The fact is that Russia was attacked, invaded, and occupied by the Mongols. It fought back, it defeated the Mongols, and took their territory. Very simple and easy to understand, even for uneducated NATO activists.

As for Siberia, most of it was uninhabited land that the Russians gradually colonized and took over, no big deal. — Apollodorus

Delirious ramblings from the sites Putin troll.

Russians lived in only a small part that would be then the Russian Empire even before the Mongol invasion. Khazars, Pechenegs, Mordvins, Volga Bulgars or Finnic people were not Russians. Samarkand or Dusanbe aren't 'uninhabited' lands in Siberia. Crimea or the area of 'Novorossiya' weren't part of Russian lands either.

And Siberia being uninhabited and it's colonization was no big deal? Similar rhetoric could be heard from Americans in the early 20th Century of "The West" being this largely uninhabited land, which was destined to the young nation and all for their picking and their Manifest Destiny. Or as you put it, No big deal.

Of course Moscovy was a vassal of the Mongols as it had no other choice. — Apollodorus

Hence it's rather wrong to portray as you wrote "became an empire because it was forced to defend itself against attacks by the Mongols and other Central Asian invaders". Vassal's have chosen surrender.

Parts of Russia remained under Mongol rule but the Mongols got finally defeated in 1480. — Apollodorus

Something like that. Because afterwards 1480 the expansion of Muscovy was totally classical imperial expansion of subjugating others that don't have much if anything to do with Russians. The last remnant of the Golden Horde could be said to be the Crimean Khanate (then an Ottoman Protectorate) and it was annexed by Catherine the Great in 1783. Quite important to the present as during that time starts the idea of Novorossiya.

In any case, I don't think you can seriously compare Russia’s liberation from Mongol occupation with England’s invading and occupying India, Africa, and other places .... :grin: — Apollodorus

Actually, there's your obvious and blatant apologism for Russian imperialism. You're simply delusional if you don't see it because Russian expansion didn't end in 1480. Basically it only started then, and thus Russia's action are totally comparable to the imperial aspirations of Great Britain.

Because what else can you call the invasion of Central Asia by Russia anything than Imperialism? Are Samarkand or Dushanbe somehow a "Russian Cities"? The Kazakh Khanate or the Emirate of Bukhara weren't any kind of threat to Russia in the 19th Century, but an imperialist prize to be taken.

That there's no fucking sea between Central Asia and Russia doesn't make a difference here with imperialism. And if there would have been no mountains and Afghanistan with their annoying inhabitants between Russia and India but only that steppe, Russia would surely have wanted to have Russian soldiers dipping their feet into the Indian Ocean (as one modern day Russian imperialist put it). And idiotic apologists like you would be talking about it as a "defensive measure" and how Russia can feel safe only if it has on the coast of the Indian Ocean. In the minds of Russian imperialists, "fortress Russia" naturally would have it's borders on any ocean.

Soviet Union was a relic of an colonial empire where the colonies simply weren't detached by sea, but were connected by land. It should be understood that it was a colonial empire and that Russia hasn't gotten over this, but think it has the right for that empire. Putin's words and actions clearly show this.

Yes. I think the Security Council ought to be dismantled, it's essentially a way for powerful nations to ignore whatever international laws they do not like, especially during war time.

There's no need to pretend this council does good at all.

The General Assembly should be given more legal authority, as it is more democratic and hence more representative of world opinion. — Manuel

Then there's the pitfall where the League of Nations fell into. Or in what the ICC has fallen into. Meaning that the Great Powers can be happy to use these organizations to their favour, but won't tolerate them to be judged by them. The US is and it's relationship with the ICC is a great example.

If (or when) Great Powers like the US, China or Russia simply boycott the organization then, there organization falls into even worse situation. It should be noted that just to keep countries like Russia, China or the US in the UN is very important.



And then there's the question of who pays for the organizations expenses:

Good description of the left, Bitter Crank.

One has to have little historical understanding to put things into context, as you have.

It is precisely because Putin sees the US withdrawing from interventions and the failures where they have. That Putin has been emboldened to carry out a full scale invasion of a neighbouring state. — Punshhh

For the authoritarian like Putin, democracies look inherently weak and incapable of decisive action. Biden's US looked especially like that not only after the humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan, but with the Capital riots and with the dumpster fire that US domestic politics is today. Then add the Europeans to this picture with Brexit, with squabbles over Polish and the Law and Justice Party or the Hungarian Orban. Not a group that you would anticipate to respond firmly with large coordination and being capable of dramatic turn arounds in policies.

Add to this picture an Ukrainian government, which was denying that Russia was going to attack. Lead by an actor who had played a President having been elected as the President. One might fall for the arguments that it's going to be a piece of cake when your intelligence guys insist they have bribed enough people in the Ukrainian government to make this a rerun of 2014. (Back then some Ukrainian commanders jumped to the Russian side, which was quite telling).

Shouldn't permanent membership and those members' vetos be abolished? — Tim3003

First answer this: which organization has been more effective: the UN or the League of Nations before it?



The veto power of the major countries in the UN was directly made because of what had been learnt from the league of nations. I think there was a reason why they did that: in order for powerful countries to play ball, for starters.

Here is an updated version at a government-sponsored demonstration today, featuring the omnipresent "Z"wastica — SophistiCat

Do note the ribbon pattern of Saint George in the "Z". It's now commonly used to commerate WW2 and the Victory Day, even if the historical order of Saint George is from the 18th Century.

Similarly, Russia became an empire because it was forced to defend itself against attacks by the Mongols and other Central Asian invaders. — Apollodorus

Moscow and other Russian Duchies fell under Mongol control. And Muscovy worked for the Mongols to reinforce it's position:

The major turning point surfaced in 1327 when the populace of Tver started to rise in rebellion. Seeing this as an opportunity to please the khan of his Mongol overlords, Prince Ivan I of Moscow took a huge Tatar contingent and quashed the rebellion in Tver, thereby restoring order in that city and winning the favor of the khan. For his show of loyalty, Ivan I was also granted the iarlyk and with this Moscow took yet another step towards prominence and power. Soon the princes of Moscow took over the responsibilities of collecting taxes throughout the land (and in doing so, taking part of these taxes for themselves) and eventually the Mongols gave this responsibility solely to Moscow and ended the practice of sending their own tax collectors.

Hence Moscovy was a vassal of the Mongol Horde. Only after 1380 the battle of Kulikovo Moscow began to rise as the Golden Horde was decaying. So this idea of Russia being the defender against the attacks of the Mongols is typical dubious history from you.

And the obvious apologist attitude towards Russia that you have should be obvious to everyone, as no empire becomes an empire because just by "defending" itself.

As someone capable of empathy and who is not a sociopath who enjoys dead Ukrainians, this is irrelevant. — StreetlightX

Well, you surely haven't shown that empathy.

Simply just you repeat and repeat typical ragging and potshots at the US. Your first comment on this thread sums up your view in everything perfectly:

Remember, the US are warmongering murderers and nothing they say ought to be taken seriously.

With the black hole of Afghanistan no longer supplying the American arms industry, what better opportunity to make up for lost profits? — StreetlightX

(I should remind people that here with saying "nothing they say ought to be taken seriously" StereotypeX meant the US warnings about an imminent attack by Russia on Ukraine.)

As if genuinely, you would be interested in Ukrainians. Or in anything else than just hating the US.

Why would it be a good idea to further increase EU membership? — Benkei

It worked for the Czechs, the Latvians, the Estonians, the Polish.

Why would it for some reason not work for Ukrainians, if they are willing to make those reforms others have done? They want to be part of Europe, so I guess are then open to change things. And I don't think they like the rule of oligarchs.

It simply takes the EU to be firm in it's requirements and Ukraine willing to make a new start. They aspire to be taken as Europeans. I think we should slam the door in front of them.

Also imagine how people who like seeing dead Ukrainians to think: well, Russia just murdered a whole bunch of people thanks to European expansion. In response, let's do more European expansion. This is a good idea and not something only a fucking psychopath would think of. — StreetlightX

This is simply delirious rambling.

Anyway, as an Australian this doesn't concern you. Yet it's something that does affect my life, it's something that concerns those Ukrainians who I know. And I can see how stunned Russians living here have been from what their country has become. You just keep up with the stereotypical anti-Americanism.

It happens to be the case that this was in fact Ukranian policy toward their own seperatist regions before the war, but this is very inconvenient to mention. — StreetlightX

The separatism that Russia actually failed to instill other places in Ukraine (they tried, but failed) as they had done in other former Soviet states. Something inconvenient to mention for the anti-West people... like what Russia did in Moldova (or Abkhazia or South Ossetia).

Yet Russia covert actions aside, I think it would be good to Ukraine later to become part of the EU as the union is for example minority rights and these should be observed when talks about Ukrainian membership are held:

The Council of Europe’s constitutional experts have criticized controversial language legislation adopted in Ukraine earlier this year and previous regulations regarding educational institutions signed into law by the country's previous president, Petro Poroshenko.

The so-called Venice Commission on December 6 said it specifically took issue with what it sees as an extremely short transition period for the converting of Russian-language schools into Ukrainian-language institutions.

The commission also said it considers quotas for minority languages in radio and TV programs to be unbalanced. "To avoid the language issue becoming a source of inter-ethnic tensions within Ukraine, it is of crucial importance to achieve an appropriate balance in its language policy," the commission said. "The authorities have so far failed to do so."

The State Language Law, which went into effect on July 16, declares that Ukrainian is "the only official state language" in the country. It adds that "attempts" to introduce other languages as the state language would be considered an effort to "forcibly change the constitutional order."

Poroshenko signed the bill into law days before he left office following his electoral defeat to rival Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

I hope it doesn't go that way, but it could. — frank

Especially if nothing happens in Moldova, it's again a positive sign. The first positive development is that Belarus has been able to keep out of Putin's disastrous attack.

The problem is that this was always going to come to a head. If Putin had successfully assimilated Ukraine without military involvement. He would feel empowered and immediately look to the assimilation of a number of other previous USSR states. Growing in confidence at each turn. — Punshhh

That growing confidence made him to decide that an all out invasion would be a great idea in the first place. What else was the annexation of Crimea than a huge success?

?

Simply put it: where did you get the idea that with 20 billion will end homelessness in the US?

As I've shown, just California puts half of that into fighting homelessness, and the number of homeless people in the state has only risen. For the US, it will take a lot more than just throwing money at the problem. It starts from things like attitudes and more generally, having affordable housing.

Yeah. Obviously you don't even read what others write. So why point out for example to policies that have been successful here, and how problematic is for the US to implement similar policies, because your not ready to have an actual discussion about them.

Live in your dreams of stereotypes and in your own prejudices.

Better that this gets deescalated. My expectation is the more you escalate it, the more Putin will demand as a penalty for the extra dead Russians you create. That penalty being more dead Ukrainians and harsher terms for ending the conflict. — Baden

It was already shown in Kyiv how you get Putin to de-escalate: inflict serious losses and show he cannot achieve his objectives. Putin's blitz campaign utterly and decisively failed. The VDV failed in it's air assault on Antonov Airport and the attempt to either take or surround Kyiv failed. Putin did acknowledge his defeat with the total withdrawal from the Kyiv front. He understood that the Ukrainians would fight and that he would have to limit his objectives.

The West is giving Ukrainians the possibility to end this war as simply Russia won't have the ability to sustain such losses for months onward. That's the only way to make Putin to look at other options than continuing the war.

. Probably the only route to this 'People's Republic' you refer to is, ironically, the complete decimation of Ukraine caused by an indefinite extension of the war fuelled by an indefinite influx of foreign weapons: A neat way to give cover to Putin to completely destroy and subjugate the country. — Baden

Western aid isn't killing Ukrainians, it's the Russians arms and their basic doctrine of fighting wars with maximum firepower and total disregard of civilian casualties. It's up to the Ukrainians themselves how much they are going to sacrifice in this war. If they choose to throw in the towel, nobody will or can stop them from doing that. Likely they won't do that. They see the route to peace in destroying the Russian war machine, which they have been partly successful in. That's the correct way to handle Russia. You simply have to stop the Russian advances, have the ability then to go on the counteroffensive and then they will come to negotiate about an armstice. That's the only way.

The First Chechen war is one example of how you get Russians to negotiate a peace deal:

Despite Russian troops in and around Grozny numbering approximately 12,000, more than 1,500 Chechen guerrillas (whose numbers soon swelled) overran the key districts within hours in an operation prepared and led by Aslan Maskhadov (who named it Operation Zero) and Shamil Basayev (who called it Operation Jihad). The separatists then laid siege to the Russian posts and bases and the government compound in the city centre, while a number of Chechens deemed to be Russian collaborators were rounded up, detained and, in some cases, executed. At the same time, Russian troops in the cities of Argun and Gudermes were also surrounded in their garrisons. Several attempts by the armored columns to rescue the units trapped in Grozny were repelled with heavy Russian casualties (the 276th Motorized Regiment of 900 men suffered 50% casualties in a two-day attempt to reach the city centre). Russian military officials said that more than 200 soldiers had been killed and nearly 800 wounded in five days of fighting, and that an unknown number were missing; Chechens put the number of Russian dead at close to 1,000. Thousands of troops were either taken prisoner or surrounded and largely disarmed, their heavy weapons and ammunition commandeered by the separatists.

This kind of situation lead to the Khasavyurt Accords and finally a peace in Moscow... and later Putin's revenge attack on Chechnya that was basically his "Presidential Campaign".

It is a similar account for my country in getting to have the ability to negotiate a separate armstice with Russia in 1944, as then all attacks towards Finland had been repulsed, the Finns still had behind them a formidable Salpa-defensive fortification line and Finns had even made a counterattack in Ilomantsi. As there was the competition on who will get to Berlin first, Stalin made the decision to halt the fighting with Finland.

Faith gives you clarity.

And of course the Bible is pretty clear that the issue is of faith, not of reason. That couldn't be said more clearly.

I think it is the same. — Jackson

I don't think so. But it's a great metaphysical question, to say at least.

Of course it's interesting just what "existing" means as there are the intangible, the immaterial things that we do take to "exist". At least for their usefulness.

Every definition of agnosticism I have seen is based on the idea that there can be no knowledge of God to prove existence or nonexistence. But God is a function of belief, so I think the agnostic is wrong. — Jackson

Believing in God or not is one thing. God's existence or non-existence is another.

Regardless of everything else, you've got to question the sanity of throwing 20 billion more in weapons into this tinderbox. — Baden

So better that Putin would win and create new "People's Republics" that could join later Mother Russia?

It's up to the Ukrainian to fight or not.

Afghanistan is the perfect example how important that will to fight is. Taliban's budget wasn't much compared to the billions the US poured into the country.

It would cost about US$20b to end homelessness in the US. — StreetlightX

Uh, how???

Basically this isn't just a thing that will go away with throwing money at it: you do have to have truly effective programs and a lot of prejudices have to be gotten over with to really minimize the problem. The US has really a lot of problems in creating effective welfare programs. Just look at how costly health care system is and how weak it is compared to other countries.

Do you know how much just California puts into fighting homelessness? If there's one thing American cannot do and what will end up in a racket, it's welfare programs:

The state budget provided a total of $7.2 billion ($3.3 billion General Fund) in 2021‑22 to about 30 homelessness‑related programs across various state departments. - The Governor’s 2022‑23 budget proposes $2 billion one‑time General Fund over two years that is intended to address near‑term homelessness needs while previously authorized funds for long‑term housing solutions are implemented: $1.5 billion for behavioral health “bridge” housing and $500 million for the Encampment Resolution Grants Program.

So that's nearly 10 billion in just one year in just California. Someone surely is profiting from those programs.

@Cuthbert's remark on the "misere"-game is enlightening here.

Of course, if you have a game that is quite "mathematical", having those inverse rules won't actually make it much different.

Let's take the example of Poker where the weakest hand wins. Hence people will try to shed anything that looks like a hand in normal Poker. Yet while the cards themselves have a ranking (4 is above 3) and the colors have a ranking also, in any play there would be weakest hand. The game is about probabilities in this version too.

And if you have a game where you can opt not to do anything, just pass your turn, then I guess the slowest game is where nobody does make a move. I can play it with you, let's start now ...and finish when either of us dies. (As not playing a game is quite easy)

War of attrition means running out of resources required to continue war.
I don't believe EU and US will supply Ukraine for ever, Ukrainians are constantly barking how they need more weapons and more financial aid, while they do so Russia is advancing little by little. — SpaceDweller

On the other hand, Russia simply cannot sustain similar losses it has experienced in this short time. The army is basically being ruined and they likely after one month, they simply have to take a breather and go to the defensive.

It's not the Soviet Army anymore. Furthermore, Putin has in the classic dictator style divided the armed forces into the Army and the National Guard, which the latter is commanded by Putin's friend and Yeltsin's former bodyguard Viktor Zolotov, a welder, who hasn't officer training. (Just shows that personal ties are far more important than ability.)

It's telling that the National Guard, which is tasked to quell demonstrators etc. is equal if not bigger in size of the Russian Ground Forces. Then the FSB has it's own troops. And then you have all kinds of power centers with various armed forces, even the railway troops (crucial for Russian logistics).

Then there's naturally the Navy (which has experienced it's flagship of the Black Sea fleet being sunk) and the Air Force (which hasn't shown a spectacular effort) and the Strategic Rocket Forces (which by their existence have made that Biden or NATO won't send troops to Ukraine or deploy no-fly zones).

The combined effort and resources of NATO outmatch the resources of Russia, so if the Ukrainians keep on fighting, things look good to them.

Just like in the interview @RogueAI gave above, Russian Ground Forces will be spent after this offensive and they simply have to build their forces up, which will take far more than just weeks to do.

Basically any game that has, as you said, the winner being the last man standing. It might be that the most active and most capable players are the ones who lose out earlier and who is left are the more passive and elusive players that don't take center stage earlier and every other player thinks they can easily win them, hence they aren't taken out and in the end they prevail. So basically games were the competitors can vote out players who they can see as being better as them (the Survivor stuff?).

Not a game, but perhaps a good example is the follower of a ruthless dictator. Usually these people are ordinary bland yes-men who nobody thought would be the follower as those who were the capable, popular and ambitious usually get killed as the dictator sees them as potential threats to their absolute power and take them out.

(Those who survived the purges in the back)

Tsk tsk, look at you taking away the agency of the poor poor Germans, who clearly had no choice but to send machines of death to Ukraine to mete out additional blood. — StreetlightX

Well, at first they did try to refer to their policy of not assisting countries at war (and their hypocrisy was immediately shot down by referring to the arms deals to the Gulf States, which fight the war in Yemen). Perhaps when they were sending helmets ot Ukraine, some smart ass Ukrainian proposed that they could also send coffins too. Were Merkel could have moved slower, the new Chancellor had to make a dramatic change and so did Scholz do: rarely has Germany or any country made such a dramatic 180 degree turn as this administration.

I think it has itself been startled how much it changed course.

Yet if Putin wouldn't have enlarged this war (that started eight years ago), this change wouldn't have happened. And my country wouldn't be applying to NATO.

As I was saying the biggest story emerging out of this crisis is Germany and therefore the EU waking up to the necessity to provide their own security.

Thanks to Putin, Trump and Johnson. — Punshhh

It's good that you mention Trump, because that hasn't gone unnoticed. And even if Johnson's UK wants to be part of the defense of Europe (through NATO), being out of the EU does mean a lot. (Just like, well, Canada)

Comes to mind that Germany is now sending 50 Gepard Self propelled anti-aircraft guns to Ukraine. Now that is a big number and so in all is the amount of weapons going into Ukraine. The vast amount of these are "legacy" weapon systems, meaning old Cold War era weapons that Ukraine can easily use as they already have them and they can be fielded immediately. The real issue is the rearmament that Germany itself will do after promising to raise defense expenditure from 1,4% last year (and 1,1% in 2018) to 2%. That basically means DOUBLING the defense budget of a very large country. That's where the defense contractors will make their money.



All thanks to the genius of Vladimir Putin.

So when do we think Biden will award Putin the presidential medal of freedom for allowing the US empire to keep its head above water for a few more years? Two months? Three? — StreetlightX

NATO awarded him already.

The combination of debt and corruption is one that will leave a country floundering in debt for decades. Which is my prediction for Ukraine irrespective of the outcome of this war. — Benkei

It's a possibility. Of course the whole argument for Zelensky's victory was to oppose that. At least it was a better option than Americans voting for... Trump. And if Ukraine wants to join the EU, it has to change.

Yet we don't know how long this war will last and what the outcome of it will be. Wars can have unexpected turns. I remember few years ago many were writing of the Assad regime. Didn't go that way. In fact, this war can be far longer and far bloodier than anybody estimated. We can soon be in similar death toll as we saw in Yugoslavia.

It's gonna be interesting to see what the post-war status of Russia would be. Let's say they make some bullshit up, withdraw their troops and present a "victory" on May 9th. — Christoffer

I'm not so sure this conflict will end in a few days. Too much is put on some date.

I think this will be something like the Russo-Japanese war for Russia. A fiasco that will result in political turmoil in Russia.

It's going to be interesting to see if Putin actually visits his troops. Yeltsin visited Russian troops during the Chechen War ...once, very briefly and looked extremely uncomfortable doing it. If he is fit enough to do it.

Exactly, in terms of military logic, it makes enormous amounts of sense, not only vis-a-vis Ukraine if they ever did successfully counter attack, but of any other bordering country to Russia ... would obviously think twice. — boethius

Which just tells the obvious to any sane person: nobody will attack Russia. NATO won't attack Russia, the US won't attack Russia. It's just all a lie Putin has invented to give a reason for his totalitarian dictatorship and why any political opposition is violently opposed.

You could argue that Western Russophobes and anti-Russian hawks have Russia just where they want it to be bleeding off it's military capabilities. In fact, even John Mersheimer has said this. But this didn't happen because of some hawks (which at least you don't find many in the Republican party anymore). Putin chose to escalate a war, make the full invasion of Ukraine.

If Russia is "being the bully" and has no legitimate grievances in Ukraine that justify, at least from some arguably Western (aka. the truth) normative perspective, then the reason for using nuclear weapons to intimidate other neighbour's to maintain bully credibility is so high that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is essentially inevitable at this point if the premises of the rhetoric are true. — boethius

Russian nuclear weapons will basically halt any incursions into Russia proper by Ukraine. Putin doesn't have to keep large formations on his side of the border. What he does have to do is to keep his Air Defence on alert and security at a heightened level to prevent sabotage. Ukraine can and has used already tactical artillery missiles to attack targets inside Russia.

And Russian nuclear weapons have already done what they were supposed to do: have Joe Biden declare that under no circumstances US troops won't be deployed to Ukraine and NATO aircraft won't create a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

That's the power of nuclear weapons.

With what resources? — Wayfarer

War can continue just like WW1 continued: by stalemate and falling back to defensive positions. Russia can always choose to cease the attacks and go on the defensive. Then look at the next go let's say in the summer or in the fall. That might not what Putin wants, but wars have their own way of going.

"Luckily" it seems that Putin has made the mistake of simply throwing the forces from the Kyiv front directly into battle in the Donbas. Likely better would have to be two reorganize them, resupply them which would have meant that it would have taken at least a month.

If the Russian nuke Kyiv, you can bet the Ukrainians are going to nuke Moscow. — Olivier5

I'm not so sure about that. There are limits on just what weapons the US will give to Ukraine.

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange. — boethius

Russia has a lot to lose if it uses nukes against Ukraine. First, what would actually Russia achieve with using tactical nukes?

Assuming if there would be a large Ukrainian formation nicely packed up, then tactical nuclear weapon could take out of action one Ukrainian formation. A concentrated use of let's say strategic bombers with conventional weapons would come close to a similar strike, but wouldn't actually create any outcry. The simple way to counter the use of nukes is to spread your forces and not have large formations, large airfields or concentrations that would be optimal for nuclear weapons. Or then Putin could attack civilian targets and get some Ukrainian city to be remembered similarly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would be the price of using nukes?

For starters, if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, I doubt that China, India or South Africa among others will be as if nothing has happened and openly do business with Russia. Let's just remember that there are countries that are willing to buy that Russian gas and oil. Especially for China to back the use of nukes against a non-nuclear state would be a tough spot.

And Ok, if you do use one or two tactical nukes, what if Ukraine doesn't budge? What if Zelensky is the real McCoy continues fighting and doesn't throw in the towel? Iranians didn't throw in the towel when Iraq used chemical weapons against them.

After the war, Iraq—pressured to own up to the attacks—acknowledged that it had "consumed" 1800 tons of mustard, 600 tons of sarin, and 140 tons of tabun. All told, according to Iran's Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs (FMVA), the chemical onslaught killed nearly 5000 Iranians and sickened more than 100,000. That doesn't include Iraqi victims: In March 1988, Iraq's forces attacked its own citizens with mustard and nerve agents in Halabja, killing as many as 5000 and wounding 7000.

Sulfur mustard, a family of compounds first used in World War I, left the deepest and most visible scars on survivors of the war. Three decades later, about 56,000 Iranians are coping with lingering health effects from the blistering agent, ranging from skin lesions and failing corneas to chronic obstructive lung disease and possibly cancer, says Tooba Ghazanfari, an immunologist at Shahed University here.

In any case, the Americans seem to have realised that Putin might be utterly beaten in Ukraine. Early May was Putin’s deadline, in time for V day, or whatever it is called there. Instead that will be about the time that the Western banks declare they won’t accept repayments in rubles, and the four-hour queues for sausage will once again become reality for the vast reality of Russians. — Wayfarer

Or then the war can continue. Putin might simply admit that it's a war. Of course he will portray it in a way that Russia is fighting a war with NATO, but anyway. The weapons assistance to Ukraine is large at least.

It may all fall to the trap of WW1 where making peace in 1915, 1916 or 1917 was off the table as so many lives had been lost actually in the first months. After hundreds of thousands had already perished, it's not easy just to call the thing off without any gains. For Putin it seemed one missile cruiser was humiliating enough for him to not to go further with peace talks.

There's something rotten in the Putinistan kingdom... — Olivier5

Yes. One or even two of these kind of events could totally happen at these stressing times. But this many seems like a return to the Stalinist times. Also Putin's personal intelligence service raiding the FSB headquarters tells that all really isn't well in Putinistan. One should simply dismiss people, not have your own guys raiding a HQ of your intel service.

What were the debt-to-GDP ratios for eastern european countries when they joined? — Benkei

Actually, many had the same levels as now. Do notice that for example the Baltic States have had quite different economic policies than the older EU members, for example when it came to the financial crisis. Estonia opted for the most harshest austerity measures during the financial crisis, had a deep but quick economic recession and saw a very rapid recovery and now still has very low debt-to-GDP ratios (public or all together).

Estonia joined the EU in 2003. Now it's Government Debt to GDP is 18%. In Lithuania it's 47% and Latvia 44%. Far lower than Finland 69% or Netherlands 54,5%, which aren't yet countries with a severe debt problem. With Greece it's government debt to GDP is 205,6% for comparison.

(the dip of the financial crisis in can be seen with the Baltic States here with the Per Capita:)


This just undelines the agency of the state itself, be it in the EU or not. Yet being part of the EU has had obvious advantages for the former Soviet states.

Also, how's Greece doing? How many public goods have they sold since the last crisis? — Benkei

Greece is different. But one should note that it was the Greek leaders that opted eagerly to follow the advice of Wall Street bankers to create the problems at the first place. And this just underlines that every country actually has it's set of problems and possibilities. There's of course similarities, but you cannot bunch the states together.

Some countries are careful in avoiding a debt trap, which is naturally marketed for them.

Like all those other countries existing under crushing debt and corrupt governments. I hope you're right but this is very unlikely in my view. — Benkei

East European countries have improved their situation after joining the EU. And after a war you literally have rebuild nearly everything in the society. The Baltic States are a prime example of what ex-Soviet countries can do.

Of course there are many obstacles before we even get there. Starting from the possibility that one will have a long exhausting war that will take down more than Ukraine. The help that Ukraine is getting now won't go on perpetually.

Indeed.

I think after this war is over (and hope we will see it in months, not years), Ukraine has a perfect opportunity for a national rebirth. It has now achieved unity against a common enemy and if it then joins the EU, I truly wish Ukraine will change it's old ways of corrupt oligarchs. The war party leading the country has been a centrist party. Ukrainian patriotism really is not some "right-wing" cause now, it's obvious to everyone and Ukrainians can make this their finest hour.

Of course everything can be fucked up, as people can mess things up. The huge influx of money to rebuild Ukraine can create even more corruption and if then the EU and the West just closes it's eyes from this fact as in Afghanistan, the outcome can be bad. The EU has to stick to it's bureaucratic details and it insistence on things like minority rights and so on when it comes to Ukraine. In fact Ukrainians actually want that. What better thing than to join exclusive club of EU members that all the time bitch about Brussels when the alternative is to be under the rule of Putin either directly or indirectly.

I could be wrong but if Putin plans to attack any country that helps Ukraine, then it is a given that we have to help Ukraine any way we can. — dclements

Which luckily both NATO and the EU have understood to do.

IMHO it is all just naked aggression and Russian (Putin and those that support him) merely want to turn modern Russia back into the old USSR again however they can. — dclements

Indeed. Except without the marxist-leninist ideology. That they don't have.

One failure that Ukraine did do was no to do general mobilization prior to the Russian attack. It was meaningless and simply an error to abstain from doing this as to "not to provoke" Russia. Putin will provoke himself to do what he wants with or without provocations from the other side. Yet still some seem to think that Putin is somehow reasonable. Attacking a large country as Ukraine isn't reasonable.

Point being, Russia might soon be at a significant firepower disadvantage, so it's unclear why they are continuing with the ineffective attacks and sending conscripts to their deaths. They seem to be making it more likely they lose land they've held since 2014. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just to emphasize how much aid Ukraine is actually getting is the example that the US has sent about 1/3 of it's Javelin ATGMs to Ukraine. Usually countries have like under 50 launchers in their inventory or at most a hundred launchers. Ukraine has now over 2000 launchers. For the US to replace this expenditure of ATGMs, which won't cost actually so much for the US, it still will take a year to produce replacement equipment for US Army. There simply aren't any additional factories to make them.

With the Russians the issue can be that they finally are going to follow their own doctrine and manuals and concentrate their forces, but the fact is they cannot suddenly replace the used and lost material. And they don't have the reserves. And the fact is that they don't have reserves. To form up new ones or rearm reinforce older ones with reservists would take actually months.

Yet defense is easier than attack. And do notice the ease that Russian forces could withdrew from the Kyiv front. No large Russian formations were pocketed and destroyed altogether, hence the Ukrainian counterattacks were mainly local. What we haven't seen is Ukraine making a counterattack with several brigade size units. Something that isn't easy when you don't enjoy air superiority. Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now.

I think the days of the armored division are done though. After this, many nations are probably going to switch to something like the Armored Brigade Combat Team, realizing that tanks need to move with interceptor assets, recon assets, and indirect fire assistance. — Count Timothy von Icarus

With great fanfare Russia few years ago re-created the formation of the 1st Tank Army, which now has seen actually operation with other Combined Arms Armies of the Russia Army. The idea was that the brigade hasn't gotten enough of firepower. Hence larger formations. It's interesting to see just what lessons Russia does learn from this. Especially now when it is focusing on the Donbas and understands that Ukrainians will fight, because the earlier multi-pronged attack and the attempt to seize Kyiv was clearly made thinking that the Ukrainians wouldn't defend and fight.

I thinking in area defense will be proved right again. The assumption that you can have a quick capture of the enemy country and hence have a splendid short war has now been shown just how perilous it can be.

But it's hurting his economy. That can't be right. — frank

Economy isn't as important as it is in American or Western politics.