rather well for Russia. — Manuel

Best military operations are those, when you accomplish your objectives without any shots fired. When it's something else than a war. Believe me, modern generals are really triumphant about these operations whereas the larger public doesn't notice them as no war occurred.

The most scary thought is that if Putin would have stopped there, he might have gotten away with it. It might have taken a decade, but the likelyhood of the West accepting de facto the annexation of Crimea would have been likely. But a gambler doesn't know when to stop. He had to have that land bridge to Crimea and Novorossiya.

Heck, even without this protracted war, after about a month, maybe two, this dream of his of negotiating with the rest as a great power seems to me to have vanished, because in reality, he can't make it happen. — Manuel

Russia has a habit of having these epic fails in wars where some in their own hubris write off the whole country. They shouldn't do that. The bear can lick it's wounds and sometimes get smarter.

Let’s look at what’s been done, what’s been claimed, and compare to the historical record. Some still claim that the invasion of Iraq was “good” and right, morally. That no WMDs were found is a fact either way. — Xtrix

In a way, the war in Ukraine has given the chance for the West to avoid the really important debate about the War on Terror and especially the war in Afghanistan.

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist. — Xtrix

Well, let's try. You aren't a Putin supporter and I'm not an American jingoist. (Not even a Finnish jingoist, even if I think of myself as being patriotic.)

You really think he will conquer Finland and Sweden and Germany? But how could he realistically do that and to what end? — Manuel

You are talking to a Finn, you know that?

And I do know what Finlandization is in reality. You see, the Putin's ideologist (that was tried to be killed by Ukrainian intelligence services) said it quite clearly what Russia's intentions ought to be for FInland. To have similar relations as during the Cold War.

You see, if NATO would collapse (like SEATO and CENTO) and EU would become disorganized, Russia could approach every European country on a bilateral basis. And on a one-on-one basis Russia is strong and quite dominant towards every West European country. And that is the objective. It is the objective of an imperialist great power: it won't attack everybody, but sure wants to dominate all the relationships. It's not going to invade every country it can, hence it's not the Mongol Horde you are talking about. So the idea that Russia would try to invade all of Europe is quite naive. Yet without an EU and Atlanticism, Russia is the top dog in Europe.

So, the underlying premise seems to be "If a large country views its neighbor as its dependent client state, it is its right to control the government of that country". — schopenhauer1

Imperialists see the World as zones of control. Other states can actually believe in the sovereignty of nations.

If NATO isn't FORCING their will on Ukraine, and Ukraine vote in majority (democratically) to align more with NATO countries, then how is this wrong? Russia can also freely give to Ukraine as well.. But it seems that it rather align with NATO than Russia. That doesn't mean, ergo Russia gets to invade Ukraine because it didn't get what it wanted. — schopenhauer1

If Russia would be a prosperous, functioning country that has lucrative markets for Ukraine's economy to export, it might be well that we would be talking about CIS as we talk about the EU. Yes, the Ukrainians had their Holodomor, but Russians also suffered during the Soviet Union, hence the attitude could something like modern Germany looks at the Third Reich today. (Not like Putin's Russia looks at Stalin today).

And this question comes even more close to home for me: Why did Finland and Sweden choose to join NATO and not stay out of the military alliance. Well, it's kind of obvious, actually. You really have to be quite clueless not to understand why.

The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before. — Tzeentch

Catherine the Great said:

I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.

Russia can portray itself as the victim defending itself, but in fact it is an imperialist entity which basically only during the Soviet Union had one shared common identity. Then the various people in the Empire were Soviets, not Russians. Russia has never been just Russians. It is basically a multicultural state build on a Medieval Empire which outlasted other similar Empires thanks to a revolution that created the Soviet Union. Russia hasn't been able to be as successful in it's Russification as France, Germany or even Italy has been in creating a nation state in the 19th Century (or earlier). And now with Putin, Russia is trying to claw back what it had lost. Hope it will fail and then learn that it has lost it's Empire.



And furthermore, every aggressor will portray itself at least as a defender of something. Someone truly believing the bullshit lie that NATO made Putin to attack Ukraine, that it was the only option left for Putin, likely isn't capable of understanding that he or she is believing a similar enormous lie like Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda and hence Iraq should be invaded.

After all, I remember those idiots that came even to this forum (or technically the earlier site) to defend the US attack on Iraq and later defended President Bush as "just having got bad intel". Now those believing the Russian line are quite similar to those idiots.

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others. — Isaac

If you think that Adolf Hitler was a peaceful guy and would have satisfied after gaining Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia and hence no WW2, you simply lack a lot.

But then again, according to you the UK surrendering to Nazi Germany during WW2 "might have well have saved thousands of lives on both sides". (Who cares what would have happened to the British Jewish community, which then numbered more than the total UK casualties of WW2, and to those that would have opposed the new regime.)

It's a bit ironic that Vladimir Putin was earlier the most popular politician in Ukraine. If he hadn't annexed Crimea, the World would be really, really different. Putin would be sitting in the G8 and the West would continue to dismantle it's armed forces. And Ukraine and Russia? Talk about a relationship between two peoples that has been broken.

If Russia continues in the path it has taken, Russia will likely also alienate the Belarusians also.

Richard Muller, physics professor emeritus at UC Berkeley, states that energy is the most difficult concept to understand in the basic physics curriculum. It will be interesting to see what people say. — jgill

I think the closest thing that people can understand is BHP, break horse power (with motors) or simply horse power. They can imagine a horse pulling a cart. And that's it.



Very few remember the definition of energy or what joule stands for. Or that 1 watt is 1 joule per second. Those that have to ponder about electric devices or pay the electricity bill might be more aware of the underlying terms. And engineers are different in this case also. Yet even economics, social sciences or in business energy naturally pops up. Just like it does in physics. Yet Richard Muller might be right, just as it's hard for an economist to fathom just what gross domestic product actually is.

Why is it the US being castigated for Putin acting aggressively. This is the same rhetoric against Hitlers trying to take over neighbors and other nations trying not to provoke him. Im pretty sure almost no one agrees with someone like Neville Chamberlain in hindsight. Why would a country be at fault for helping an ally defend against an aggressor? — schopenhauer1

Yes. It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book).

Of course it doesn't make sense. But the US has to be the bad guy. Always.

What I have gathered from this thread is that some people do not want to accept this, because it would justify US and West European actions and put especially the US in a positive light, giving help to a country that has been attacked. For them it is more important to be critical about the US and it's previous actions and meddling around the World. Somehow it's too much to stomach for them that the culprit for this war isn't the US. And then they can take the line of Noam Chomsky that only Russians themselves ought to be critical about their country, Russia, and we ought to stick to being critical of only our own country / alliance. Yet when you are just critical about about one country and stay silent about the ill doings of another, there is an obvious bias.

And that's what I find so irritating in this World: you cannot be both critical in certain occasions and also give support for other actions when they are justified. As if objectivity is impossible. There's a lot that should be discussed about the ill-fated trainwreck that was the war in Afghanistan and basically how the West trampled it's own values in the "War on Terror". However when it comes to the war in Ukraine, Russia's aggression and imperial objectives are so evident, so clear, that is hilarious to uphold the "NATO enlargement made Putin do it" -card.

Fortunately there is sanity in this thread, like @RogueAI shows:

NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this. — Tzeentch

No, it isn't. Putin tried for the easy land grab and it's blown up in his face. — RogueAI

Ah gotcha, war profiteering. It’s all staged so that military industrial complex makes money they’re saying? — schopenhauer1

Those kind of comments would have more weight if Russia wouldn't have attacked Ukraine, which makes them a bit dubious in the case of this war. The imperialist ambitions of Russia simply cannot be denied.

But in the case of China (which has last time attacked Vietnam in 1979 and had some skirmishes in the 80's with the country, which didn't go so well for the China) or Iran (which hasn't attacked anybody, even if it does give aid to various combatants), the profiteering argument would be more credible.

So hang on. Your counter argument is seriously that country with a human rights record below Costa Rica is responsible for the human rights improvements in Costa Rica? — Isaac

No. You literally said that Costa Rica is outside of the Western sphere of influence.

That is the thing I corrected.

The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence. — Isaac

Costa Rica? :chin:

It's a long time since President Oscar Arias was angry at the US for using the country as a staging post for Contras. Something nearly 40 years ago.

From the State Department's website:

Beyond migration, U.S. assistance to Costa Rica helps counter drug trafficking and transnational crime, supports economic development, improves governance, and contributes to security in Central America.

The United States works hand-in-hand with a wide range of Costa Rican government agencies and non-governmental organizations to help secure Costa Rica’s borders, professionalize its police, strengthen its judicial sector, improve its corrections system, and empower at-risk youth and other vulnerable populations.

U.S. Embassy programs promote entrepreneurship, economic inclusion, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) works closely with Costa Rican security partners to build capacity and assist disadvantaged communities.

US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations (diplomatic relations since 1851). Costa Rica is quite under the influence of the West I would say.

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman. — Xtrix

Which in the end you cannot disprove.

So countries wanting to join NATO because they fear Russia might invade them...which then becomes reality and Russia attacks them, is I guess the provocation. But what was the NATO prior to 2014 and where was it's focus?

This view overlooks the long history of NATO shedding it's Cold-War roots and focusing on "new threats" and that Russia was for a long time tried to be connected to the European security system and with Russia even being in the then G8 and having a "Partnership for Peace" relation with the US / NATO. But let's forget the various number of "resets" in the US-Russian relationship, or just how silent the West was about the actions of Russia in Chechnya, because it was an internal conflict. All that doesn't rhyme with the US-is-out-to-get-Russia narrative.

In June 1994, Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP), a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between NATO and partner countries. The Brussels Summit Declaration from January 1994 defined the goals of PfP as expanding and intensifying political and military cooperation in Europe, increasing stability, diminishing threats to peace, and building strengthened security relationships.

On 27 May 1997, NATO leaders and President Boris Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, expressing their determination to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.” The Act established the goal of cooperation in areas such as peacekeeping, arms control, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and theatre missile defence. In the Founding Act, NATO and Russia agreed to base their cooperation on the principles of human rights and civil liberties, refraining from the threat or use of force against each other or any other state.

Ukraine is recovering it's territory, not losing more. It's fighting a conventional war against Russia and not fighting a hit-and-run insurgency. Oryx that counts the destroyed/damaged/captured tanks can come up to numbers of 1300 tanks lost simply tells a lot. It speaks of a military failure that you cannot just deny. — ssu

This was not the issue under contention. — boethius

OK, at least with this you agree. Yet you continue...

apokrisis's hypothesis is that no analysis and no expert is credible, other than the Russian military is incompetent.

Incompetence is a pretty high threshold and you can of course be competent and still fail, especially in a negative sum game such as war.

Even higher threshold is claiming "all credible analysis" agrees with your position. — boethius

Umm...just who is saying that the Russian army is competent and very effective? :roll:

There are several reasons just why people can argue that Russia's armed forces are incompetent, just starting from actual eye-witness stories and that performance on the battlefield. One can simply see themselves from the footage. The looting, the brutality towards civilians, the use of alcohol, failure of resupplying, it all tells of low morale and serious problems. Many armies suffer from these kind of problems, usually in the poor countries with low education levels and large social problems. It takes a lot, not just money, to create an effective armed forces. (Just look at the performance of the Saudi's in Yemen.)

The reasons for the problems in the Russian armed forces are many and start, as usually they start, from the society that the armed forces are part of. The Russian armed forces were formed from the Soviet Army, and that there is a really big bag of problems, which couldn't be easily reformed and modernized. The Russian army is enormous compared to the economy of Russia, which itself creates problems. Then there's the military culture. which starts from things like not focusing on the individual and him or her initiative, but a top-down command structure where initiative in lower ranks isn't promoted. Even the Finnish military manuals (that are public) say that the attack of the enemy can halt if the commander/commanding unit is destroyed.

It's said (quite convincingly) that the reason just why so many generals have died in the war in Ukraine is that they have had to lead from the front, literally. This isn't anything new. From the Russo-Georgian war there's video footage of the commander of the entire army, not a division commander or a battalion commander, giving orders surrounded to a large groups of officers and drivers on how the armoured spearhead should advance. He is standing next to the row of tanks on the road side and hence creating an obvious target assuming there would have been good forward observers and drones for the Georgians artillery (which they didn't have). It's basically WW2 style command when radios or any other communication equipment was scarce. Then comes everything else in the Russian system from corruption.

I could go on, but I don't think anyone would read me as it's a very long story.

That you honestly believe ex-US officers, in this case not even a ex-general!, working for "think tanks" is for sure not feeding you bullshit and represent an agenda, is worrisome. — boethius

Ukraine is recovering it's territory, not losing more. It's fighting a conventional war against Russia and not fighting a hit-and-run insurgency. Oryx that counts the destroyed/damaged/captured tanks can come up to numbers of 1300 tanks lost simply tells a lot. It speaks of a military failure that you cannot just deny.

But you think it's all bullshit.

Well, even the Russians admit it and there's quite a lot of Russian observers noting how bad the war is going.

But somehow your counterargument is that it's just all propaganda.

Russia has gone so much backwards.

Arctic soldiers relocated to the Kherson farms:

Russia’s Reindeer Brigade Is Fighting For Its Survival In Southern Ukraine (Forbes; Oct 7, 2022)
(alternatively via msn) — jorndoe

Now there are fewer troops behind the Finnish border than anytime. The garrisons have only a skeleton crew and new conscripts in training.

The Scandinavian countries have been part of mutual defense agreements for over a decade, so what exactly do you believe has changed that would make this so significant? — Tzeentch

Do you refer to them being EU members or what?

Another smoking accident has happened, this time on the Kerch bridge. — Paine

The rail line is extremely important to Russian logistics. Russian supplies depend on rail. Seems that it is quite repairable.

The latter ruling was later controversially revised, but this was no common-law holiday camp. — Baden

Thanks for the correction, Baden.

The fact that you don't know this speak volumes about your biases. — Isaac

Learn what prior to means. And then correct your own biases.

The Russian collapse narrative and prediction as an imminent thing, was also already started as I think the citations I provide are sufficient to establish the fact. — boethius

I think there was far more belief in the strength of the sanctions. But I guess someone than predicted the dire situation that Russia would be now six months ago was then simply correct.

For Russia this war is going as well as the Russo-Japanese war. (Which btw went on for over 1 year and 6 months)

The situation in Crimea was broadly similar to the situation in Ukrainian controlled Donbas.

That was the conclusion of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The UNHCR, The OSCE... If you disagree, you can take it up with them. — Isaac

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You really think people were disappearing prior to the Russian invasion? Why don't just refer to that. What Amnesty International criticized Ukraine was about police using excessive force and how they handled the Euromaidan protestors, during the student protests. But I didn't know that dissenters were disappearing in Crimea / Donbas prior to the war.

Sweden and Finland joining NATO is, in my opinion, a rather hasty move. Why would they accept US vassalage when the Russians aren't interested in Finland or Sweden at all? — Tzeentch

But is interested in Finland and Sweden. You are just making things up. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

But when a person here genuinely thinks that it would have saved lives for UK to surrender to Nazi Germany, repeat SURRENDER, not just to try staying out of the conflict and have diplomatic relations Germany, than to fight the war until victory was obtained. I think I should stop responding to such nonsense.

The mechanism changes, but the prediction of "collapse" was literally on day two of the invasion. — boethius

Mainly on the hope of the sanctions than the Ukraine military defeating them in open battle. The thinking was that Ukrainian could only fight successfully with an insurgency. The idea of Russia's "New Afghanistan" makes this point.

Quote:

Even before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine earlier today, several commentators, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, argued convincingly that a Russian occupation of more of Ukraine, perhaps including Kyiv, would lead to an insurgency like that which the Soviet Union faced in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I believe the United States and NATO should help the Ukrainian resistance but we should understand the potential consequences, risks, and costs up front. Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine could well prove to be another geopolitical catastrophe for Russia but only if we help the Ukrainian resistance.

Notice the wording of "resistance". When you compare to what is happening now, it's not about an Afghan type resistance.

This is not an article that portrays the Ukrainian army to be a clear match on the battlefield for the Russian juggernaut.

Why not Crimea? Because it doesn't fit your narrative. — Isaac

The sad fact is that if Putin had ended with Crimea and not had started a war with Ukraine for Novorossiya, likely the World would have de facto moved on. But I guess the mass graves and torture chambers don't tell anything for you.

Yet there in Crimea too the totalitarian system of Putin's Russia is evident and the treatment of the Tatars is telling. The annexation has led to the detention and disappearance of dissenters, the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and the stifling of the media. The going on in Donetsk and Luhansk has been even worse.

That Putin's Russia has now more political prisoners than the Soviet Union had during later years is very telling, something you aren't picking up.

Vichy France officially surrendered to Nazi occupation and continued to fight a strong civilian resistance. — Isaac

AND THAT PROVES MY POINT. Thank you. :cheer:

The Vichy government a) sent Jews to extermination camps, b) fought against the resistance and the Free French, c) fought against that allies too in Northern Africa. Hence had there been a "Vichy Government" for the UK, similar things would have happened. Hence your idea of the UK surrendering to the Nazis may have saved lives is delirious.

but the claim that the holocaust was similar to the Russian invasion of Chechnya is not claim I'd want to risk making in, say, Germany or Poland. — Isaac

The claim I'm making is that from the treatment of the Chechens showcases the way that Putin would handle the territories that he has annexed from Ukraine. Similar treatment of "Russian citizens".

That might have been a solution, yes. It may well have saved thousands of lives on both sides. — Isaac

And how many of the British Jews that would have saved? At the start of WW2, there were about half a million jews living in the UK. Add the over 50 000 that escaped to the British Isles.

And how many you think would have been deemed as enemies of the state? In a country with strong liberal roots, guess how many Britons would have been a problem for the new regime?

You're idea that surrender may well have saved lives is simply false. The fact is that the Jewish community in the UK outnumbered the deaths that the United Kingdom actually suffered during the war tells this obvious fact. You simply are delusional if you think that Nazi machine would stopped at killing only the British jews.

If a man loves a woman but the woman only loves the man for the money thats not love. Although it could be in fair circumstances. — Deus

The major factor is of course the human relationship when to people are in love. Yet then comes then question when people look for a mate to start a family that our in our society money is important. It's not just the income, but in a meritocracy usually the more talented people end up in jobs paying more. We still have these old ideas that a man should take care of his family, even if it usually is now that the parents should be able to take care of their children.

Borders are nothing but convenient administrative units. We're all one people. There are no races, no nations. The notion that there are is what causes these wars in the first place. We've no business causing even so much as stubbed toe over the idea of 'national sovereignty' let alone war, as if there were some unit of people who all think alike and need to have their wishes separately heard.

Even if there were such a group in Eastern Ukraine. a group passionate about freedom (Western style), so passionate that they'd be willing to lay down their lives for it. Then by far the best outcome is that they join Russia. Swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Russia and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit the whole nation. Their voices are wasted in Ukraine, which already is heading that way, they'll objectively do more good as part of Russia. — Isaac

So why didn't your country surrender to Hitler and join the Third Reich and then "swell the ranks of the dissenting voices in Germany and increase the chances of a regime change there that would benefit thte whole nation".

No? :snicker:

Let me guess. That was different. To defend against the Nazi threat was justified, because of the wickedness of Nazi ideology. But Ukrainians should join Putin's Russia (which as I stated earlier, fought a genocidal war against the Chechens...which were/are citizens of Russia, actually). :smirk:

Sovereignty for some group over some territory is not a humanitarian goal. — Isaac

Oh now it's just humanitarian goals, and hell to Westphalian sovereignty?

So I guess you are against the UN charter then.

Yes, "collapse" has been predicted since literally day 2 of the invasion. — boethius

I'm not sure if literally on day 2 people were talking that. You have to give a reference to that.

It should also be noted that this is an immense strategic advantage for Russia, as although Ukraine is limited in this way, Russia is not. A Russian offensive can enter Ukraine at any point along the Russian-Ukraine border, and perhaps Belarus as well. — boethius

With what troops, that's the question. The newly mobilized troops can basically formed into battle capable formations likely for some spring offensive. Now the question is to avoid Russian forces to be pocketed in the Kherson region, so I guess the few troops they have should go to stop the Ukrainian advance.

The point, for anyone with a post-kindergarten level of interest in the subject, was that there's no good reason to believe that atrocities would continue at the same level in Russian controlled territories. — Isaac

And anyone with a post-kindergarten level of understanding Russian/Soviet actions understands that it will happen. Not perhaps with the ferocity as during the war, but still in a way that anyone clear headed would call it a war. The first the Russians will deny is the existence of a war or insurgency, if they can. I guess you have absolutely no idea how long the Lithuans fought against the Soviet invader after WW2, well into the 1950's. Or that the last "Forest Brother" were killed in 1970's in Estonia. Yet if there were a small number of insurgents, partisans, the Soviet response was quite chilling:

The repression of the population in Lithuania started on the first day of the Soviet occupation on 15th June 1940 and continued until the 31st of August 1993 when the Soviet-Russian Army finally returned home. The Soviet authorities carried out deportations, mass killings, imprisonment, and sovietification of the Lithuanian people and Soviet colonists were settled in Lithuania. Soviet-oriented historians have tried to justify the mass deportations by referring to Lithuanian partisan activity, but in fact the deportations were largely directed against the so-called enemies of the people of which a majority had never been partisans. The Soviets deported whole families; infants, children, women and elderly to Siberia. Altogether the Soviets deported 12 percent of the population. A rough estimate is that during the period 1940-1990 Lithuania lost one third of its population due to war, destruction and repression, as well as to emigration and deportations a total equal to about one million citizens.

Lithuanian Forest Brothers fighting Soviet troops in the 1950's:


And if well over 100 000 killed Chechens from a population less than two million doesn't make you see it, nothing will wake you up from your blissful ignorance. You won't be thrown out from here because you aren't an apologist to nazism, just making the points Putin does. And believing his stories of Nazis ruling Ukraine.

At least when it comes to your own country, the UK, they (the British Army) have had the decency to call afterwards the events in Northern Ireland an insurgency (if during the time it was referred to "The Troubles"). But the British at least upheld the common law and what the UK stands for, hence the IRA perpetrators of most deadly attack on the British armed forces were not charge because there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute them. The other one died later when compiling another bomb, yet the other one lived (or lives) as a free man. That is how a democracy fights an insurgency. Russia doesn't fight it that way. As @SophistiCat pointed, in Russia the war stops when the leader tells it stops, not when the fighting stops.

We cannot take our millions nor our mansions nor our fancy cars to the grave with us.

Wealth and wealth management then is an excercise of power and influence to those who have that kind of capital but even that is short sighted in the face of the reality that we are mortal.

So for a human beings brief and short existence on this planet the accumulation of such wealth can become an unhealthy obsession.

To what end ? — Deus

Have you inherited anything?

Inheritance, a family farm or a beautiful rare painting is something you pass on to the next generation. Or then you are that selfish asshole who sells it and spends the money on alcohol, drugs, sex and driving in a taxi. Because you don't care the fuck about anything or anybody else but pleasuring yourself. You aren't taking anything with you when you die!

And then your children remember this wonderful summer place or this rare painting that the family had which awed everybody, but then you came and now it's just a distant memory.

Would the West still be supporting the war in Ukraine under say, a Republican US president and a right-leaning (read, anti-EU) Europe? — Tzeentch

Yes.

Wasn't (or isn't) the current UK administration right-leaning (read, anti-EU)?

Who are against the support of Ukraine are usually the right-wing populists who have gotten money from the Kremlin. And those that have issues with the US (Turkey) or the EU (Hungary), for example.

REDUCE. Reduce. Reduce. — Isaac

Pointing out that there is still some war crime activity in occupied territories is not an argument that there is more war crime activity in occupied territories than there is in the actual war. — Isaac

Isaac the apologist seems to be on the roll, again.

When a war is over, there should be NO killings, no war crimes or human violations. But somehow when Putin is fighting the war, the killing doesn't end with the proclaimed victory.

In my view the two Chechen wars resulted in what can be described as a genocide or genocidal warfare. Remembering that Chechnya has a population of 1,4 million, the death toll is staggering.

According to the pro-Moscow Chechnya government, 160,000 combatants and non-combatants died or have gone missing in the two wars, including 30,000–40,000 Chechens and about 100,000 Russians; while separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov (deceased) repeatedly claimed about 200,000 ethnic Chechens died as a consequence of the two conflicts.According to a count by the Russian human rights group Memorial in 2007, up to 25,000 civilians have died or disappeared since 1999. According to Amnesty International in 2007, the second war killed up to 25,000 civilians since 1999, with up to another 5,000 people missing.

Somebody with that kind of track record might usually apply same methods that previously have been so successful.

I can't think of a single precedent. In no circumstances at all, that I'm aware of, throughout history, have war crimes continued on the same scale after peace negotiations as they were at before them. I would think the complete absence of such a situation from the annals of human history would count as fairly substantial evidence.

There are no such war crimes in Russia nowadays. — Isaac

Except where Putin has succeeded in gaining a military victory: In Chechnya, the Chechen Republic. Of course, Russian officials and Putin and Kadyrov have declared the war to be over. However:

The separatists denied that the war was over, and guerrilla warfare continued throughout the North Caucasus. Colonel Sulim Yamadayev, Chechnya's second most powerful loyalist warlord after Kadyrov, also denied that the war is over. In March 2007, Yamadayev claimed there were well over 1,000 separatists and foreign Islamic militants entrenched in the mountains of Chechnya alone: "The war is not over, the war is far from being over. What we are facing now is basically a classic partisan war and my prognosis is that it will last two, three, maybe even five more years." According to the CIA factbook (2015), Russia has severely disabled the Chechen separatist movement, although sporadic violence still occurs throughout the North Caucasus

And that there are Chechen fighting on both sides in Ukraine tells something about this conflict, even if it can be declared to be a victory for Putin.

But the war crimes? They are simply called human-rights violations nowdays:

Over the past decade, the world has been shaken by stories about human rights abuses in Chechnya. State-run executions of gay people were the the most notorious, but the reach of Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic, exceeds the borders of the republic. His disregard for human rights, and his deal with Vladimir Putin, is increasingly becoming a greater threat - even for his fellow human rights abusers in Moscow.

(See here)